Lords Sitting of 2 February 1966

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester

THE LORD BISHOP OF DERBY
Geoffrey Francis, Lord Bishop of Derby—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD KING-HALL
Sir William Stephen Richard King-Hall, having been created Baron King-Hall, of Headley in the County of Southampton, for life—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

CONTROL AND LICENSING OF DOGS
2.20 p.m.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I beg leave 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 any action has been taken in regard to certain proposals relating to the welfare, control and licensing of dogs—which formed the subject of a Motion in this House on November 25, 1959, which was accepted by Her Majesty's Government of that day; and in particular what action has been taken, or is contemplated, to deal with the very considerable incidence of evasion of tax and with the penalties accruing from such evasion.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the Abandonment of Animals Act 1960 increased the protection given to dogs under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 by making it an offence to abandon an animal in circumstances likely to cause it unnecessary suffering. Section 37 of the Road Traffic Act 1962 made easier the procedure under which local authorities can designate roads on which dogs are not allowed, except on leads, by making
358
it unnecessary for orders to be confirmed by the Minister of Transport. To change the level of the licence fee, or the penalty for its evasion, requires legislation for which there has been no suitable opportunity; but the Government's current review of local authority finance includes examination of all licences and registrations for which local authorities are responsible and from which they retain the revenue, including the dog licence.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his reply and for his courtesy generally in this matter. I am bound to say that it does not seem to get us very much further. It is six years ago since a Question was asked in this House about the increase of penalties for evasion of the tax, and we were assured by the then Minister that this matter was being examined closely by the Criminal Department of the Home Office. Nothing appears to have been done in that period.
Is the noble Lord aware that it is estimated to-day that there are between 4 million and 5 million dogs in this country? I would stress the fact that this is only an estimate; it is almost impossible to get the exact number. On the other hand, the official figure according to the number of licences issued is only 2¾million. Is the noble Lord further aware of the mass of stray and unwanted dogs dealt with by the police, by the R.S.P.C.A. and by other bodies, the vast majority of which have to be destroyed, the slaughter reaching the appalling figure of over 200,000 dogs a year, or 4,000 dogs each week? Would the noble Lord not agree that, in order to discourage the thoughtless and irresponsible buying of dogs and puppies, legislation is urgently required, making it an offence for a dog to be sold unless a licence is produced at the time by the prospective buyer; and, further, that the cost of the licence, which has remained at 7s. 6d. ever since the year 1878, should be increased to at least £1, preferably £2, or even £3?
Finally, is the noble Lord aware of what I said in the beginning, that in 1959 an assurance was given (it appears in column 968 of Vol. 219 of the OFFICIAL REPORT) that the need for an increase in the penalty for keeping a dog without a licence was being reviewed by the

359
Criminal Department of the Home Office? Can he say whether any action has resulted?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I will do my best. The debate to which the noble Lord was referring took place in November or December, 1959. Since then there have been five years of Conservative Government, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, was for part of that time in the Government, and he was the noble Earl who gave that promise to his noble friend. There are a great many stray dogs, and, although the figures are only approximate, the R.S.P.C.A. say that they handle approximately 75,000 stray dogs which have been reported by the police, and another 100,000 unwanted dogs. That makes a total of 175,000. In addition there are 25,000 other stray dogs dealt with by the police, and 50,000 other unwanted dogs. These figures together give a total of a quarter of a million dogs.
The noble Lord is perfectly right; such dogs are destroyed at the rate of 200,000 a year, or 4,000 dogs each week; and it is a serious matter. In the debate which he initiated in 1959, the noble Lord gave figures which were very much lower than those, so it shows that he is on to something which is serious and of which Parliament should take notice.
With regard to the noble Lord's question about making it obligatory for a person buying a dog to have a licence, of course when it is over the age of six months a licence is required for it. If the noble Lord comes to me and I sell him a dog, if he has not a licence for it when I hand the dog over to him, he is committing an offence. So the law is quite watertight in that respect at the present time. When the licence fee was fixed it was done purely as a means of getting taxation: there was no idea of making people look after their dogs better. The matter is under consideration by this Government review of local government finance and other matters. I think that is about enough.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, may I ask whether the Government have made any progress since last December in regard to granting a period of grace for the renewal of dog licences? Every dog licence expires at midnight on the last day of the month. One cannot renew
360
it in advance, and if one cannot find a post office which is open at midnight one is breaking the law.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I was here when this matter was raised before Christmas, and I was not quite certain whether the Home Office was right. But I can advise the noble Lord now that if he cares to go to the post office a month before his licence expires he will be able to obtain a licence and will save 7½d.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that in that way one loses a month every year, and that in twelve years one would have to take out thirteen licences?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I realise that, but it would save the noble Lord from being a criminal.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask a question arising out of this discussion? We have been fortunate in our country in keeping rabies at a distance, and it occurs to me that, while there may be no immediate danger, with all these masterless dogs it could present a potential danger. Are Her Majesty's Government keeping an eye on the matter from that angle?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the Government enforce as strictly as ever the question of the quarantine period before a dog is allowed to run free when coming to this country from abroad.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government have given any consideration to the introduction into this country of the form of dog licensing in use in Canada? In that country the dog licence consists of a metal tae to be worn attached to the dog's collar, and differing in shape every year. Would not the introduction of that system enable a policeman to see at a glance whether or not a dog is licensed, and would this not be an improvement on our present system?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl has overlooked the fact that dog licences may be taken out in any month of the year. Therefore, the dog would be wearing the same tag, and it would be impossible for a policeman in January, 1966, to see whether or not

361
that dog was wearing a current licence. I think the noble Earl would agree that it might be rather dangerous for the policeman, or the warden, examining the dog to see whether or not the tag was up to date.
The system would also entail, as the noble Earl no doubt realises, a good deal more administrative cost. It would probably be necessary to have the name and address of the owner on the tag. Of course, if it was a dog that was straying, and there was no tag, the owner could not be traced in any case. In addition, the shape or colour of the tag would have to be changed every year so that it could not be easily copied or forged. In these circumstances, I think that the noble Earl, on giving the matter further consideration, will bear in mind the principal difficulty, that in this country dog licences are renewable in any month of the year.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I understood the noble Lord to say to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that if he chose to buy a dog licence the month before he was required to do so he would be saved 7½d., but, more importantly, he would save himself from becoming a criminal. Can the noble Lord tell us why it is necessary for Lord Airedale and other members of the public to be put to such inconvenience to prevent themselves becoming criminals?
LORD BOWLES: I do not think spending 7½d. in the month before the renewal of the licence is putting him to any considerable inconvenience.
LORD NEWTON: The noble Lord does not follow the point. The inconvenience arises in having to think, a month before the licence expires, that unless you do buy the new one a month before, you may be committing a criminal offence.
LORD BOWLES: I do not think it is very difficult to think about it a month before.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, I think dogs have had a good innings and we might move on to another lamp-post, or something like that.

SPANIARD'S INN TOLL GATE
2.30 p.m.
LORD COLWYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will arrange for the removal of the obstruction at the Spaniard's Inn, Hampstead Lane.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF POWER (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, I presume that the noble Lord is referring to the old toll gate opposite the Spaniard's Inn. Her Majesty's Government have no powers to arrange for its removal. This is a problem essentially for the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs of Barnet and Camden, as the local authorities concerned, and I understand that they will be discussing it soon.
LORD COLWYN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for his Answer. May I ask whether he would get in touch with the Camden Council and the Barnet Council with a view to moving this obstruction backwards, putting it on Hampstead Heath, or putting up traffic lights? At the moment it causes a terrific traffic block.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, this is a local government matter, and Ministers have to be very careful about the susceptibilities of local authorities in regard to their own functions. But I will most certainly bring this matter to the attention of the two boroughs concerned, and of the Greater London Council, and I am certain that they will take notice. As the noble Lord probably knows, one of the problems is that this is right on the boundary of the two boroughs of Camden and Barnet, and it was on the boundary of the old boroughs of Hampstead and Finchley. But, as I have said, I will certainly call the attention of all the authorities concerned to the noble Lord's Question and to his presentation.
LORD COTTESLOE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this is not, in fact, a toll gate, but an old toll house which, while not by itself of any architectural distinction, forms an intrinsic part of a group of buildings that includes the

363
Spaniard's Inn and the historic 18th century weatherboard house adjacent to it; and that the group as a whole is of great interest and charm, and very much valued by people who live in the area and by many who live elsewhere? Is the noble Lord further aware that the Spaniards Road runs for half a mile along the ridge on Hampstead Heath in a unique rural setting, with unrivalled views over London, and that a widening of the road at that point, where it is already wide enough for two cars to pass, would destroy its character and change it into something of a racetrack? Finally, can he assure the House that when he is drawing the attention of the local authorities concerned to the Question asked by the noble Lord opposite, he will also draw the attention of the local authorities concerned to these particular aspects of it?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the greatest amenity value of this building is to the dogs which we were discussing in the previous Question. This building belongs to the brewers. The last time I passed it the roof had collapsed; and although the local lads and lasses say that Dick Turpin put Black Bess in there, to me its artistic value is nil.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, having lived in the vicinity for many years, may I suggest a practical compromise to the Minister? I can agree with the noble Lord opposite, but at the same time have sympathy for the motorist behind me. There is plenty of room to move this building back two yards. I agree that it would necessitate a little bit of work and building. Having looked at it, and examined it carefully, I think that if it were moved just two yards everyone would be happy.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, to move this building two yards would, I think, be a tremendous waste of time, effort and labour. In actual fact, the lorries going by day by day remove the brick, and if we leave it long enough it will not be there.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord forms a final conclusion, will he undertake to see the toll-bar house and refrain from taking any action suggested to him by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn? If he did take that action it would be greeted with dismay amongst the Hampstead people, and there would be a considerable sense of resentment.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, with great respect, I think we are passing away from the Question. I should not like to criticise one noble Lord on one side or another, but it seems to me that we have long since lost contact with any form of interrogation.

WASHING FACILITIES IN PUBLIC HOUSES
2.37 p.m.
LORD COLWYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will enact legislation requiring the provision of lavatory basins in all public-house toilets.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): My Lords, public-houses are among the kinds of premises at which local authorities can, under Section 89 of the Public Health Act 1936, require the provision of sanitary conveniences. My right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is sympathetic towards the suggestion that this section should be amended to enable local authorities to require washing facilities also, and he will consider the matter further as soon as there is an opportunity for legislation.
LORD COLWYN: I thank the noble Lord very much for his Answer.

GAS SUPPLIES AND THE NATIONAL PLAN
2.38 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what information, if any, they had received from the Gas Council and the Area Gas Boards that justified (in the case of gas) the following statement on page 119 of the National Plan (Cmnd. 2764):—
"There are now adequate supplies of all fuels except for limited shortages of electrical capacity to meet peak demands in unusually cold spells, and for shortages of some types of solid smokeless fuels in certain regions."]
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, my right honourable friend was informed during 1965, in the course of his regular annual review of the gas industry's development programme, of the estimated peak demands for gas in cold weather, and of the industry's planned investment, which appeared adequate to meet those demands.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for his Answer and ask him these two questions? Is he satisfied that the evidence given to his right honourable friend by the industry justified this very optimistic statement in the National Plan; and, if so, does he still believe that these words are true?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the answer is, Yes, to both questions.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, if the Minister was satisfied that the planned investment was adequate to meet the case, what was the justification for the Prime Minister's suggestion that the failure of the gas supplies was due to faulty planning on the part of the late Conservative Government?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, all my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said was that, if there was not sufficient investment in the gas industry, and if it took five years to build a power station, and from two to two and a half years to build a gas station, that was outside the period of this Government's
366
responsibility of fifteen months. May I make this statement equally? In so far as the programme was concerned, as approved and put in hand by the previous Government, the contractors providing the plant in that programme were behind hand in the dates of handing over producing plant to the Gas Board.
LORD MOLSON: Let me be quite clear. Are we now hearing that the programme was entirely adequate and that the planning was entirely adequate, but that it was the failure on the part of the contractors to deliver the equipment on time which was responsible for the breakdown?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, there is no simple answer, Yes or No, to these problems. If in fact the weather we have had during the last ten days had been operating when this plant broke down, there would have been, perhaps, a little shedding, but no failure or withdrawal of gas. It was in fact the coincidence of the extreme cold weather, plus the failure of the plant, which brought this about.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries stated in their Report, that, with an expenditure of £31¼million, a gas grid could have been put into operation which would have linked all the Area Boards; and if that had been done the breakdown would never have happened because surplus gas would have been transported from other regions to where plants were out of order?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, to an extent my noble friend's statement is absolutely correct. But, in fairness, I would say this: there had been established a methane grid, and to their credit every other Gas Board (let us remember that there are twelve in number, and in this period of time it was only in the case of one that we had a problem) which was connected to the methane grid—eight in number—voluntarily gave up its share of the methane supply in this most difficult period of production to enable the West Midlands Gas Board to carry on a service greater than otherwise they would have been able to do.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, in view of the fact that the last few weeks have shown that the information given in the National Plan, as stated in my noble

367
friend's Question, was completely incorrect, can the noble Lord say what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to see that these failures do not occur again?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I do not know whether the word "protest" is the correct word to use, but I would say that it was not incorrect. If the noble Earl can show me where the information is incorrect, I will try to deal with it. The problem was that the capacity, in the load to be taken, was there. It was unfortunate that, coinciding with the extreme cold weather, there was a plant failure. A plant failure is not the fault of the Gas Board. I am not going to apportion blame. Equally, one may say, as I have said in reply to the previous noble Lord, that in fact if this milder weather had been operative at the time of the breakdown, they would still have got through.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord did ask me to point out where the fault was. If he would look at the Question, the quotation from the National Plan says:
"There are now adequate supplies of all fuels …"
Would he not agree that there was not an adequate supply?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, there were adequate supplies; but, unfortunately, the plant broke down and did not produce them.

HOME DEFENCE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. there will be two Statements, the first to be made by my noble friend Lord Stonham on Home Defence, and the second to be made by my noble friend Lord Shackleton, on Home Defence Forces.

THE FILM INDUSTRY
3.43 p.m.
LORD WILLIS LORD WILLIS rose to call attention to the problems of the British film industry; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. In doing so, according to our usual custom, I should like to declare my interest. I am President of the Writers' Guild of Great Britain, which organises most of the screen-writers of this country in a professional association. I am also a director of two small independent film-producing companies which, if they are not exactly dead, are rapidly dying from malnutrition. We have progressed to this debate through dogs, lavatory basins, and gas. I do not know whether your Lordships would consider this to be a retrogression or progress. However, I think that before I go on to make what may be some critical remarks about the position in the film industry, I should like to pay tribute, from a long experience as a filmgoer, to the great entertainment that has been provided by films over the years. There can be few people in this House or outside who have not found some relaxation, stimulation and benefit from film-going and from the showing of films. I think this was brought home to me rather specially last night when I read of the death of Buster Keaton, that fabulous comedian who entertained so many of us and our fathers in the past. I remember seeing recently his marvellous film, The General, at the National Film Theatre, a film which I still regard as a classic among screen farces. On a happier note, I think perhaps one might also point to the fact that Charlie Chaplin, a man who probably has gained more honour as a British film maker and film star, is to start a film in this country. I think I can say that we have all derived tremendous relaxation and stimulation from film makers such as these.
I must say that my own particular favourites have always been Western films, and I am rather glad to see that the Western has turned up in what I think may be called the Eastern. Instead of the lone cowboy, you have the lone secret agent. Instead of a rapid gun at his hip he has a cigarette lighter that carries a flame thrower. But all

369
the ingredients are exactly the same—the goodies versus the baddies. Long may they flourish and reign!
Any discussion of the film industry immediately draws one into a great deal of complication and into complex situations. It is in fact an enormously complicated industry, largely due to the high costs involved in film production and various other factors. I have seen tough business tycoons turn milk-white with fear when discussing the economics of the film industry; it does not seem to follow any of the usual rules of business. And your Lordships, I think, will be better able to judge the serious complications involved when I tell you, quite seriously, that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, who is widely respected among us all for his clarity of thought, once confessed to me that he was baffled by the film industry. I think your Lordships will agree that that is a measure of the difficulties involved.
The difficulty for the outsider arises partly from the image which the film industry has created for itself in the past. It does not recognise the existence of clear, simple and direct adjectives. Everything it says and does is accompanied by a drum-roll of superlatives. You cannot have a good film; It has to be magnificent, or colossal, or even super-colossal. Generally you cannot have a simple story you can only have an epic of world-shaking proportions. You cannot simply have a film star who happens to be a good actress; she has to be mean, moody and magnificent, the most beautiful, or the most desirable, woman in the world. It is no wonder that the film industry, having run out of adjectives, has had to create a whole new vocabulary of its own. I remember a classic in Variety, that Bible of American show business, some years ago, which ran in this way:
"Stix nix hix pix"
which, translated, meant that the provinces say "No" to films that have been made specially for their benefit.
Hollywood, which, after all, is really no more than a rather dull suburb of the sprawling industrial city of Los Angeles, is presented to us as a fairyland city, the glamour capital of the world. We read of millions of dollars being spent on a single film, of stars who collect a million dollars and more for a single role. All
370
this apparent extravagance, in my view, is relatively harmless and adds a great deal to the gaiety of nations. It is a form of showmanship which is perhaps necessary, and the public always appreciate a good circus. But, in fact, to some extent the film industry is hoist with its own petard. Having established an image of wealth and glamour, it is hard to make the man in the street believe that film producers can ever be poor, that a film can fail to make money, or that the film industry may have any problems.
There is another built-in difficulty which I think is even more important. I have referred in this Motion to the problems of the film industry. This is really an inadequate description, because film making is an art as well. In the film industry you have a unique combination of commerce and creative talent. In the present circumstances, one just cannot do without the other. Film making is such an expensive operation that the artist, the writer and the director need the resources of big business; and business in its turn cannot fill its studios or its cinemas without the work of the creative artist. This marriage is often an uneasy one, and I am quite sure that both parties would sometimes prefer to arrange a dissolution or a divorce.
In some respects the film business is rather like that prehistoric animal the dinosaur, which apparently had two brains, one in its head and one in its rear. I will not endeavour to say which is which in the arrangement in the film industry. I understand that in regard to the dinosaur Nature made this ingenious arrangement because the beast was so enormous. It would have taken too long for one brain to send a message through the nervous system. I have often wondered what happened if the two brains failed to agree and started pulling the animal in different directions. This situation is not unknown in the film industry. What is relevant to the discussion is that the dinosaur, after occupying a dominating position on earth for a long period, failed—in spite of its two brains—to adapt itself to changing conditions, and became extinct. The film industry occupied a dominating position in entertainment until as recently as fifteen or sixteen years ago, but in those sixteen years conditions have changed so rapidly that British film production, at

371
least, has often been in danger of extinction.
A few figures will indicate to your Lordships the change which has occurred in the last sixteen years. In 1950 there were 4,600 cinemas operating in this country. In that same year, something like 1,400 million tickets were sold at the box office. In the last fifteen years over 2,500 cinemas—more than half—have been closed. And the number of admissions to the cinema fell by almost three-quarters from 1,400 million to 370 million. The number of British-financed films produced in our studios has fallen from around 70, 80, or even more per year, to about a dozen. Indeed, we shall be lucky if in 1966 a dozen British first-feature films—and I mean wholly British—are produced. This is a staggering retreat. A great deal of credit must go to many people in the industry for the way in which they have faced up to a situation which in other industries would have meant absolute disaster. Though there are signs that the decline has been halted, or at least checked, it has left a legacy of problems which must be faced, and faced with urgency, if the British film, the indigenous product which has brought so much honour to this country in the past, is to survive.
Some of these problems are not new in essence, only in extent. The British film industry has always been in danger from the sheer weight and power of American competition in films, largely due to the historical accident that both peoples speak approximately the same language, and due to certain economic factors, which I will not go into at length. In the end this has resulted in the Americans having a wide open market here for British films, and we have found it increasingly difficult over the years to get our films into the American cinemas, although this position has changed to some extent in the last year or so.
Successive British Governments have enacted legislation to give British film producers some degree of protection in this situation. The annual quota Act, which insists that a percentage of all films shown in British cinemas must be of British origin, is one of them. The present Prime Minister, when he was President of the Board of Trade, was largely
372
responsible for the creation of the National Film Finance Corporation, which in its first fifteen years of existence helped to finance over half of all British quota films. Without that help from the N.F.F.C., British production would have been hard put to it to survive. And in 1957 the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who was then, Sir David Eccles, President of the Board of Trade, introduced the Cinematograph Films Act. This was based on a scheme drawn up originally by Sir Wilfrid Eady, which provides that a levy is paid on most tickets sold at cinemas. This levy is collected by Customs and Excise and paid into the British Film Fund Agency, a Government appointed body. It is still fondly known in the business as"Eady money". This money, less administrative costs and a special subsidy to the Children's Film Foundation, is divided up among eligible films in proportion to their success at the box office. There are certain exceptions, but this is the general rule.
These three measures, the quota, the setting up of the N.F.F.C., and the creation of the film levy, were all intended to help British film production, and were mainly directed to the task of preventing our own native film industry from being swallowed up and dominated by the immensely powerful American industry. Life has a habit of laughing at the efforts of legislators, and in this case it must be roaring its head off. For, by a strange paradox, most of our film legislation has had an effect which is the precise opposite of its intentions. Far from giving British film producers greater independence and finance, it has weakened them. And far from preventing American domination of the British film industry, American domination was never so complete and overwhelming as it is to-day. Variety, to which I have already referred, had this to say a week ago:
"To-day, the truly British feature film, by which is meant one wholly financed through British sources and distributed through British outlets, is something of a rarity … the American industry is moving into the British studio scene to the extent where to-day this influence dominates every aspect of British film production."
I could imagine the outcry if this were to happen in any other major British industry. I am not—and I underline this—taking an anti-American stand in

373
this matter. I would say the same if the domination came from France or Germany or anywhere else. I welcome the Americans here; I welcome the work which they have brought to our studios, and the opportunities which they have given to our technicians. But I do not welcome them if it means the complete death of the indigenous British film industry. I should like to see international co-operation of this sort extended—and the recent Anglo-French production agreement is a welcome beginning in this direction. I believe that the cinema has to think in international terms to-day. This massive American participation has enabled many of our studios to stay in operation, and has given our directors and technicians the chance to make many big and exciting films which have helped to bring audiences back to the cinema.
But let us be under no illusions about this. The Americans are hard-headed businessmen and they do not invest millions of dollars here because they feel sorry for us, or for the sake of brotherly love. They make films here because it pays them to do so. They make films here because such films qualify as British quota, and this means that the producers can qualify for a fat slice of the British Film Production Fund. Variety referred to this fund in last week's issue. It estimated that something like 80 per cent. of the fund collected in 1966 would go to major Hollywood companies. This could amount to a total of around £4 million. There is absolutely no obligation to put this money back into production here; it is a bonus without strings. I submit that it is an extraordinary situation when four-fifths of a fund created to help British producers finds its way across the Atlantic.
It may be thought that this is unimportant, since these films enjoy a great success in the world market and therefore help to swell our exports. Alas!, this is rarely the case. Where a British company invests alongside the American, some earnings come back to Britain, but in the main the money and the profits remain in America and they earn very little in exports for us. It might be considered that these films help our image abroad. I am afraid that even this is not as much as we would hope. These films fly the Union Jack for quota purposes over here, but the moment they
374
leave our territorial waters the British flag is hauled down and the Stars and Stripes is run up in its place. Perhaps the strangest example of this occurred with Lawrence of Arabia. One could not have a more British film than that. It had a British subject, a British script, a British star, a British director, and British technicians, but it was mainly financed by the Americans. But this film was entered some time ago for a film festival in South America, and was classified as the official American entry.
A side effect of the domination by Hollywood of our industry has been the fantastic increase in the costs of filmmaking. One producer told me that costs had risen by about 40 per cent. in the past five years, and a film which cost £150,000 to make in 1961 would now cost £250,000—in other words, an increase of £100,000. I myself had an example not so long ago of a star whom I approached to make a film, and who I knew had received about £15,000 for his appearance in a film a year earlier (which, to me, is not an unreasonable fee for something like two or three months work). His agent told me that his fee for my film would be £75,000. When I protested I was told that he had received this sum from an American company.
I have no complaint against the Americans for making their films here—I think that they are taking advantage of the loopholes we have created. Nor have I any complaint against the man who tries to do the best possible for himself in the way of fees for his services, but I think that the sums paid to some stars in the film industry to-day have reached the point of sheer insanity. No-one needs that amount of money. It has the effect of swelling the risks and the costs of a film to astronomical proportions, and puts the small producer in an impossible position. If the British film industry is to get back on its feet, then everyone, from stars to technicians, will have to co-operate in keeping costs within some frontiers of reality. If it can be done in France and Sweden, I am sure that it can be done here.
The point I want to make to the Government is this—and this is where I see the danger. At the moment the Americans are here, occupying our studios and bringing work to our technicians and to

375
our other film-makers; but there is no guarantee whatsoever that they will stay. If, for economic or political reasons, they were to pull out of production here, the British film industry could collapse in a month. There are certain pressures. President Johnson is having discussions about the setting up of a fund, rather like the Eady Fund here—a levy which would have the effect of making it just as attractive for Americans to produce films in their own country as here. Also, certain trade unions in America are protesting at the fact that films are not being made in Hollywood. I believe that there is a very real danger in this respect, and it is no good waiting until the crisis is here. We ought to look at the situation now and see what can be done. Quite apart from this, it is clearly bad that our own native, indigenous film industry should be squeezed out of existence.
I believe that the Government could do a lot worse than take a look at the situation in Sweden. Three years ago the Swedish Government instituted a series of reforms designed to help the Swedish cinema, which was then in the doldrums. Their concern was to ensure a continuing production of films of a high standard which would contribute to Swedish culture and prestige. Therefore, they set up a Swedish Film Institute, financed by a levy on cinema takings, rather as ours is, but distributed in a different way. These funds are used to give general support to feature films, to award prizes for outstanding merit, to help worthwhile films which may lose money, to promote Swedish films abroad and to set up a film school.
The results were remarkably quick in coming. Within eighteen months production doubled. Established directors were able to return to production, and some young ones were given a chance. Several Swedish films have been successful at international festivals and have done well in export terms. If this can be done in a country with under 8 million inhabitants, it can clearly be done here, but it would mean the reorganisation of the British Film Production Fund along similar lines to the Swedish Fund. First, I think that a ceiling should be put on the amount of money which any one film can take out of the fund. Secondly, part of the
376
fund ought to be placed in an annual account to provide pre-production loans or assistance to bona fide British producers, to enable them to purchase stories and develop scripts. And part of the money might be used, as in Sweden, to finance the new Film School, if the special committee which is now discussing this matter decides that one is necessary.
Alongside of all this, it is time that the Government considered the future of the National Film Finance Corporation. Legislation about this is due, I believe, in March of next year. The Corporation has done excellent service to British films, and I hope that the Government will decide to extend its life on a permanent basis and provide it with some of the capital it needs so badly. At present, its resources are reduced to under £1 million, and this could be swallowed up in helping two or three films. But in my view there needs to be some hard thinking about the function of the N.F.F.C. My own view is that the Corporation and the Film Production Fund might be amalgamated into one body, as we have too many bodies in the film industry. This new body might be given increased status and some experienced film-makers might be added to it. This new body could be given the funds and charged directly with the task of encouraging new, truly British production along the lines I have indicated, and its function would be comparable to that of the Academy in Sweden.
I have deliberately not touched on the question of the two major circuits, Rank and Associated-British, because, as your Lordships know, their position is currently being discussed by the Monopolies Commission. I do not want to anticipate their Report or the debate that we shall be having on this subject. But the issue is relevant to the debate that we are having to-day in one important sense. I think there is a great deal in the argument that the Rank and the Associated-British groups have provided some degree of stabilisation over the years. On the other hand, one cannot ignore the strong feeling among some independent producers, like British Lion, that their films are not getting the benefit of free competition in the industry. In fact, we seem to have here a situation which is something like the opposite of retail price maintenance, for in films it is the retailer who determines the price

377
and not the wholesaler. There is no doubt whatever that the facts of the situation are that this has created a crisis of confidence, and producers like British Lion, who are jealous of their independence, have cut back their programme of local production very seriously. I hope that the Report of the Monopolies Commission will be here soon, so that we can thresh out these matters.
Linked with this is the whole question of whether it is possible to create a new third circuit. Personally, I do not see the advantage in taking the existing two circuits and dividing them into three, because it seems to me that this would only be spreading an audience for two circuits over three circuits. But I believe that there is scope for the new type of circuit which has been proposed by the British Film Institute—the creation of a chain of merit or art cinemas. There is no doubt of the growing interest among young people in the art of the cinema. This is shown by the existence of thousands of film societies, and by the tremendous interest shown in all kinds of Continental films. It is here that I think we could make most progress. It is mainly a job for the local authorities, plus private enterprise, on the lines of the circuit that was announced some weeks ago to be promoted by the Grade-Rive organisation who are setting up a circuit of small cinemas.
One of the first essentials, if such a scheme is to get off the ground, is that the closing of cinemas must, in the main, stop. It can be argued that there is a case for closing cinemas, but I think that we have probably taken the process about as far as we can. I think that the local authorities, encouraged by the Government, should now see the local cinema as an amenity which must be protected and fostered, in the same way as the local library or the local repertory theatre. Where a site containing an old cinema is being developed, in the main the local authority ought to insist, that the new development should contain a small modern cinema. I hope that the Government will carefully consider this, and give what encouragement and aid they can to the creation of this new circuit. The Grade-Rive organisation aim at 50 art cinemas in three years. If the Film Institute and the local authorities could
378
develop a further 50, then independent producers in this country would have a positive third outlet of immense value.
I must hurry on, my Lords. I want to say only one word about the market for television films. In many respects, the production situation here is healthier than in any other field. Two companies—A.T.V. and, to a much lesser extent, A.B.C.—have broken through into the American and overseas markets in a really spectacular way, which gives hope, I think, for British film makers. A.T.V., for example, have three British-made series now running on the American networks—and I mean British-made in the sense that they are financed in the main by British money, and in fact by the company itself. Since the majority of the investment comes from the company itself, this means that this is a true export and is earning valuable dollars for Britain.
However, a television series is expensive to make, and the total cost of making a series can run in the direction of £1 million or £1¼ million. This is the amount invested when making a television film series. A.T.V., for example, I am told, have an investment of something like £5 million in four film series. But in 1965 they brought back something like 10½ million dollars or £3½ million as exports, as a result of their sales abroad, and I think that this points to a possible future market for British film making. There will, I am sure, be an increasing market for feature films, both for showing in cinemas here and perhaps for sale to television in America. I believe that the Government, if they are interested in exports, should encourage the fullest investigation of this market, and at the same time should discourage any sign of monopoly among the big television companies, so that the independent film producers can get a fair price for their products.
My final point to the Government is this. There are a number of measures dealing with the film industry which will come before Parliament in the next few months. Would it not be possible to incorporate all these measures into one imaginative and comprehensive Films Act, which would virtually give a new deal to the beleaguered film industry? I believe that if we could do this, if the Government brought in one comprehensive Bill of this kind incorporating all

379
the various parts of the legislation, it would give a tremendous fillip to the British film industry.
Film makers over here only ask the opportunity to go on making films and entertaining the public—and I use the word "entertaining" in its widest sense. At the moment, they are in grave danger that these opportunities may be denied them, and we are in grave danger that British films—wholly British films—may, in fact, be a dying thing. I hope that the Government will stop this from happening, and I look forward to their statement on this subject. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.11 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the House is indebted, as it always is, to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, speaking as he does with very great knowledge of this subject, for giving us such a clear and interesting survey of the film industry. He has stressed the background to this debate—the fact that the statutory powers of the National Film Finance Corporation will expire in March, 1967, unless renewed in some form by legislation. Secondly, there is the fact that the Monopolies Commission were invited in July, 1964, to report on the supply of films, with particular reference to the dominance of the two existing circuits—Rank and A.B.C.
It is not easy to discuss these two matters apart, and, personally, I should have preferred to study the Report of the Monopolies Commission before debating the whole of the film industry. But the noble Lord, I think, has made it clear in his remarks that what he was mainly concerned with (at least, I took it that he was mainly concerned with that) was the American dominance of the film-producing market in this country. That is a matter with which I hope the noble Lord who is going to reply will deal fully. I did not myself intend to deal with it. I recognise the difficulties inherent in this. After all, the Americans come into this country, give a great deal of employment and add to the economic welfare of this country to a considerable extent. And it has always been taken that, in so far as they do so, they are entitled to equal treatment with British industry in the various advantages that are offered, in the form of encouragement,
380
finance and the like. I hope that the noble Lord will have something to say about this.
I realise that it is a very difficult position; all the more so, because of course film production does not really establish a stake in the country, as a firm coming in to manufacture does. As the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, it is very much more mobile. It can go away almost at the twinkling of an eye. Therefore, it presents a different and a very difficult problem, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us the Government's point of view in this connection.
So far as the Monopolies Commission and the N.F.F.C. are concerned, there is a time factor here. It now seems unlikely that the Commission will report in time to allow adequate consideration of the future of the N.F.F.C. before legislation is introduced, and that in consequence the Corporation's powers will have to be extended for a further limited period. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us if this is so. But if this debate does nothing else, it will at least give the Government an opportunity of indicating their intentions, and of giving us some idea of when they estimate the Monopolies Commission will be able to report. They may even be able to raise the curtain a little on their thinking about the future of the industry.
I think it is worth while recalling that the present Prime Minister, when President of the Board of Trade, introduced in another place, on December 2, 1948, the measure which set up the National Film Finance Corporation. In doing so he said this:
"I am sure that we are all agreed in this House…that we all consider it highly desirable to have a healthy and active domestic film industry in this country, able as quickly as possible to stand on its own feet financially. It is desirable for many reasons—first, perhaps, because the film industry can do much to portray the British way of life and to show our national culture and way of life to ordinary people in other countries in all parts of the world. But it is important also, of course, because of its contribution to the solution of our balance-of-payments problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 458, col. 2183.]
I do not intend to examine the first of these reasons. The fact is that the British film industry has been producing entertainment, which people abroad have been willing to pay for, to show and to see. In

381
consequence, it has been making a worthwhile contribution to what was then, and still is, our major national problem—the balance of payments. This is true, as the noble Lord has indicated, for films produced for showing on TV as well as in cinemas.
The question has always been how to finance film production, especially the so-called "end money". The Prime Minister said this quite categorically at the same time as he was introducing the Bill:
"I think it is necessary to affirm that the industry's financing must be on an entirely self-liquidating basis. There must be no question of a subsidy for film production…the special emergency arrangements proposed here should be temporary and…in a reasonable period when the industry has built itself up again and established confidence in itself, it should be able to float itself free of the special arrangements and revert to more normal methods of financing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 458, col. 2186, 2/12/48.]
My Lords, the period envisaged at that time was, I think, seven years—and that was sixteen years ago.
Since then, great changes have taken place in social habits, and in particular in regard to films. The proportion of homes with television sets has increased enormously, and for this and other reasons the number of cinema attendances has declined very considerably, as the noble Lord indicated—a really astonishing decline. The number of cinema houses has been reduced by more than half. To draw people out of their homes to the cinema, a film has to be not only exceptionally good, but different in character from the kind of film shown on television. Not that film-making as such has suffered. I am told that it is very difficult indeed to obtain a booking at a film production studio, so heavy is the demand at present. But I do not propose to discuss the economics of producing films for television. All I would say is that I am sure the film industry is grateful that it no longer has to deal with a single monopoly buyer in this country in the television field.
The immediate problem, it seems to me, is what degree of continuing State assistance should be given to the film industry. The fact is that, even with the help of the Eady Levy, now the British Film Fund Levy, it has proved difficult for ordinary films to come anywhere near
382
to breaking even. I see that Mr. John Davis stated the other day in the Financial Times that eight out of ten British films lose money, but that the two which do, do not often make a great film. If this were not so, the cinema industry could not survive. The question is, who can, and should, carry the loss? Put in another way, one might ask whether there are films of such high merit that they ought to be produced even if they are going to lose money; and if so, who is to be the judge? My Lords, this is not the test which the National Film Finance Corporation has to apply by law. It is empowered to advance money for the production of films which in its view have a reasonable prospect of being successful—which means making money; and the box office is the ultimate test. In the field of cinema entertainment it is the only test.
The National Film Finance Corporation has an accumulated deficit at the end of 1964–65 (we are approaching the end of another year now), of about £4·36 million, of which some £2 million was the net provision for losses on loans to the old British Lion. To keep up the appearance that the money is not lost, but only "gone before", the Treasury insist that the Corporation pays interest which practically equals the average loss of £161,500 over the years. One of the main reasons for the losses is that the Corporation has been putting up end money on films which were too speculative to attract other finance, what it calls, in its 1965 Report," lending end money for the less promising films which others are reluctant to finance". If the Corporation had not done this, there might not have been enough British films to fill the quota; that is to say, British films which cinemas are compelled by regulation to show.
The National Film Finance Corporation deserves full credit for seeking new ways of fulfilling its dual obligation to help the industry and to make ends meet. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to tell us what has happened about the scheme by which the Corporation would put up the whole of the finance for films, in conjunction with other film producers—the so-called pari-passu arrangement, as contrasted with the end-money arrangement.
Under another pilot scheme the Corporation has gone in with Rank, each

383
putting up an equal amount of finance, with the Corporation choosing the films to be financed and Rank distributing them. This idea has been attacked by some since they regard it as "consorting with the devil." But the main criticism of the Rank-A.B.P.C. domination is that the chance of getting a film produced depends on the whim, so it is said, of these two Corporations. The same people can hardly complain if, under this arrangement between Rank and the N.F.F.C., the decision is left entirely with the Corporation. This would seem to be an attempt on the part of Rank to meet this criticism. The test, surely, is whether this is going to help the industry. What is perhaps more open to criticism is that the Corporation seems in this scheme to be changing its rôle and to be much more closely involved in production than it has been since its early days. I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us how the Corporation has been equipping itself to fulfil this rather changed rôle which I understood the noble Lord, Lord Willis, favoured.
In the 1964 Report, the Corporation said:
"The real need is for a comprehensive study on a continuing basis."
The Monopolies Commission Report, of course, valuable as we hope that it will be, will not provide the continuing basis. I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us precisely what the Corporation had in mind by this proposal. There are, of course, many questions to be answered. What is the future of pay-T.V., for example? This question seems to me very much bound up with the growing problem of financing the British Broadcasting Corporation. I wonder whether the noble Lord will touch on this point. Can we afford to wait for the result of the pay-T.V. experiment, especially in view of the fact that the experiment itself is unlikely to shed much light on the problems to be solved?
Secondly—another question: what scope is there for the merit cinema? The noble Lord, Lord Willis, mentioned that the British Film Institute has been proposing to set up a chain of merit cinemas, and I understand that Mr. Leslie Grade has also had this in mind from the private enterprise point of view. They are cinemas where films of cultural value
384
may be shown and, it is presumed, where they may actually make money. Again, with colour television not very far off, will the cinema have lost one more of its decisive advantages, or will the public appetite for the cinema be whetted by these developments? Perhaps this is the kind of problem that the Corporation envisaged should be examined. Above all—and the noble Lord did touch on this: what is being done to make the production of films less costly and more efficient? Why should there not be a "little Neddy" for film production? This is a field in which restrictive practices and other abuses flourish perhaps as much as in any other field in the whole economy. Is there any reason why any more public money should go into film production until the industry puts its own house in order? And the first step towards that may well be to set up this form of industrial "Neddy".
My Lords, these are some of the questions to which, I suggest, the noble Lord should try to give some kind of answer, or at least indicate the Government thinking about them. I cannot say that I envy him the task. As the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, this is a very complicated industry. He went on to say that it is an industry of superlatives. But with the impending lapse of the Corporation's lending powers it inevitably falls to the Government of the day to find the answer. Had we been in power, we should have had to do so. At least they might use the tool of the "little Neddy" which we created. I have no intention of making a Party political speech. I say this merely to discourage the noble Lord from taking a Party line. After all, it is not often we can quote the Prime Minister with approval as I have done to-day, from this side of the Chamber.
My Lords, I would conclude by saying that I believe that there is a continuing future for cinema entertainment, provided that there is the will for survival in all concerned in the industry. But I believe it should be on the basis of an independent, self-sufficient industry capable of carrying its own losses because of its own strength and efficiency. This does not necessarily mean that there is no place for the National Film Finance Corporation: it does mean that the Corporation should be regarded as a source of finance and not of subsidy.
3.28 p.m.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, I ask for the indulgence of the House as this is the first occasion on which I have had the privilege of addessing your Lordships. I earn my livelihood in this industry, and I should like to make one or two small suggestions. As I am engaged in this industry, I should perhaps declare an interest, but the points that I wish to make do not affect me personally.
I wish to propose that the present subsidy for the British film industry should be examined and, if necessary, supplemented or reallocated to give greater support to the industry as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, has touched on the question of the "Eady money". The Eady system was created to help British independent producers. It was an excellent idea; but, unfortunately, as the noble Lord has said, the idea has been thwarted. The money is not going to the British independent producers: the money is going to the Americans.
The noble Lord referred to an article which appeared this week on the front page of the "Bible" of our industry, Variety, which is an American publication, and I should like to quote from the leading paragraph of that article. It says:
"With the statutory Lady Levy running just fractionally below its ceiling target of 14,000,000 dollars a year, and the current payout for the last two months (November and December) hitting a new all-time high of 50 per cent. of distributors' gross, unofficial sources estimate that upwards of 80 per cent. of the fund coin will be paid out in the current financial year to American major companies".
Let me give some examples of this. Your Lordships may perhaps feel slightly proud of the new craze which is sweeping the world—James Bond. One might feel that James Bond is an Englishman; that these films are English films. One would, on the face of it, be right in this assumption. Unfortunately, James Bond is an American financially. Last year, 1½million dollars was paid out in "Eady money" to the producers of Goldfinger—Americans. Also last year, 1 million dollars of "Lady money" was paid to the producers of Tom Jones—a truly typical English production. The producers were Americans. Last year, 1 million dollars of "Eady money" was paid to the producers of that excellent
386
English film, The Guns of Navarone. The producers were Americans. This year, a predicted all-time record of 2,100,000 dollars of British "Eady money" is going to be paid on Thunder-ball. This also is going to the Americans.
There must be a ceiling to the amount of "Eady money" payable to a successful production. One does not want to impose a ceiling on success, but, at the same time, this is a system which was initiated to help the small producers. A film such as Thunderball, which is estimated to make a gross profit of 4,200,000 dollars, surely does not need the "Eady money".
There is no sign of this situation stopping. In the British studios to-day the following films are being made. At Pinewood, Farenheit 451 and Countess from Hong Kong. Both are Universal films; both are American. There is also one film, Kaleidoscope, in the same studio which is a Warner Brothers, American, film. At Shepperton to-day two films are being shot, Georgey Girl and Casino Royal. Both are Columbia films, and both of them are American. At Metro-British there are two M.G.M. films being shot, Eye of the Devil and 2001. Both of them are American. At Twickenham, Paramount have in production The Deadly Bees. This also is American. Meanwhile, even British Lion—and I am not standing here to defend the larger interests of the British film industry, but the smaller ones—sometimes have to wait two years to get one of their films into British cinemas; and, of course (and this is not so applicable to British Lion as to the smaller producers), there is no doubt that interest on monies borrowed from banks is building up considerably during that waiting period.
The British film industry has been through several crises. In fact, three studios have been closed down during the past three years, and at one time there was talk of Shepperton Studios being sold. But then the Government intervened, it was agreed that the land could not be used for any further type of development, and it was therefore saved. It is all very well for the Government to want to support British labour by subsidies from British taxes, but, whereas British-made productions, such as

387
Private's Progress and Doctor in the House, showed a profit from British distribution only, the majority of British films reap a bad return unless they can also derive revenue from the Continent of Europe and, in particular, from America and the Western Hemisphere.
When Britain did not enter the Common Market, British purchasers were faced with the impossible task of trying to negotiate our productions with European countries when, to qualify for British quota, they had to insist on 80 per cent. of the labour used being British. Other countries, such as Italy, France, Germany and Spain, would get together and work out reasonable terms whereby one would provide actors, the other production facilities, and so on, so that they could co-finance and co-produce films. Not only did this help them finance films, but the Governments in question were very co-operative regarding quota, so that British producers trying to get release in, say, Spain were told that they could hardly expect much cooperation if they were not prepared to share in a more equitable fashion. Obviously, Her Majesty's Government have been made aware of these problems, as a formal agreement was recently arrived at on co-production between England and France. I hope that similar arrangements with other European countries will be forthcoming in the near future. There is no doubt that, speaking generally, British film producers need a Government subsidy to keep the industry going. To whom the subsidy should be applicable, and on what basis, represents quite a problem—and this, I feel, is the chief problem facing us.
It is possible that the small-budget picture may be pushed right out of the market. This might appear to be a good thing so far as some of the run-of-the-mill British second features are concerned, but I propose that a survey be carried out to investigate the possibility of Government subsidy money being made available for the purposes of sponsoring young, up-and-coming writers, directors, artists and producers whom private finance cannot be expected to sponsor on a very large scale. Thus, basically, an appeal should be made rather on the same lines as the "Save the Repertory" movement which took
388
place in the theatre—because it is from the small theatres that the stars of tomorrow emerge. It is also practically certain that if the sponsoring of small-budget pictures could be handled in the right way, a group of these films—and the usual number is 13—would be an automatic sale to America for television, and so bring in outside revenue. The noble Lord has not, I feel, quite appreciated the fact that television is not a separate industry. When one talks of the film industry one includes all makers of films. A large percentage of programmes on television are films, and television provides a very large source of income to this industry.
In the early days, British Lion, with the help of the Government, made such films as the St. Trinian's series and Brothers in Law. Everything has changed now: the industry is now very international. It is pretty difficult for a young up-and-coming producer in this country to get a film off the ground unless he resorts to one of two things. The first is co-production with the Continent—which is, as I have just explained, apart from the recent agreement with France, practically impossible. The second is that the film should be American-backed, in which case it would cease, in essence, to be British.
I should like to draw attention in detail to something which is going on at the moment. The simplest way of raising money to make a film is to get a distribution guarantee from an American distributor with world-wide connections. This distribution guarantee is discountable at a bank. If a British producer does this and accepts the American distribution guarantee, the Americans are now forcing him to sign away his "Eady money." My Lords, this is obviously totally incorrect. The "Eady money" was produced in order to support the British and before the British can get a distribution guarantee they have to sign it away to the Americans. Could not the Eady money derived from a film which is guaranteed distribution by an American company be set aside exclusively for the British company? How this is going to be done is very difficult to decide and must be discussed; but surely this is an aim that we must have in mind.
The youth of the industry must be fostered. Let me turn now for a moment

389
to the theatre. The repertory theatre in England has survived under Government grants, the Arts Council and so on. This is excellent. The reason why this has been done is not, as perhaps one might feel, to foist the live theatre on to people in the Provinces whether they want it or not, for quite often this fails; and they prove they do not want it by not turning up. As the noble Lord said, the ultimate decision whether a film or a play is a success must be in the box office. The reason why the Government have continued to uphold the repertory theatre is because the repertory theatre is the training ground from which the great actors and producers will come.
And this is equally applicable to the film industry. If it becomes impossible for young producers to produce films, who are going to be the producers of to-morrow? I wish to state that I am in no way connected with the examples I am about to give. Mr. Sydney Furie, who is a producer in this country responsible for the great financial success, The Ipcress File, started in this business by producing a small documentary called During One Night. Who is to say, if he had not made this documentary, that he would ever have been able to make The Ipecress File? Another example is that of Mr. John Schlesinger, who gained recognition in this business with a magnificent short documentary entitled Terminus. As your Lordships know John Schlesinger is now the darling of the film industry on both sides of the Atlantic. Recently an Irish film company proposed to me that "I should align 13 countries to make 13 documentary travelogues. I was appointed recently as an adviser to the new Government of Ceylon on the development of the film industry and I was shortly able to get in writing from 13 different Governments their acceptance of this proposal. Having done so, I was informed that there is positively no market for documentaries in this country. America has the lead in this industry in the world, and we should do well to follow their example. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the productions David and Lisa and Marty. Both these productions were, in fact. set up to encourage young people in the industry, and both were remarkably successful financially.
390
We must do it here as well. There are Englishmen who know how to sell such products in the United States. What is difficult to obtain is pre-production costs. It is to this that the Eady money should, in my opinion, be diverted. There is this very week a young producer who can be seen walking up and down Charing Cross Road with, under his arm, a copy of a script which belongs to him and which is entitled Up the Junction. This script is widely sought after by no fewer than eight different American producers. But this young Englishman has had the determination to refuse very large sums of money for the rights. He is trying to launch it himself. This is the type of man who, in my opinion, is worthy of the financial support of the Government. May I close by saying that it is the small people in this industry who will produce the big film makers of to-morrow. It is not the Rank but the rank and file of the industry which needs this help.
3.45 p.m.
LORD BIRKETT: My Lords, it is my privilege and pleasure to be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on his admirably clear and forthright maiden speech—not only as the son of a distinguished father but (and this is a great personal pleasure to me) as a working film maker whose presence within your Lordships' House is to be warmly welcomed. I am sure that your Lordships, with me, will look forward to hearing his voice more often in this House. I would also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Willis, on his admirably clear and forthright exposition of the state of the film industry at the moment.
May I, in view of the two speeches that followed his, try to make some sort of explanation, which at this moment seems to be rather called for, about the question of finance and production? A great deal has been made of the dominance of American finance and American production within the film industry. This is undoubtedly true; but I think a very precise distinction must be made between production and finance. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, instanced the film Lawrence of Arabia. I agree it is alarming that it should be entered in a film festival as an American film. It was made, in terms of film making, directed, cast and crewed almost entirely from Great Britain; and

391
the production of this film may therefore legitimately be said to be British. However, its finance, and therefore a very great measure of its profits, is American.
This is an important distinction, because those concerned with making films, even including the producer himself, as opposed to the working director on the floor supervising its shooting, are paid upon the budget of that film. Whatever currency it comes in, they receive a salary. The profits of a film therefore largely go to those who provide the finance; and included among those profits, as has already been pointed out today, is a share of the "Eady money". Whether a film is entitled to receive "Eady money" in the first place depends on the percentage of money which in the course of the making of the film is paid to British personnel. It depends, in fact, upon what percentage of labour costs may legitimately may be called British. That percentage may be high. There are various and rather complicated formulae for working this out; but between 75 per cent. and 80 per cent. of all costs of a film must go to British personnel and British companies for that film to be eligible for quota and eligible for"Eady money". As has already been pointed out, in the majority of cases in British film production the money is provided from American sources and is spent largely upon British institutions and British individuals, and therefore becomes eligible for "Eady money".
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, welcomed American finance in this country as well as being alarmed by it; because I rather tend to share this slightly split view of the industry. I am myself a working film-maker and, by way of declaring an interest and almost by way of making a confession to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, I can say that I have in my time taken dollars to do it. And I have done it with little compunction, because it seems to me that, however much we may be alarmed at the prospect of our principal source of finance, American dollars, disappearing at the whim of those who at the moment put it up, and however much we are alarmed at the influence which American film makers may have indirectly upon our own films, until there is a solid and competitive alternative in British finance the film-
392
makers in Great Britain would view with the greatest alarm anything which would deter the Americans from continuing to offer the finance they offer at the moment.
It is for this reason that I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Willis, brought up the question of the National Film Finance Corporation. I confess that I am slightly alarmed to think that its future must wait upon the report of the Monopolies Commission. Like previous speakers, I am inhibited from going in any detail into the major problems of the film industry, in so far as they concern themselves with great combines, Rank and A.B.C., and all the problems that those names usually bring up in your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, if we must wait till the Monopolies Commission report appears to know the future of the N.F.F.C., this will engender very little confidence in those British producers and financiers whom the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and others would like to encourage. I cannot help feeling that some statement of intent from Her Majesty's Government with regard to the future of the N.F.F.C. would be of immense value and encouragement to the film-makers of the country.
I am also glad that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, offered a welcome to the new small circuit of cinemas to be operated by the Grade-Rive organisation, because I do not think it is generally realised how great is the gulf for the film-maker between the two alternatives he is offered. If his film is shown on one of the two great circuits, Rank or A.B.C., he is thereby almost certainly assured of a large number of showings for his film. It may be successful or unsuccessful; cinemas may be full or empty. But at least the film will be exposed to audiences over a large section of the country. But there are many films (I have made some of them myself) which the two circuits, for good reason—and I do not for one moment blame them—did not want to show, because they felt that the films were of a minority interest: a sizeable minority, I hope, but not films which would appeal to a mass audience, which is how one must regard the audiences of the Rank and A.B.C. circuits.
The alternative open to a film-maker who has made a film of this sort is depressing in the extreme. There is no alternative

393
circuit. At the moment there is no circuit even of a minute size on which he can show his film, and a fair number of showings is necessary if he is to have the slightest chance of making his money back on a film. What he can do is to negotiate with individual cinemas or a distributor can do this on his behalf. To noble Lords who live in London the situation may not seem as desperate as I am painting it, because in London there are a number of small cinemas, highly individual and enterprising cinemas, which show not only foreign films but also what are called "off-beat" English films. But there are very few others in the country, even in the large cities of the British Isles.
Therefore, the film-maker is faced with the alternatives of trying to make a film for the circuit which he knows will be acceptable or a film on which he takes a chance. He faces the distinction between film-making on a commercial scale and film-making almost on an amateur scale. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has so eloquently shown, the small-budget film, the adventurous film, the film of ideas, is squeezed out of existence, not so much, I think, by the demon power of the great moguls who will not look at it, but rather by the absence of anything else which will encourage it. It is for this reason that l give this Grade-Rive organisation such a welcome, for at least it is the beginning of a circuit on a small scale which will help to encourage filmmakers in this direction.
I had not intended to go so deeply into the problems of the industry as such, but had intended rather to take another tack. I say "industry" because, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, so cogently pointed out, the "ballyhoo" which surrounds us gives little possibility of considering the industry as an art. As he rightly pointed out, the industry depends on the artist, as the artist depends on the industry. The film industry is in a special and peculiar state in comparison with other arts. It has almost no background, no history—by which, I mean that its history is never, or rarely, visible.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, referred to Chaplin and Buster Keaton and to the classics of the past. I think that every art depends upon its classics to a certain extent. Certainly film-makers do, and if audiences are to become more excited and more interested in films, this must depend
394
on the background and the classic history of the cinema. If we take music, people who want to hear the symphonies of Beethoven or the concertos of Mozart are liberally supplied. There are libraries and bookshops throughout the land. There are art galleries in every big provincial city; and nowadays there are even books which are miniature art galleries in themselves. Classics of the drama, not only of the past but also of the present, may be seen in London and also in provincial theatres all over the country.
In the cinema, what do we find? There are few cinemas which specialise in reviving old films, with one notable exception, to which I will refer in a moment. If anyone wants to see a particular old film, the chances that he may find it at a revival cinema are infinitely small, not because the films provided are the wrong kind, but because there is such an immense number of films. Old films can be seen, but their showing is entirely haphazard, and anybody who wishes to find a particular film faces an almost insuperable problem, except in one particular place—that is, the National Film Theatre in London. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, made a point about the future of the British Film Institute, because the National Film Theatre is run by the B.F.I., and run, I think, admirably. Its programmes are immensely popular and varied. It provides numerous cycles of classic films which everybody would like to see, and also programmes of recent films, gathered together in groups, so that comparison may be made, both with the past and with current film-making.
It is on comparison that standards are based. If we want a standard of filmmaking and of film appreciation in this country, then we must look to the standards of film-makers and of audiences. We cannot have these standards without a sense of comparison. Increasing knowledge and increasing capacity to compare critically are the only ways in which standards of films can be maintained and increased. The National Film Theatre caters for this need admirably, but it is alone in this country in doing this on a permanent basis. I am not ignoring the admirable work of the film societies, which show films in great variety in numerous parts of the country. But

395
this is essentially a private, a club, membership that does it of its own accord.
It was noticeable, I thought, in the Government's first White Paper on the Arts, and indeed in the Arts Council's recent Report for the year, that an immense emphasis should be placed on the Provinces and the part they will play in artistic development. In the world of the theatre and of music, the prospects for the Provinces are more and more exciting and encouraging every day. The British Film Institute has undertaken a survey of the Provinces to see what interest there would be in starting in the Provinces similar theatres to the National Film Theatre. The results were extremely encouraging, and there are already plans under way in some large cities for the construction of cinemas like the National Film Theatre, with a permanent repertory of films of classic or historic interest. In other places cinemas will be added to existing buildings, or film programmes tailored into an artistic programme for a week, or perhaps a month. This is something which I feel we must encourage, and in particular I would urge the Government to provide the British Film Institute—which I hope they will agree amounts almost to the film section of the Arts Council—with enough funds to encourage this regional development.
The regions themselves will do much. I am told by those who undertook this survey that the reluctance which is often spoken of by many local authorities to spend anything like the sixpenny rate which they are allowed upon entertainment in the arts was not so noticeable as they had feared. There was a lot of excitement among local authorities; and it is from local authorities and local sources that the majority of this building must come. However, a certain amount of capital will be needed to be administered by the British Film Institute for this purpose.
I have one further point about the efforts of the British Film Institute in this direction. It has now acquired and built up a large archive of old films—indeed, of films of all ages—and it is largely due to the generosity of a great many film-making companies that these prints are available. Unfortunately, the
396
Institute has scarcely enough money to take copies of these and make them available for showing. If funds are not available for this purpose, we shall have a frozen archive, a kind of national museum whose doors are never opened; because films can be widely distributed only by making copies, and this is an expensive business.
On both those grounds I would urge the Government to treat with the most sympathetic consideration the British Film Institute's needs in this direction, because this is something which will affect both the public and the film-makers. And I hope that this will work for better standards in the film industry. It has been suggested that the sort of programme that I have been describing—that is to say, starting out of the National Film Theatre and the film societies—and the thought of the Grade-Rive circuit, can in some way provide a hope for the independent and, perhaps, the young British film-maker. Whether together in a commercial sense, or together and separately, I should not like to say, because I have no knowledge of how these things may turn out. But in both ways I believe that there is here a hope for the future, and it is one that I trust the Government will strongly encourage.

HOME DEFENCE
4.4 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement on the home defence review which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made in another place to-day. I will use his own words:
"I am now able to state in general terms the outcome of the Government's review of Home Defence. We have concluded that, despite the reduction in the risk of a nuclear conflict, we cannot discontinue Civil Defence preparations. There is always the possibility of war arising from misunderstanding or miscalculation; and we cannot be certain about the future spread of nuclear weapons.
"Our studies confirm that, in the event—fortunately, unlikely—of a

397
nuclear conflict, sensible civil defence preparations could do much to save lives, to relieve suffering and to help the nation to survive as an organised entity. But there is a limit to what we can afford by way of insurance against this risk.
"We have accordingly decided to restrict our preparations to those that would be likely to make a significant contribution to national survival. As a consequence, it should be possible to achieve appreciable savings. We estimate that expenditure in 1966–67 will amount to £19·7 million as against£22·7 million in 1965–66, and £24·1 million in 1964–65.
"Further consultations with the local authorities and others concerned are required before we can settle the detailed application of our general conclusion. The Secretary of State for Scotland and I are undertaking these consultations forthwith. They will cover, in particular, the functions and size of the Civil Defence Corps, to see how with substantially reduced numbers the Corps might best be organised to carry out essential tasks. Concentration of the available resources on a highly-trained nucleus of volunteers seems the right approach. Subsequently we shall consult representatives of industry on the implications for the Industrial Civil Defence Service. We shall also be consulting the local authority associations on proposals for shelter and dispersal.
"We are adjusting the emergency system of control to provide more flexibility and a greater measure of decentralisation at the regional level. We shall maintain and continue to improve the efficiency of the Warning and Monitoring Organisation, including the Royal Observer Corps. We shall support the emergency preparations of the police and fire services (including the Auxiliary Fire Service) and the National Hospital Service Reserve. Some adjustments will be made to plans for stockpiling and the due functioning of essential utilities and services, including broadcasting.
"We have also decided to establish a military Home Defence Force on which my honourable friend the Minister of Defence for the Army will be
398
giving the House further information later this afternoon. This Force would provide the police with valuable support in the maintenance of law and order in an emergency."
My noble friend Lord Shackleton will bring to your Lordships' notice particulars of the Home Defence Force.
4.8 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. I do not wish to sound unduly ungenerous, but it strikes me as very much "the mixture a5 before", albeit a bit watered down. After all we have heard about a comprehensive review of Civil Defence, and given the very long time which has elapsed while that review has been in progress, I should be less than frank in not saying that this Statement comes as rather an anti-climax. I should have thought that this fairly small mouse hardly justified the great mountain of uncertainty which the Government themselves have created among those responsible for Civil Defence throughout this country. But there is a lot in the Statement. I hope the noble Lord will be able to agree with me that there would be advantage in our debating this Statement, and, indeed, the succeeding one, at a fairly early date. Could he give me any assurance to that effect?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, as the noble Earl will be well aware, the question of a debate is not a matter for me, but if there were discussions through the usual channels I can assure him that I should be glad to enlarge on what it is now impossible to say. The only other thing I would add in view of what he has said, is that the Government attach great importance to this question, and I make no apology for the length of the review. We believe that we have now arrived at the right decision, and cannot agree that the saving of millions of pounds is insignificant.
LORD SAYE AND SELE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for this Statement, which will give the greatest joy, at first at any rate, to those who work for Civil Defence throughout the country, especially locally, and who have been waiting for a Statement for goodness knows how long; and passing over the platitudes which appear at intervals, of

399
course, throughout a Statement like this, we come to one or two points which are necessary to carry it forward. The platitudes are, for instance, the fact that sensible Civil Defence might save much life. That is fairly obvious to most people who think. Then we are told that:
"Further consultations with local authorities and others concerned are required before we can settle…".
For goodness sake! my Lords, let us have that "before" fairly soon. For how many years I do not know, the Civil Defence have been waiting for some sort of Statement telling them what they are to do and when they are to do it, and how they are to pay for it, the latter being particularly difficult.
Being a Scotsman I am glad to see that the Secretary of State for Scotland is to have consultations forthwith. A very interesting conjunction is the "forthwith" with the "immediate", or whatever word was used. Then there appear the words:
"the functions and the size of the Civil Defence Corps, to see how with substantially reduced numbers…".
To reduce substantially the numbers would be rather difficult in the case of wardens, at any rate; because, practically speaking, they do not exist. So I shall be glad to hear how the Government manage to reduce the number of wardens. Then we find reference to:
"concentration of the available resources on a highly trained nucleus of volunteers".
A highly trained nucleus of volunteers takes quite a lot of training. We are told by the Government:
"Subsequently"—
and note that word, my Lords, because that is another word which helps to put things off—
"we shall consult representatives of industry on the implications for the Industrial Civil Defence Service".
That has always been a question that has worried me, because, so far as I know, at any rate in my county, it has not been tied up in any proper kind of way with the local Civil Defence.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene but the noble Lord seems to be debating the Statement. Usually in the case of a Statement it is possible to preface a few questions with a few explanatory remarks, but I feel
400
that in this case the noble Lord is going a little too far.
LORD SAYE AND SELE: My Lords, the statements are there and I shall be glad to have any answers to them that I can obtain. But, except for that, I shall be quite happy to have made them.
The Warning and Monitoring Organisation is, I think, as satisfactory as any part of the Organisation has been so far. The Government say:
"We have also decided to establish a military Home Defence Force on which…the Minister of Defence for the Army will be"—
making a Statement. My Lords, with those few remarks I am glad to welcome the Statement.
4.15 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful for the interest shown by the noble Lord, but I am bound to say that he did not contribute anything to the sense of urgency which he wants. I welcome the implied tribute which he paid to the members of the Civil Defence Corps. It is a tribute in which I join, and I express the hope that all of them will continue with the job which they are now doing.
With regard to consultations with local authorities, the noble Lord will be aware that this review had to take effect at Government level, because it was a question of an internal review of Government policy. We could not at that stage consult local authorities, but we are now going to do so on those matters which come within the local authority field, and we shall conduct those discussions with a sense of urgency. The noble Lord said that we have been waiting for years. The last Civil Defence review was in 1962. The results of that review have been implemented over the last three years, and the changes then decided upon have been carried out; but these things cannot remain static. Requirements change, and it is absolutely necessary to review the position periodically. I do not agree with the noble Lord that the wardens do not exist. He must be in a peculiar part of the country. We have not as many wardens as we should like, or as we should need in an emergency, but we have a strong and extremely useful force of wardens.
With regard to the noble Lord's comments on the highly trained nucleus of

401
volunteers, that is precisely what is in the Civil Defence Corps now. Out of a grand total of 210,700 in the Civil Defence Corps, including non-active reserves, only 60,900 are Class A volunteers who have taken a three-year period of training and will go on to advanced training, and that is the sort of thing we have in mind when we speak of a "highly trained nucleus". Certainly we must consult representatives of industry on the implications for Civil Defence. Industrial Civil Defence is 129,000 strong. We shall start those discussions immediately. The Warning and Monitoring system is to continue virtually unchanged, except for certain matters which we believe can be improved.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I ask for enlightenment on one point? The noble Lord paid a tribute to the members of the Civil Defence Corps which I am sure we shall all wish to echo, and he went on to express the hope that they would all continue in their jobs. Does this mean that the Government are not proposing substantially to reduce the numbers of the Corps?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I did differentiate in the total overall numbers between certain classes of volunteers, and I mentioned, in effect, that at present some 66,500 are on reserve. This is one of many matters which we shall discuss with the local authorities, in order to determine the way in which the functions will be carried out and the numbers needed. But we do not see any reason at present for either any substantial withdrawals or dismissals from the Civil Defence Corps. I said earlier—and I mean it—that I hoped that all those doing such a wonderful job would carry on doing it.

ARMY RESERVES REORGANISATION
4.20 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to intervene to repeat a statement which is being made by my honourable friend, the Minister of Defence for the Army, in another place on the Reorganisation of the Army Reserves. The Statement is as follows:
402
"In accordance with paragraph 4 of the White Paper on the Reorganisation of the Army Reserves the Government have now completed their examination of the contribution that military units might best make to Home Defence in the event of actual or apprehended nuclear attack on the United Kingdom.
"To supplement the substantial numbers of Regulars and Reserve Forces likely to be in the United Kingdom at the time, we have decided"—
as my noble friend Lord Stonham has told the House—
"to establish a Home Defence Force. This will be a military force, based on existing Territorial Army units and forming a self-contained part of the Army Volunteer Reserve, organised separately from the independent and sponsored units described in the White Paper. It will be under military command, but its primary rôle will be to assist the police in the maintenance of law and order and to act generally in support of the civil authorities in the event of a general war. It will therefore be closely linked with Civil Defence and will be widely spread throughout the United Kingdom.
"The force will have an establishment of about 28,000 men with a peace-time recruiting ceiling of 22,500, representing 80 per cent. of the establishment. It will consist of lightly armed infantry type units with training and limited scales of equipment appropriate to their primary role. The annual cost of the Force should not exceed £3 million.
"Subject to the necessary legislative authority, members of the Force will have the same liability for call-out as the Territorial Army have now, except that they will be liable for home service only and that call-out by Queen's Order will be substituted for the existing Proclamation procedure.
"Discussions are now taking place between the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office and the Council of Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations on the implementation of this decision. The title of the new Force will be one of the subjects to be covered by these discussions."
4.23 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord in his turn for repeating this Statement. I would say straightaway that I am glad the Government have seer, the light on this matter, at least partially and albeit at a very late hour, but I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I add that all the credit for this complete somersault on the Government's part is not entirely due to the Government. I think that those who have raised this matter in another place and, indeed, in your Lordships' House, from all Benches, not least my noble friend Lord Thurlow and the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, have also earned a good deal of gratitude for ventilating this matter so thoroughly.
May I ask the noble Lord two questions? I noted what he said about the rôle of this Force, the primary rôle being in the event of a general war. I hope he will agree with me that there may well be many eventualities short of general or nuclear war in which a Home Defence Force of this sort will be useful, and can assure us that the tasks of this force will not be too narrowly drawn. I hope that at all events members of it will be soldiers in every sense of the word. Secondly, I noted what he said about this force being a self-contained part of the A.V.R. Am I right in assuming that it will be an organic part of the A.V.R. and that, at least for the purposes of administration and recruitment, there will be a very close link between the A.V.R., as announced in the recent White Paper, and the Home Defence Force?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Earl prefaced his earlier remarks to my noble friend, Lord Stonham, by saying that he hoped he would not be thought to be ungenerous. I think he has been a little ungenerous. The Government are not particularly claiming the credit alone for coming to the right decision. I should have thought this was a good example of the working of democracy. The Government put their proposals forward, they are debated, and, as I told the noble Earl in this House, we have listened carefully to what was said there were discussions, and there were a number of members of the Government who also wished this particular form of solution. I would pay credit to the
404
noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. I would not say it is wholly the Thurlow Plan, because others thought of it, too, but he made some useful proposals and this approximates fairly closely to them.
I do not agree with the noble Earl in hoping that there will be many eventualities in which this force will be used, but I would certainly agree with him that whereas its specific role—and this is the justification—is the Civil Defence one, we are all glad there will be a continuing force of this kind against eventualities which cannot be foreseen. I would stress that these men will be soldiers, and they will, I hope, carry on the Territorial Army traditions.
On the particularly interesting point whether it will be a self-contained force or an organic part of the other main Emergency Volunteer Reserve, the answer is that, for a number of reasons which perhaps we have not time to go into now, it will be separate; it will not only be another tier but it will be on a different level. But we look forward—and this will depend to some extent on further discussions with the Territorial Army Council—to very close co-operation. In this we hope that the Territorial Army Council and the Associations will help to provide some of the link that will come anyway from the fact that in some areas they will use the same drill halls.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I welcome the Statement from these Benches. I was one of those who was desperately afraid the Territorial Army would disappear, which I think would have been quite disastrous, and I am glad a solution on general terms has now been accepted by the Government, although we shall want some details. Apart from those who have struggled for this in Parliament, I think we ought to give a word of thanks to the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, and the Council of the Territorial Army Associations, all of whom have worked particularly hard behind the scenes on this plan.
There are two questions I should like to ask, both of which I regard as extremely important. The first is this: will the Territorial Army units still be linked with the Regular infantry county regiments? This link, as your Lordships know, has proved extremely valuable in

405
days gone by, both to the Territorial Army and to the Regular Army. The second question is as to the Territorial Army drill halls. Is it proposed to retain the existing drill halls or to take a few away, or to add to them? We should like to know something, if possible, about the future of the Territorial Army drill halls.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: My Lords, I should like, if I may, for one or two moments, to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for the Statement he has made and to say how grateful I am to Her Majesty's Government for realising at this somewhat late hour the importance of carrying on the future of the Territorial Army. There was one matter which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, remarked on which gave me a certain amount of alarm, and as he has made the point I am not going to stress it. But in reading the Statement, when you read "self-contained" and "organised separately" you must please realise that it is absolutely essential that there shall be a link, some form of integration, because otherwise you will not get the volunteers; and as the years go on the volunteers for this new Force can be a very great help to the recruiting of the A.V.R. I only draw your Lordships' attention to that point at this moment.
I fully appreciate that in these discussions a responsibility is being put on the shoulders of my Council, and I will give an undertaking that we will do our best to make this new Force a workable one in every sense of the word. I will if I may, record my appreciation for the constant courtesy that has been extended to me on my many visits to the Ministry of Defence by the Ministers holding responsibility in that Department. I would finally remind your Lordships that we have now, after six long and weary months, come to a solution. The details will have to be worked out; but if, after all this discussion, worry, depression and uncertainty, the spirit of the volunteers is still there, then let it be known at once that if they decide to join this new force they will be serving their country as soldiers of the Queen.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend and the Minister for having so seriously con-
406
sidered the views that were expressed in this House and in many places elsewhere? At this immediate stage, may I put two short questions to him? First, will a fairly large number of the units that were threatened now be given a new lease of life? Secondly, will the word "Territorial" be embodied in the title of the new force?
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, may I congratulate the Government on this wise decision, and say how delighted I am that the structure of the Reserve Army is to be preserved? We shall have opportunities of looking at the details when they are worked out, and I hope have a debate. I have just two questions. Can the Minister tell me whether the same assistance to the Cadets will be forthcoming from the new force? Will the T.A.W.R.A.C., for which I put in a word in my Motion in November, also be found a job?
4.32 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I will deal as quickly as I can with the various questions, and will, if I may, reserve to the end my reply to the noble Duke. First of all, one of the advantages of this proposed new force is that it will be able to give the most valuable help to the various cadets and cadet corps, and, of course, it will make available a much larger number of drill halls. To deal with that particular point of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, may I say that the number has to be worked out in detail, but undoubtedly a great number of drill halls will now be required, and of course will be required in parts of the country where the Army Volunteer Reserve, as we had previously announced, would not have been operating at all. Not the least advantage of this plan is that it will provide a national spread, particularly into such sparsely populated areas as Scotland. I am afraid I cannot answer the question in regard to the way in which women will be engaged in this particular service. I do not myself see them functioning in such a way as the armed infantry, but it may well be that there will be opportunities for service.
LORD THURLOW: On the clerical side?
LORD SHACKLETON: Yes. I do not think there will be a great deal of

407
clerical side in this organisation, but perhaps that is one of the matters that we can look at further. I fully take Lord Thurlow's point.
My noble friend Lord Leatherland asked me two questions: first, as to how many units there will be; and then, how far they would relate to existing Territorial units. There will in fact be 80 battalions of three companies of 100 men. I should have thought there was a good prospect that the great majority of those names that are now part of our history in the Territorial Army would continue to be attached to these new units. Of course, the name is a matter on which the Government will be interested to have advice—whether it should continue to be called the "Territorial Army", or whether it should be called the "Territorial Guard", or some such name. This is a matter on which we certainly should like the advice of the Territorial Army Council. In this connection I turn to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for which I am most grateful, regarding the linking with the Regular county regiments. I hope this will continue, but it is a matter which we may need to go into further, if and when we have a debate, and it seems a suitable subject for a debate in due course.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, for whose help we are most grateful, made a characteristically courteous statement. I greatly appreciate his reference to the way in which he has been received by my colleague who has been Minister for the Army. I would pay a tribute particularly to the present Minister for the Army who, like his predecessor, has been deeply interested and concerned, as any Service Minister properly should be, for the traditions of the Service for which he is responsible. On the question of whether or not these are self-contained units, I am not sure that the phrase "self-contained" is in fact a revealing one. It is intended to make clear that they are distinguishable and will have a different command structure from the rest of the Army Volunteer Reserve. But I would entirely agree that it is extremely important that there should be a close link, and in this we shall, of course, look to the Territorial Army Council and to the Associations for
408
advice and help in providing this link. It may well be, if the Territorial Army Associations will agree, that they will continue to provide some of those services, particularly in the matter of recruiting and other fields, that they have in the past provided to the Territorial Army.
The undertaking which the noble Duke gave was one which we would certainly expect from him, and I am grateful to the House for giving this plan a fair wind. I do not think this has arrived at too late an hour. "Too late an hour" rather implies that something was about to collapse overnight. I am happy to say that there are no serious signs of that happening at the moment to the Territorial Army. I think the decision has been taken in good time. When one is having to take these difficult, and sometimes agonising, decisions it is right that the considerations should be drawn out, if one is to get at the right answer; and on this occasion I think we have. I am sure that the spirit that has motivated our Volunteer and Territorial soldiers in the past will continue to motivate them in the future, and that there will be a role which, even if, as I hope, they are never called upon to discharge it in war, will still continue to be of value in the society in which we live.

THE FILM INDUSTRY
4.38 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I hope it will not seem to the House to be an anti-climax to come from the matters which have been under consideration back to the problems of the film industry: the contrast may seem to be somewhat dramatic. As it is now a number of years since I spoke in your Lordships' House on the problems of the film industry, I suppose that I had better again declare my interest. I am the Chairman of the Federation of British Film Makers. But I should like to make it quite clear that this afternoon I do not speak for the Federation: on this occasion I speak entirely for myself.
I have been for something over fifty years in the cinema and film industry, in all its different ramifications—exhibition, distribution, production and so on; and I

409
think I may say straight away that the main thing that I have learned over these fifty and more years is not to be dogmatic about the solution of the problems of the film industry. The only thing on which I would be dogmatic is that the industry has great problems facing it at the present time. We have been fortunate this afternoon that the speeches we have heard have, in the main, been free from dogmatic statements; and we have been particularly fortunate in having two notable speeches, a maiden speech from Lord Moynihan and a characteristically interesting speech from my noble friend Lord Birkett.
With all due respect to my noble friend Lord Willis, I feel that to some extent this debate is premature. The main problems of the industry are at present under consideration by the Monopolies Commission, and until we have their Report we are rather in the position of doing Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. There may be a doubt as to whether the industry is, in fact, facing problems, and I was particularly disturbed some months ago when I saw a reported statement by the Minister of State at the Board of Trade.
He was reported as saying that he found the film industry "generally speaking, happy", and said that there was no need for Government intervention. I find it difficult to understand how anybody could say seriously that the film industry is happy, when cinema attendances continue to fall, week by week, when the number of cinemas in existence continues to fall, month by month—although not perhaps at as great a rate as occurred a year or so ago—and also when one notes that the majority of British films fail to recover their costs of production. I would simply mention that the latest figures I have seen, which cover the ten months from January to October, 1965, show that cinema attendances fell by 20 million. How, in such circumstances, anybody can say that the industry is generally happy is beyond my understanding.
There have been many references this afternoon to the matter of American investment in British film production, and the last Annual Report of the National Film Finance Corporation contained a number of references to this point. The N.F.F.C. said that although they welcomed, within limits, this growing involvement, the financing of British films
410
by the United States distributors, it allowed to expand unchecked, would represent a threat to the continuance of a truly British film production industry. My Lords, I join issue with that view. I do not want to see American investment in British film production checked or discouraged. We should be pleased that Britain is becoming increasingly established as an international film production centre, and we should welcome finance, whether it is from America, France, Germany, or wherever it may be, for the production of films here.
My criticism is not as to the amount of foreign investment in British film production. My criticism is as to the lack of an adequate amount of British investment in native film production. We tend to get rather off the mark when we refer generally to American investment in British films, instead of emphasising the lack of British investment in films. When we say that we should like to see more British finance in British film-making it is obvious—I think every producer would agree—that the more sources of finance available to our producers, the better his position will be. That links up with the very important question of the extremely limited resources of the National Film Finance Corporation.
At the time of their last Annual Report, in March of last year, the Corporation's uncommitted resources amounted to something under £1½ million, and I suppose that to-day their uncommitted resources are of the order of £1 million or thereabouts. Having regard to the high cost of film production to-day, the whole of that amount could be used up in the financing of one British film, which makes it obvious just how inadequate their resources are. However long we may have to wait for the Report of the Monopolies Commission, and the development of a main general programme in regard to the future of the British film industry, I hope that we shall at least have an interim measure for the continuance of the National Film Finance Corporation, even if it is only on a temporary basis. I hope that it will be accompanied by the provision of much more generous capital resources for that Corporation.
As I have been referring to the National Film Finance Corporation, I would say, in passing, how much I deplore

411
their rather slighting references, in paragraph 20, page 6, of the last Annual Report, to independent producers. I am rather surprised that a spokesman for the independent producers has not already referred to this point, for I feel that it is not the kind of statement which should appear in the Report of what is in fact a Government corporation. That paragraph says:
"There are however some producers whose talent, imagination and skill have proved inadequate to meet the demanding and not easily predictable tastes of cinema audiences, and for this reason have failed to commend themselves to sources of finance. They may call themselves independent but in their cases this epithet amounts to little more than a euphemism for unsuccessful. It certainly does not entitle them to receive from the public purse funds which they have failed to raise elsewhere."
I suggest that to your Lordships that that is a much too sweeping phrase. It seems to put far too large a number of independent producers under this blanket epithet of being "unsuccessful", when in fact these producers are the victims of a monopolistic situation from which they cannot free themselves.
I wish to refer to one other matter which was largely implicit in the good speech of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. He referred to the opportunities for young talent to get a start; and he mentioned people like John Slesinger and others. But I think he failed to emphasise the fact that they got their start in the production of short films. And here I would refer to the situation of that side of the industry which is concerned with the making of short films. Over the last twelve or fifteen years the number of short films registered with the Board of Trade for theatrical distribution has run between 200 and 300 a year. At first glance that would appear to be a very satisfactory situation, but when it is subjected to analysis it is by no means as satisfactory as it looks.
When the Film Production Fund was set up, it was agreed that short films should receive a higher proportion of the levy when it was distributed. To be as untechnical as possible, may I put it in this way? If in the normal way a film had receipts of £100, and the production levy was being distributed at 40 per cent., that film would get £40. But in the case
412
of a short film there is a 2½ multiplier, so that if a short film gets £100 it will get £100 from the Production Fund instead of £40. The idea was an excellent one and this 2½ multiplier was intended to encourage the production of films. As I have said, short films are probably the best training ground for new talent—writers, producers, directors, cameramen and so on.
But what in fact has happened? The hulk of the short films being shown in this country in the cinemas to-day are the films produced by the two great monopolies—Rank and A.B.C. Rank has its series"Look at Life" with 52 issues, one every week, which pretty well satisfies its requirements. A.B.C. have the Pathe Pictorial with 52 issues a year, which fairly well satisfies their requirements. In a number of cases they have cinemas which change the programme twice a week, so they need more, and if you make an analysis you find that the extra number needed are supplied by the few other short films distributed by Rank and by Warner-Pathe, on behalf of A.B.C. So that this excellent idea of the 2½ multiplier to aid the short film producers, to provide a training ground for the new talent, has in fact been channelled into another way of adding to the power and the strength of the two monopolies, which are now under consideration by the Monopolies Commission.
I hope, therefore, that when the future of the Film Finance Corporation and the future of the production levy, or the Eady Fund, are being considered, consideration will be given to the redistribution of the Production Fund, and that some attention will be paid to the methods, which are in use in other countries, of what may be generally called "merit awards", not only as in Sweden, but as in Germany and other countries.
I think a suggestion came from the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, about a "Little Neddy" for the film industry. I think that what is much more necessary than an investigation by the Monopolies Commission of a certain part of the industry, is an investigation, by something in the nature of a Select Committee or Royal Commission, of the whole scope and future of the British film industry. I think that it is an industry

413
of tremendous importance. It is at present, and has been for some time, a considerable earner of overseas revenues. It is of great importance as a cultural instrument. I dislike using the phrase "Showing the British way of life"—
LORD RHODES: Why?
LORD ARCHIBALD: Because it is a very crude phrase, which can be misused in so many ways. But taking the basic idea of the phrase, I accept it and say that the British film is an important contributor in this field. But it could be much more important than it is to-day, it could be greatly expanded, and I hope that the Government will consider the possibility of some form of Commission of Inquiry into the present state of the industry, the possibilities of expansion of the industry and, in fact, its great potentiality for the future.
4.55 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, first it gives me great pleasure to be the first speaker from these Benches to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on his very forceful and interesting maiden speech. I have an especial pleasure in doing so, because his father was almost a neighbour of mine in Ashtead in Surrey where I live, and I know the great work which he did in the community, particularly for local hospitals. He was a very fine public servant, and I am sure that we all hope that his successor will address the House in his forthright and interesting tones on many occasions in the future.
This debate recalls to my mind my maiden speech, which I made on the subject of the cinema industry, in 1958. I have been reading through the report of that debate, and much of what was said then is, I think, applicable now. It was then the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who moved in his customary convincing and sincere tones the subject of the Motion. To-day it has been the noble Lord, Lord Willis, with his vast experience of the entertainment industry in many forms, who has given us such an interesting opening speech. I recall having seen on more than one occasion the film The Blue Lamp, with which his name is so unforgettably linked.
We do not have the entertainment tax now, except, I believe, for Sunday performances, but the price of admission to
414
our cinemas has increased, although I do not really think that that has affected the consumer too much. I made reference eight years ago, as did other noble Lords, to the effect of television on the cinema industry. At that time, when television was rather more in its infancy than now, I think that the cinema was rather a clinging octopus to a number of people. But now I believe it is less so, and the cinema will attract more patrons if it can produce worthwhile goods.
Most noble Lords who have taken part in this debate are themselves professionally connected in one way or another with the cinema industry. I am not; I speak only as a consumer. But seventeen years in the insurance business have taught me what very big figures are often paid out in terms of claims when actors and actresses are ill or injured and when production schedules are held up. I make no complaint about that, because the insurance business has its part to play just as the film industry itself has.
I was one of a number of noble Lords who were fortunate enough to pay an official visit recently to the Pinewood Studios in Buckinghamshire. It was a revealing experience to those of us who had had little insight into the cinema industry except through the local Odeon or Gaumont cinema. We saw a great deal of what went on—at least four films were being made—and we talked to a number of those taking part. It had always been a thought of mine that there were too many surplus people on a film set; that there were too many people running around in sweaters and trousers, and other forms of garb; but it took only a short time for me to realise that on a film set each person has his or her part to play. It must obviously be very tedious for some of those taking part to have the same shot filmed time and time again. But when it reaches the screen, even though one might see only a fraction of what one saw in the studio, it usually bears some quite creditable resemblance.
Reference has been made to the high fees paid to film stars, and I would agree to some extent. But it is also true to say that a teenage "pop" singer, singing for only forty minutes at the London Palladium, can himself or herself gather up in proportion an equally high fee. And a film star may have to get up very

415
early in the morning and travel some disstance in all kinds of weather to reach the studio, and, if he or she is also a television actor or appears in the theatre, may have to get back to the theatre or the television studio in the evening. That is their way of life. I am not trying to be a sympathetic spokesman on their part, but I think this does reveal one aspect of the problems which the film industry has to face, and possibly of why such high fees have to be paid—although I must say that, in some cases, when one reads of the fees that some of the better-known stars get and in fact demand (and, if you do not pay that fee, they will not come at all) it sometimes reads fantastically when one bears in mind some of the salaries that those in our social services get.
The other problem, as I see it, with regard to finance is the fact that more and more films are now shot on location. There is a public demand for spectacular films, and, quite clearly, if one goes out to Spain or to Africa the results can be far more realistic. Recently, I saw the British film The Hill, a very brutal but convincing film about an army prison during the last war. I read that the whole cast, and all those taking part in the production, moved out to a lonely desert in Spain where, under a broiling sun, they worked solidly for three months making that film. There were none of the comforts of the studio: those taking part were really put through it, almost as if they had been in the prison themselves. That may well have added to the cost of the film, but whether one liked the film or not, the fact is that a more realistic picture was made, and I regard this as a great credit to our film industry.
I think that for the future we have to face the fact that the general public like spectacular films. They do not necessarily like the sex-ridden dramas and comedies, so called, which come across our television screen all too often, but they like good, honest comedies. The Norman Wisdom type film will, I think, always be a success, whatever the critics say; and, getting back to the spectacular film, they like the Lawrence of Arabia type of film—which, of course, had its difficulties and was very costly.
There is also the documentary film. Reference has been made to Look at
416
Life. This, I think, is one of the best series of documentary films, because the subject is chosen, they are all very short films—they last ten minutes each—and they present their subject very carefully and very fully within that short period of time. A much wider showing of these films would, I think, be very much desired by the public. The fact that they are made by the Rank Organisation may well mean that only cinemas within that orbit can show them, but all credit to the cinemas concerned.
Then, reference has also been made to the old films. Of course, television has bought up a number of old films, which one can see on a Saturday or a Sunday; but, as the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, so rightly said, in a most interesting speech, the old films do have a great interest for the young—films like Rembrandt, and a lot of films of the 1930s. I feel quite certain that if the Rank and A.B.C. circuits in the provinces were to show these films from time to time, and not merely leave it to the Classic group of cinemas, they would reap quite a sound dividend from it, because these are films which really do have a lot more realism than some of the films made to-day.
Finally, I should like to make just this point. Whatever the problems of the film industry—and only those closely connected with it, whether actors, producers or distributors, can really know them—in the last analysis there is one group of people upon whom will depend the survival of the film industry and any entertainment industry, and that is the general public. I would hope that our film industry in this country, which has such an outstanding record over the years, will always bear that in mind.
5.10 p.m.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, I am very much in the same position as my noble friend. I also made my maiden speech in this House on this subject—I am ashamed to say slightly further back than his maiden speech. But possibly I have one other small qualification: that for a short time I actually worked in the industry itself. However, I am not in the position of having to declare an interest, because I left it about nine years ago. At the time I made my maiden speech I remember Lord Lucas of Chilworth and Lord Archibald as the experts on the industry. But from what

417
we have heard to-day, the professionals (if I may use the term) are now with us; and a very good thing it is! This is a highly complicated industry and it is often very difficult to know from what angle to approach the subject. When I have spoken in the past on the film industry I have approached it from the point of view of the independent producers, but to-day I am going to approach it from the other side, from the viewpoint of major companies.
Since the war, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, stated, the industry has, naturally, gone through enormous changes and. I think, it has been faced with four main problems. The first, is the decline in cinema attendances, with the consequent cinema closures; second is the shortage of good entertainment films; third is the steady rise in costs, which we have heard discussed from all sides this afternoon; and, fourth, the difficulty of raising capital for film production. We have heard figures given over the question of attendances, but the figures I have just been given (and I shall quote only a few) by the experts are that attendances have fallen from 1,600 million in 1946 to 370 million in 1964. So far as closures are concerned, in 1946 there were 4,000 cinemas; there are now only 2,000; and, of these, the Rank Organisation operate 350.
As we have heard to-day, the cost of film production has gone up and up steadily. I understand that whereas about sixteen years ago the cost of a feature film was possibly in the region of £400,000, it may now be £700,000-plus. This produces vast problems from the business angle of the industry. Let us look at that from the point of view of an organisation like the Rank Organisation. It has its own production programme at Pinewood Studios; it finances the productions of independent producers; it co-produces with American companies; and also makes additional funds available to independent producers under arrangements with the N.F.F.C. and the National Provincial Bank. It also operates a world-wide distribution system. In 1964, 94 British films were released in more than 50 countries. It also carries out major reconstruction programmes on cinemas itself, and the Rank Organisation's payments to the British Film Production Fund amount to £1½ million every year.
418
I have the deepest sympathy with all that has been said from the independent producer's point of view. I remember dealing with this problem in my opening speech in this House, and I then went into the question of the possibility of the formation of a fund for script-writers, so that they might continuously be able to carry on writing scripts for films. It had been put to me then that writers possibly had the chance of writing one or two scripts but that then, for months on end, they might not be writing anything. I do not think that a very great deal has happened in connection with that problem, but I suppose it is fair to say that nowadays script-writers have the opportunity of turning from film to television script-writing.
My Lords, I wish to harp on only one other point for a few moments—and this is a very touchy point, I know. It is the question of the unions within the film industry itself. I suppose it is only fair to say that if ever there was an industry within which it was essential for unions to be formed, it was the film industry. There is no doubt that in the old clays the working conditions and hours were appalling. As your Lordships know there are now very strong and strict unions within the industry; but I think that they, like all unions, might curb themselves in certain ways. Only someone outside the industry, perhaps, can say this. It is going to the extreme, I think, that when these union members go on location there should be "double-banking"; that they should insist, very often, on two sets of people going when one unit would be enough. There are such ridiculous things as the unions' insisting on travelling first-class in aeroplanes. This is not doing the industry itself any good, and one hopes that possibly they may see sense on these points.
In conclusion, I will say that so often people feel that any approach to the film industry is surrounded, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, by a purely glamorous outlook. But anyone who studies the problems in the film industry, especially in this country, in any detail is very soon brought up with rather a nasty jolt to realise that the complexities of the British film industry are enormous, and especially in the market connected with America. I am certain that any

419
future approach of the industry must basically be met on cold, hard facts which, through the very nature of the industry (where temperamental artists and creative directors have to be taken into account) produce really deep problems from all angles and especially for the men who have to keep a permanent balance on costs and return.
5.20 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD RHODES): My Lords, may I first say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, how much we all enjoyed his maiden speech? It was the speech of a man who obviously has met the problems of this industry face to face day by day. Such opinions are always worth listening to, no matter from which quarter of the House they may come. Let me say how indebted we are to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for having brought up this subject and for putting his points with such clarity and distinction, as he always does. My noble friend is very good not only with the written but with the spoken word. I felt that his comments were directed at me when he talked about the tycoon who turned milk-white with fear when confronted with the economics of the film he was making. I nearly did the same when I saw that my noble friend's Motion was getting near to the top of the list. May I also thank those other noble Lords who have spoken. I will try to answer as many of the queries which have been posed as it is possible for me to do.
This has been a first-class and interesting debate, and I can say that with sincerity. I wish to make one or two points before I come to the substantial points which I have to deal with. I would tell the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that to my knowledge there is not at the moment an E.D.C. for this industry, but I think that his suggestion might very well be looked into. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, went a little further than I would have ventured with reference to American dominance. Before the noble Lord corrected the balance of his remarks about the United States, I felt like asking whether he was prepared to take the risk of diverting what there would be of the film levy for distribution if the American interests were withdrawn. But the noble
420
Lord corrected his remarks very well as he went on, and he put the matter on a good basis. I will deal later with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, because a good deal of it rang a bell in my own experience.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, will pardon the interjection which I made when he apologised for putting over the British image. I did not mean it as a brusque kind of intervention it came involuntarily. I believe in the British image. What is the debate all about if we are not putting our backs into an effort to present an image which will (shall I say?) be an advertisement for Britain all over the world? The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, mentioned people at Pinewood running about in sweaters and trousers. I imagine that the noble Lord would have been more surprised had they not had anything on at all. I do not know what the noble Lord would have thought had he been present at the shooting of the now notorious B.B.C.3 film which showed a female in the nude jumping up and down on a trampoline. But the noble Lord was not there. Also, we are obliged to the noble Lord, Lord St. Just, for his contribution.
My Lords, I will take two subjects to start with. One is the monopoly aspect which I thought was beautifully handled by the noble Lord, Lord Willis. He spoke of its impact on the third circuit, and said that he would not say a great deal about it. Neither shall I. It is the fact that the last Government recognised the need for a thorough and impartial investigation into this alleged monopolistic practice. The Monopolies Commission is inquiring into the supply of films for exhibition in cinemas, and your Lordships will not expect me, even if I could, to anticipate the findings of the Commission. We are assured by the Commission that the Report will be prepared as soon as possible, and in a matter of such complexity it would be unreasonable to expect the Commission to announce a firm date for the conclusion of its work. I am hoping that the Report will be available long before the end of the year.
The noble Lord spoke of American dominance, American financed production, and the effect on the British film industry. As everyone has admitted,

421
many popular films have been financed from American sources. The best of them have enhanced the reputations of British producers, directors, actors and technicians. This is a schizophrenic situation and reminds me very much of the Lancashire cotton industry, which I know very well. There are people in that industry who wish to keep out the Commonwealth products and others who want them in because they may be used in a normal course of business. This is the kind of thing we are up against all the time at the Board of Trade.
We all recognise the substantial contribution to the maintenance of the present level of output made by American investment. It gives employment to British technicians and artists. We hear a lot about American dominance and perhaps not enough about American partnership. The noble Lord said that the problem which worries many British film-makers is what would happen if the Americans decided to pull out of production. I agree that there would be an immediate crisis. I am wondering what sort of budget would be required, if the Americans pulled out of the market, to enable the British film industry to cope. It is fantastic to think of it.
What I think the noble Lord had in his mind was that we ought to be preparing to do something about producing for ourselves what we can do well. I appreciate what he said. But I do not think that there will be any sudden withdrawal of American financial interests—for a variety of reasons. They are much taken with the talent of the British actors and technicians they are able to employ. They are as good as any in the world. We have some good studios. We also have a common language—though that can be a double-edged advantage. In my own opinion, we also have the fact that the Americans have now brought to a fine art investment in other countries by means of subsidiaries, so that they can create and produce the kind of market research they need. This has become big business on a gigantic scale and it is taking place throughout every industry. This is one of the problems that face us, as well as the other countries in the world.
I cannot go along with the noble Lord when he says it is virtually impossible for a British film producer to get sup-
422
port to make a film unless he has American backing, and finance. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also mentioned this and gave a graphic instance of a young producer going with his portfolio to Charing Cross Road—I hope he was doing nothing else there but trying to sell his script. There is British money available to support British film production, provided always—and this is the crunch—that a project has a reasonable chance of success. That is how the situation is.
The difficulty is not so much that a British producer with a good project cannot get backing from British money. It is rather, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, that the British producer prefers to take his project to the Americans. There are various reasons for this, not least that the Americans, with their immense home market and ready access to world markets, can hold out far greater hope of financial reward. We cannot blame him for going to the Americans. Moreover, the Americans nowadays often offer to provide 100 per cent. of the money required for the productions which they back. This makes life much easier for the producer, who formerly had to go scraping around in an attempt to raise from various sources the money that he needed. There is nothing unfair in this, if we accept the tenets of commercial practice. This is one of them. Those who control British money must be prepared to offer equally good terms, if they are to attract to themselves these projects and the services of good British producers, especially those whose proven talents are much in demand.
The noble Lord made some interesting comments about the British Film Fund. When I say that the Board of Trade are going to give sympathetic consideration to some of his suggestions, I mean it. He proposed that money from the Fund might be distributed in such a way as to afford special encouragement to the production of low-budget feature films, and that, in addition, some of the money should be used to encourage the development of a circuit of small cinemas specialising in the showing of Continental, some American and British low-budget films. In looking at these interesting suggestions, I think we must keep in mind the nature of the levy arrangements. These have

423
been mentioned this afternoon, but I had better go over them again. The levy was started in 1950 on a voluntary basis. The idea was, and still is, that part of cinema earnings should be used to support British film production. The scheme provides for the transfer within the industry of what may, in a real sense, be called the industry's money. The scheme was made statutory in 1957. Although the regulations under which the scheme operates are made by the Board of Trade, subject to Parliamentary approval, it is still very much an industry scheme, and before making any regulations governing the collection or distribution of the levy the Board are required to consult the Cinematograph Films Council, the statutory body—I stress "statutory body"—on which the various branches of the industry are represented.
The first of the noble Lord's suggestions is that more levy money should be channelled to low-budget feature films, instead of the levy being shared out in proportion to each film's earnings. The producers' associations have been considering the question of varying the basis on which the levy is distributed. They have not so far recommended any change to the Board of Trade, but if and when they do, or any other section of the industry does so, it will be given, as I have indicated, sympathetic and careful study and, of course, the views of the Cinematograph Films Council will be obtained.
The noble Lord's second suggestion, that money from the Film Fund should be used to encourage the development of a circuit of cinemas specialising in films appealing to minority audiences, raises different questions altogether. To do this would entail a large departure from the original aim of the levy. It is always tempting to think that the levy might be used for good causes, and no one grudges the grant which is made to the Children's Film Foundation and which, I may announce, has been increased from £137,500 to £.192,500. I am certain that most Members of the House will be pleased about this. But this is an exception, and it may well be that the use of the levy in the way suggested would not receive unanimous approbation. However, there is no reason whatever why the idea should not be aired, and I am glad the noble Lord has done so.
424
Finally on this subject, in his remarks about the National Film Finance Corporation the noble Lord made the suggestion that part of the Film Fund—he mentioned 5 per cent.—should be paid to the Corporation and earmarked as preproduction money for British producers. I think this suggestion was also made by one of the other speakers. Here, again, is a suggestion on which the Board of Trade would be glad to have the views of the industry. We have not had them. I shall refer later on to the consideration which the Government are giving to the question of the future of the National Film Finance Corporation, in answer to the many queries that have been raised.
I now turn to the question of films legislation. The quota provisions expire at the end of 1967, and the power to collect the levy expires in October of that year. The Government propose to review their films policies in the light of the Monopolies Commission Report. We shall look closely at the relevant legislation and consider how far it is appropriate in present conditions. Of course it would be premature to conduct a review of this kind until we have had the benefit of the outcome of the Monopolies Commission's inquiry; indeed, it would be stupid to do it. So the Government propose to continue for a period existing legislation affecting the quota and the levy, with one or two minor changes. For this purpose, a Continuance Bill will be presented to Parliament this autumn. As the noble Lord mentioned, the National Film Finance Corporation's lending powers expire in March, 1967. In its latest Annual Report the Corporation refers to this question and the need for an early decision. The Government appreciate the need for a timely decision, and I may say that there will be no undue delay about it.
The noble Lord has proposed that the Corporation's life should be extended; that more money should be available to it, and that its lending powers should be widened, so that commercial success need not be the only criterion on which it bases its financial support for British film production. I would point out that the words of the Act are that the Corporation shall make loans
"to persons who, in the judgment of the Corporation, have reasonable expectations of being

425
able to arrange for the production or distribution of cinematograph films on a commercially successful basis."
Judging a commercial risk, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said, is always a tricky business, and it is, I think, true to say that the N.F.F.C. has tried to give worthwhile projects assistance and has given some applicants for loans the benefit of the doubt.
Taking such risks has been part of the Corporation's job, but it has cost it, and consequently the taxpayer, a lot of money. In many ways, over the years, the Corporation has had the "sticky" end of the stick by having to bear the 30 per cent. "end money". But it would be a radically different matter to authorise the Corporation to make loans to people who did not have reasonable expectations of being able to produce or distribute films on a commercially successful basis. We should not forget that film production is an industry, although many films (including some which achieved high box office receipts) have considerable artistic merit.
I have been interested to hear what noble Lords have said about the relationship of the artistic side with the commercial side, and, if your Lordships will bear with me, I may have a few words to say about that before I sit down. It is obvious that if you start lending the taxpayers' money to industrial undertakings on any basis other than that it will be repaid with interest, you will soon find that you are, in effect, subsidising them. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, drew attention to the fact that when the present Prime Minister, seventeen years ago, as President of the Board of Trade (and I was then one of his juniors), introduced the Bill establishing the Corporation, he said:
"There must be no question of a subsidy for film production."
That may be a long time ago, but in this case I feel that the considerations which weighed with those who framed the 1949 Act may well hold good to-day. Here may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, who advocated a wholehearted investigation, or inquiry, into the industry, that I personally think this is clue, and I hope that the powers-that-be will take due notice of what he has said.
I will now deal with the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Willis,
426
in his opening speech. He asked what can be done to encourage the production of the smaller, lower-budget feature films which once were common to British film production. I would rather put a different question: what has happened to discourage the production of lower-budget features which once were so successful? I think that this question has been answered by many noble Lords who have drawn attention to the changing habits of our people. I do not want to overelaborate on this aspect, but there are one or two things that I should like to say.
The most important individual in this business is not the producer, the technician, the actor, the distributor or the exhibitor: it is the customer, the man who pays his money at the box office. In connection with the inquiry which Lord Archibald suggested, this industry, as I see it (and I am not here expressing the Government's view) is ripe for a thorough market research. I believe we are now at a time when a lot of the changing habits of the British people are clear and are there to be seen. I believe that this is the crucial time.
On the one hand, good films can be made and find an international audience (not as big as they used to be: and I am not referring now to the "blockbuster" type of film, like The Sound of Music, to which I take my grandchildren, instead of taking them to the pantomime, as I used to do), and, on the other, you get a man like John Houseman, of Hollywood, who is internationally known and whose opinions are very astute and sound, saying: "The real problem with American films to-day is who you are making them for. Most of us face the embarrassing dilemma that we are working in a mass medium that has lost its mass audience and wont admit it." This is what so many noble Lords have been trying to say this afternoon, and mostly successfully: I think that they have the problem right.
Some of the lost millions never cared what was on the screen, so long as it was changed twice a week. I suppose that nowadays they are watching Coronation Street, and what the B.B.C. or I.T.V. are prepared to dish up in the way of old films; or they may be at Bingo, in the same surroundings. But perhaps the analysis of those who are attending

427
cinemas rather belies this. I am open to be corrected, but I understand that the majority of our cinema audiences, apart from the fact that they emanate from the workers, are somewhere between the teenager and the age of 24. If that is the case, this strikes at other things quite different from the financial aspects of films. It strikes at the social aspects of the country. This is where the problem is most important, and I shall come to this in a little more detail later.
Nowadays, people do not go to the cinema as an escape or as a habit. In the twenties and thirties many people went to the cinema as an escape from their drab and dreary home surroundings. Thank heaven for the fact that our living standards have now risen so that this is no longer necessary for the vast majority of our people! Those who go to the cinema nowadays go because, out of the many forms of recreation available to them, they choose the cinema. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, was absolutely right when he said that the cinema has a unique position in the affections of the British people.
Although we have heard these attendance figures of 1,600 million in 1946 and 370 million in 1964, the fact is that there is still a worthwhile audience who have an affection for the cinema. But they will not go to see bad films. The industry must see to it that films of a consistently high standard are available, films which are attuned to current public tastes and interests. It is no good serving up the old mixtures, however popular they may once have been. The public will not put up with shabby surroundings; the cinemas must be attractive places in themselves. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me here if I omit part of my speech, some of which has been put better by other noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, said that there is scope for the development of a chain of small cinemas, showing films for what may be at present a minority audience. I agree with him completely. The only time I go to the cinema, except for the odd visit at Christmas time, is to the commercial art theatre. It may be that this will grow, and bring in a worthwhile audience. It may be that the cinema of the future will be of the big
428
"block-buster" type, with the great cities bringing in audiences in charabancs, as is being done in my district around Manchester, to see a film which runs for months. And one can see queues a quarter of a mile long.
I was interested to read the announcement last December of the formation by a private interest—I am referring to the Grade-Rive group, which has been mentioned—of a new organisation, which suggested that other people are thinking along similar lines. I wish them success. The stated aim of this company is to have a circuit of fifty cinemas showing" quality films that are commercial". But much of this stems from something else. In my opinion, much of this talk about the support of the arts and the cinema stems from grass roots. You must build up from the bottom, and you must make your growth like that of a plant, which is continuous throughout the years, to be any good at all.
Some years ago, in my locality, two or three of us, in a string of eight villages, 2,000 population in each, started what was known as a festival of the arts. Let the cynics smile! We started with the folks themselves. We had excellent choirs of schoolchildren, and the ability to pull down and reassemble musical instruments was demonstrated by a symphony orchestra. We brought in some of the best people to encourage what was in their hearts and minds. That was a long time ago. We have revived it every five years. The first time we revived it it just paid its way; the second time we made £500; and now, on the third occasion, we are going to do it with a budget of something in the region of £3,000 or £4.000. We are going to be ambitious as well. But the expectancy, the eagerness, of the community to take part in this is absolutely wonderful.
This sort of thing can be done all over the country, if there are people who are prepared to devote their time and money to it; and this, I believe, is what Miss Jennie Lee, the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, is concerned to foster and encourage. That is what can be done in this field. It is having its effect all over the place—this energy and effort to do things from grass roots by the people themselves.

429
On the 22nd of this month I am going to Oldham to open a new repertory theatre. Oldham was once part of a dismal, drab and dreary industrial area. But there has been a revolution there, because now we have a professional repertory theatre with a new theatre. This is the people's theatre. This is something they are doing themselves, and this is where you have your permanent values. It is no use spending large sums of money trying to inculcate the arts from the top by sending them the odd symphony orchestra, paying a great deal of money for its travel, services, and all the rest. This is where it begins, and I am perfectly certain that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, will agree with me that an enormous amount can be done by local authorities to make this a success.
Now I want to have a word (and I will not be long) about the growing interest which is being shown in the cinema as an art. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, as did the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, whose speech I thought was absolutely first-class, suggested to the Government and, perhaps, the Arts Council, that there should be a chain of repertory theatres throughout the country. The noble Lord mentioned the British Film Institute. May I say that I agree with every word he said. The work which is being done by the British Film Institute is absolutely first-class. He described as disastrous what would happen in the event of their not doing some of the work that is going on in creating the archives and the library. I agreed with his remarks about the historical background to this industry. This is probably one of its weaknesses, as the noble Lord suggested when he went through the whole gamut of the arts and showed how the historical significance is influencing the present.
I must say, in this connection, how much I admire—never mind the politics of it—the work of Miss Jennie Lee, who is concerned to foster and encourage this work. In the current financial year the British Film Institute is receiving grants to a total of over £180,000. The question of the provision, outside London, for the showing of the best world cinema has recently been considered in a report presented to the Institute. This report shows that there are already in existence plans for the establishment of regional film theatres on the model of the
430
National Film Theatre, and that some of these are at an advanced stage.
May I say here that the Government welcome these plans, but, as I have said before, their success must depend upon local initiative and enthusiasm. I was delighted last Saturday morning when I saw a report on what they are doing in Manchester, where plans have been passed for the Arts Centre. One of the amenities in that plan is a film theatre to seat 450 people, with all the accoutrements for cutting, dubbing, and all the rest of it, which I think is likely to be one of the fine centres of the North. I hope that it will not be long before it comes to fruition.
I am glad to be able to say that the Government are authorising the British Film Institute during the next financial year to promise grants towards the provision of new buildings, or the adaptation of existing buildings, for regional film theatres, up to a limit of £50,000 in total. That has been suggested this afternoon, and it is what is going to be done. It is not the intention of the Government to provide the complete capital for schemes involved. In fact, a precondition of a grant will be financial support from local authorities and other interested organisations; and here again it is a "must" that the local authorities and those interested locally should get behind a movement like this, and help. But I hope that this step will be a real help in encouraging the provision of "National Film Theatres" in the regions.
Much has been said in the past (and I am not going over old ground) about the need for the industry to make itself efficient so that it can make more competitive films. I do not feel like going through an harangue on this basis. But I am glad that this debate should have taken place this afternoon, and after the ideas have been digested by the Board of Trade, and by all the other interests involved, I hope that it may pave the way to perhaps a more comprehensive debate, taking in more problems, later in the year.
6.3 p.m.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I shall not detain you long. I should like to thank all the speakers who have taken part in the debate, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for an outstanding maiden speech. I am grateful to him

431
for taking the plunge at this particular moment, but we professionals have to stand together. I should also like to thank all the other speakers, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, for replying on behalf of the Government and for making a number of statements which seem to me at least to have a faint green hope of promise in one or two directions.
I must say that I was terrified at the suggestion that we might have a Royal Commission to look into the film industry. Over the last fifteen months people have been saying, "Do not put down a Motion; do not talk about it, because we have the Monopolies Commission and we had better wait for their report". But I believe that this debate to-day has proved that they were wrong to urge that we should wait. There are some urgent problems which need attention now, and although the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, felt that perhaps the debate was a little premature, his own speech was, in fact, an indication that such was not the case, because it was full of his usual statesmanlike utterances, information and experience, and although I would disagree with him, perhaps, on questions of emphasis, by and large we are in agreement on the broad field.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, will, as he said, consider carefully all the points made in the debate, and particularly I think it would be useful if he could have a look at the experience in Sweden, even to the extent of sending one of his young men there, because they have a quite remarkable and revolutionary scheme in relation to the cinema. Finally, may I say that if the Government are thinking of appointing a Commission on the film industry, the noble Lord need look no further than to appoint the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and myself. If only he would put us in charge for six months, we would soon put it straight.
My Lords, this has been the newsreel I will now make way for the main feature, to be presented by the noble Lord, Lord Haire of Whiteabbey. I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE BRITISH TRAVEL ASSOCIATION
6.7 p.m.
LORD HAIRE OF WHITEABBEY LORD HAIRE OF WHITEABBEY rose to draw attention to the recent Annual Report of the British Travel Association; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In a way, I am sorry that I should be rising at this late hour to move the second of two Motions to-day, but because the Report of the British Travel Association is a real success story and so exciting, I am really happy to move it, even at 6 o'clock.
This debate is occurring at a time of the year when our newspapers and magazines attract advertising to the tune of some £10 million to tempt some of us abroad this summer. Some 4½ million people will succumb to its blandishments. It is not part of my intention this evening to try to wean them away. I am just happy to draw the attention of your Lordships to the other side of the coin, to the phenomenal success—and I think I use that word quite deservedly—of our own British Travel Association. As your Lordships know, the B.T.A. is the accredited agency appointed by successive Governments, charged with the responsibility to promote Great Britain as a holiday country and to attract foreign visitors. It is really a co-operative, one might say, finding the money to achieve these ends partly from the Government and partly from its own members on a pound for pound basis. Last year the Government contributed £2 million. For this reason, if for no other, I think your Lordships will be interested to know how the money was spent, and we will ask the Government, through the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, whether they are satisfied that the money was well spent. This Report should provide the answer.
British tourism has become our fourth largest export industry. From 3 million foreign tourists in 1965 it earned the sum of £360 million. This is a record. Its growth rate last year is worthy of attention: it was 14 per cent. up. All this, my Lords, in ten years—from 1 million visitors in 1955 to a total last year of 3 million visitors, and when it comes to dollar earnings this industry is away out

433
in front. The £81 million which we earned from United States' visitors in 1964 was more than the total dollar sales of motor vehicles and aircraft combined, at £68 million; more than the machinery we sold to the United States of America, at £59 million; and more than our old friend, whisky, at £46 million.
In a year or two, tourism will be our top export industry. The 1970 estimates give us 4 million visitors and more than £500 million of earnings. Yet somehow this industry seems to have escaped the real attention of the Government, or even a dynamic push. For example, in the much-applauded National Plan, out of a total of 400 pages of that remarkable document, only six lines were devoted to the tourist industry. I have no interest to declare this evening except that of hoping for a happy holiday, but I must say that this kind of figure deserves all the credit and the honour that the nation and the Government can give.
However, new trends are now appearing. The international tourist trade has become highly competitive. Other countries, some with few natural resources except the sun, sea and sand, are finding that there are real prizes to be won. Thus Spain, for example, last year increased its contribution to tourism by as much as 121 per cent.; Belgium's was up by 106 per cent.; Holland's by 97 per cent.; the contribution of the Irish Republic—and the money is spent well on some of their excellent advertisements—was up by 84 per cent.; and Italy's contribution was up by 22 per cent. Yet in this same period last year we increased our contribution by a bare 14 per cent. We shall have to do better than this. If we are going to earn the £500 million by 1970, as the estimators say, we shall have to spend more than the £2 million we spend now to get it.
At this stage I should like to ask my noble friend a question. Is the pound-for-pound method the best way of raising the necessary funds to promote this industry, especially if it is the top dollar earning industry? For example, the whole of the retail trades in this country, which must get quite considerable assistance from the millions of overseas visitors who come to us, contributed last year the sum of £2,750 to the British travel industry, and it is on this kind of contribution that the Government's contribu-
434
Lion also depends. I consider that this contribution by the retail trades is lamentable.
Again an increase of another one million visitors within the next five years will place considerable strain on our hotels, motor inns and catering establishments, our ports and airports, and our recreation facilities. Under our present arrangements, our tourist and hotel industry builds, extends and modernises from its own resources. It gets no subsidy for structural work. Compare this with the assistance given to new factories making for exports, or compare it to the contribution made by other Governments. For example, if I may quote again the Irish Republic, they contribute a total of 20 per cent. as direct grant to hotels and other accommodation being built. The industry gets no special loan assistance; it would like in certain approved cases to be given loans, for example, for a 25 year period, which could be guaranteed by the British Travel Association or by a corporation set up for the purpose. Again it gets no tax or rate reliefs. Repairs even are chargeable to the capital account and not allowed as revenue. In the Irish Republic they are allowed two-thirds exemption for a period of seven years, but not here. Yet in the new phase of accommodation building for tourism the emphasis must be on medium or low priced accommodation, and many more hotels must be built.
Nor does the White Paper recently published (Cmnd. 2874) on Investment Incentives mention hotels or tourist accommodation. The hotel industry may be in for a boom time, but if we are to spread new hotel accommodation into the Provinces and to some extent away from London there must be inducements. London has in the past been too much the magnet; it takes over 50 per cent. of our tourist spending. I think we could designate certain areas as tourist development areas and give the B.T.A. power to approve applications for subsidy especially on the tourist routes and near the ports.
I want to say a few words with regard to the new recreation areas and the contribution they can make to tourism. We all look forward to the new Countryside Commission planned by my right honourable friend the Minister of Land and

435
Natural Resources, and we await the White Paper promised by him. But it is evident to those of us who study these matters that another of the new trends which are appearing in tourism is the greatly increased and greatly increasing traffic from European countries to this country. Already the tourists from France and Germany together almost match the figure of American visitors to this country. And this is likely within the next few years to be a major breakthrough in British tourism. This development is likely to be mainly of motoring visitors. They are likely to be motoring families. They will have a far greater proportion—or so it seems on the Continent—of campers and caravanners than at present.
One of the interesting points is that this tends to abolish the language barrier. The language barrier has been overcome. That is due to a combination of the car, the caravan or tent, and the supermarket. The super-mercado, as it is called in Spain, is now everywhere on the good camping sites on the Continent. There is the same range of goods, the same packaging. You fill up your basket, pay your money, and not a word need be spoken. So it is with the launderette. It would help even more if we had a decimal coinage system.
What are we doing for these new, mobile tourists? We lag behind the Continent in the provision of caravan and camping parks equipped with the facilities and amenities the continental expects and finds in other countries. We need rapid improvement of most of our camping sites. We need the setting up of a network of transit sites. But whether it is the municipal authority or the Countryside Commission or the National Parks or the Forestry Commission or the private operator which is concerned, there will be a need for grants or loans or inducements even to produce the right kind of holiday camps. There will be a need for accelerated planning with favourable consideration of suitable applications. There will be a need for Government guidance and the issue of model standards for tourist and transit camps and layout plans, such as were produced a few years ago in connection with our Caravan Sites Development Act, in connection with residential caravans. There may be a need for exhortation or
436
guidance to petrol stations, wayside inns, such as are now produced by the brewers in increasing numbers and of such good quality, and motels to provide space suitably laid out for transient tourists, with toilet facilities, eating facilities and the rest. And there should be a directive from the appropriate Government authority to local authorities and all others outlining the assistance which they, the Government authority, can give.
I mentioned earlier the need for modernisation of ports and airports. Even London Airport, as those who use it know, is now largely overtaken by the increased traffic there. We shall need schemes for modernisation of our port facilities for the short sea routes to the Continent, and I am happy to find in this same White Paper a very high priority given to the provision for modernising equipment at the ports. We must welcome the greatly improved facilities for passenger reception, but of course more are needed. Baggage handling is still too slow. It is frustrating, after one has been on an hour's flight from Paris or Dusseldorf, or Brussels or Belfast, to arrive at London Airport and have to spend another half-an-hour waiting to reconnect with your baggage. The new Executive coaches are a welcome innovation. We should also welcome, I think, the nine new car sea ferries and two air ferries which were introduced last year, and the six by sea and five by air which are planned for this year. The B.T.A. will certainly need to work for the abolition of any further frontier formalities and tourist red tape. There is one piece of red tape that I should like to see abolished: it must be psychologically painful to foreign visitors. I refer to the division into "British" and "Foreigners" when we line up for passport control on arrival at London or other airports. I can think of no worse way to begin a holiday here.
Now I should like to ask my noble friend a series of questions on the "et ceteras" of the tourist business. First there is the question of extending the season. I know from my short experience in the holiday hotel business that the short season is the bogeyman of the business. I know, too, that some 20 million people, out of a total of 31 million, take their holidays in July and August. The result is overcrowded

437
roads, overcrowded hotels, overcrowded trains and planes—overcrowded everything. Staggered holidays are indeed the answer. But will my noble friend tell us what success has attended the lead given in the White Paper some three or four years ago? What success has followed the attempt to move school examinations to May and early June? What success has followed the attempt to move the August national holiday from the beginning to the end of the month, and the attempt to fix the Whitsun holiday? An early decision on both these points is imperative. Your Lordships will note that I prefer to drop the term "bank holiday"; I much prefer the term "national holiday". I think the term "bank holiday" is thoroughly obsolete.
I would increase the number of national holidays by at least one. Great Britain is at the bottom of the league for national holidays. Some countries have many more. The new three-week holidays, or, soon, four weeks, if taken in two periods will help to break the myth in regard to August being the only month for holidays. People will find that other months can be equally enjoyable. Certainly something must be done to spread out our holidays. It is a gross waste of our national resources to find so many of our holiday places, hotels and halls closed for eight months of the year—unproductive capital locked up, dead; and the staff problems created in the hotel business are frightening.
Now a word about the licensing laws. These are still restrictive, especially in relation to a tourist drive. So many of our old regulations must be re-examined in the context of our new tourism—our all-out "Come to Britain" drive. Some urgent improvements are needed—for example, permission for the service of drinks with meals in hotels at any reasonable time. We shall have to be on our alert to avoid the Swedish method of serving a plate of plastic peas with drinks at all times. We should aim for permission for tourists in camps to be treated as residents.
Next, a brief word about roads, although so much could be said. It is obvious that a measure of priority should be given to the construction of new roads in tourist areas. This would happen automatically if we had caught the urgent
438
fever of tourism. But my main point here is perhaps a revolutionary one—namely, drive on the right. We are almost the odd man out here in Europe. It may be all right politically to "keep to the Left", but it is not all right for our Continental motoring tourists. "Drive on the right" will come sooner or later. Why not now? For several years now I have driven a British car with the steering on the left, and I must tell your Lordships that, if anything, I have found it safer. Going down a street with a long line of parked vehicles on the left it is safer to drive a left-hand-drive car. In any case, so many of our roads and streets are now one-way, not to mention the motorways and dual carriageways. This one simple decision could be the key to an enormous break-through for British tourism for travellers from the Continent. So many of them are frightened to come here when they think that we drive on the left.
On my list of "et ceteras" is the cleaning of public buildings and floodlighting. I think my noble friend should encourage our right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works to embark on the policy to clean up all our public and historic buildings. We have had one or two notable examples lately. St. Paul's was cleaned up at the instigation of the then Lord Mayor of London. We have now seen Paris given a complete clean-up. More than ten years ago little Portugal showed the way by cleaning up all her national and public buildings. Our famous buildings, too, would shine after this clean-up treatment, especially in our new smokeless zones. Having cleaned them, we should encourage much more floodlighting and much more son et lumière. Turning to shopping, we should encourage shopkeepers to take full advantage of the 1950 Shops Act, especially in tourist areas. We should hurry on the proposed new Act, and we should expedite the introduction of decimal coinage. Above all, we should review the Sunday Observance Act.
My last "et cetera" is an important one—the need for large conference centres, in London and elsewhere. We need to provide one or more of these large international conference centres of a size equal to those found in many American centres. Their construction

439
costs would soon be paid for. Their success would be as lucrative of foreign currency as of American dollars. Incidentally, would my noble friend say what has happened to the proposed new Crystal Palace Exhibition Centre? This is a need on the export front on which I think the Government could give us much greater encouragement and assistance. Perhaps there is a lesson for us here, in the success of our gaming centres, though it is not too popular a plea to make. Britain is fast becoming an international gambling centre, with the inveterates flying over for the day, or, more likely, for the night.
It is no part of my purpose to-day to be a soothsayer. But it is fairly safe to sum up as follows: first, that holidays in Britain in the future will be holidays on the move; holidays in the motor age; holidays in an area and not a resort, with the emphasis on a few days here and a few days there. Accommodation whether in hotels, motor inns, or camps, will cease to be let on a weekly basis; so holidays will start and end on any day of the week. Secondly, they will be holidays in an age of leisure, an age of affluence. There will be the two-holiday year—perhaps a summer one and a winter one, or in the better weather of spring and autumn, or even, judging from the conditions at the moment, the better weather in February.
Affluence and leisure will mean the two-house family. Already we almost have the two-car family. We shall have the family house, near our employment or in the country, and our holiday house near the sea or by a lake, so as to have the benefit of the new water sports. This second house may be one of the new portable houses, or a large mobile home, or even a caravan. Or it may be, as with many now, a maisonette in a country block; or, as the Continentals have discovered, a flat constructed as part of a hotel and sold as a" detachable" unit, as need be, when required by the owner, but integrated with the hotel or block when not needed by the owner.
In future, it will be holidays in the new Britain, for a new Britain is growing up around us. Our new title will be "Come to the New Britain". We cannot hope to compete with the sun and sand of Europe. In the past we have countered
440
with the Beefeater, thatched cottage conception of Britain, and this has proved a magnificent magnet to Britain. Its magic has not been dissipated, even yet. But there will be so much more to see in future in Britain, with its new experiments in architecture, its exciting new housing, its new city centres, new shopping precincts, new festival halls, new recreation centres, and our own new Westminster precinct.
The future is indeed alive with imagination. Already we have the Britain of the new fashion, making Britain among the world's affluent teenagers the land of Mary Quant. We have the Britain of the new cuisine, with millions eating out and drinking their
"red" and "white"—though the restaurants must learn not to pick our packets with their prices and, equally, must learn that our new diners-out do not want their dishes sold to them in the French language. We must learn to glamorise this new Britain, this new London which we are told has now become the Mecca of Europe, and keep our tourists here for longer than a few days.
Before I conclude, I would ask your Lordships to note that this Report records the multiplicity of the efforts of the B.T.A. and its staff to search out and promote markets abroad for British tourism. Their publications last year ran to 14 million pieces; their features appeared in the newspapers and magazines of some 50 foreign countries; their films and television activities are now available in 39 foreign languages, and are seen by an estimated 400 million people a year. These are only a small part of the Association's efforts which go to produce earnings of £360 million a year.
I have said hardly a thing about the activities of the Association to develop our own home holidays. Many noble Lords who are to follow me will, I hope, fill in the gaps which I have left. We should congratulate the many men and women on the board and in the council of the British Travel Association who voluntarily give their time to making British tourism what it has become—an economic and international force in the world, and whose efforts have made this Annual Report the dynamic document it is. I am happy to see the Chairman

441
of B.T.A. in his place to-day, and to know that he is to follow me. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.35 p.m.
LORD GEDDES: My Lords, first I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Haire of Whiteabbey, for his courtesy in putting down this Motion and, in thanking him, it is appropriate that I should state my interest in the subject under discussion. This is not an interest in the normal sense of the phrase, which implies a financial interest, but having had the good fortune to serve as Deputy Chairman of the British Travel Association during the three years of the distinguished chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Mabane, and then to succeed him, and for the vast two years having had the honour to be Chairman of the Association, I have an intense interest in the subject and have some responsibility for the Report which is before your Lordships.
In less than two decades Britain's tourist industry has grown from practically nothing to become one of the most powerful forces in the country's economy. To-day, it is our fourth largest export industry and our biggest single dollar-earner. The noble Lord, Lord Haire of Whiteabbey, has given your Lordships the figures, which I will not repeat but merely confirm. As an export, tourism has developed at three times the average rate of this country's physical export trades. The national income from tourism is equal to no less than 7 per cent. of the value of all physical exports. A measure of the growth of the British tourist industry can be gained by a comparison between figures of tourist arrivals. In 1947, the first full year for tourism after the war, they numbered 400,000. In 1955 they passed the million mark for the first time. In 1965, ten years later, the total approached three million. More Americans came to Britain in 1965 than our total tourist arrivals from all countries in 1951.
Statistics are impressive, but they do not reflect adequately what has been achieved in Britain since the war. In the late 1940s the general attitude here did little to help the development of a prosperous tourist industry. We had always thought of ourselves as tourists, but did not think of ourselves as acting as hosts to tourists from other lands. We had to create a tourist trade almost from
442
scratch. We did not do this by copying what had been done by the traditional European tourist countries. Instead, we sought out new business and created a travel movement suited to Britain's special attractions.
A measure of the difference between Britain's tourist industry and that of any other European country is that the average length of stay of visitors to Britain in 1964 was 34½ days compared, for example, to 5½ days in Italy. Sixty-five per cent. of our tourist revenue comes from English-speaking visitors from other continents, while the major part of the traffic to most other European countries is from countries within Europe. As a result, by comparison with some European countries, Britain's overseas tourist traffic is low in volume though high in value. Our earnings are higher than the travel receipts of such competitive countries as Switzerland, Austria and France, and they approach those of Italy.
Examination of our tourist revenue shows that, in spite of certain difficulties, notably the absence of a semi-tropical sun and the existence of the geographic, price and psychological barrier of the Channel, we are more than holding our own in the share of the world tourist market. But times are changing, and we are once again faced by the task of creating new business. The principal source of Britain's tourist income continues to be the United States. In 1964, for example, only about 1¼per cent. of the population of the United States travelled overseas, so that there is still a vast untapped potential there. But perhaps more important, because it is even less developed, is our potential in Europe. Britain's share of the European market in 1964 was slightly over one million visitors, with earnings of the order of £50 million. Travel by Europeans within Europe is far greater in volume than travel by peoples from other continents to Europe. Some idea of the enormous growth which has taken place in travel within Europe may be seen in the examples of Spain and Italy, which, in the past decade, have witnessed sixfold increases in visitors from Germany and France, who are now much greater in numbers than the visitors from Britain.
In the early years of the "Come To Britain" campaign, after the war, Britain benefited from the large, natural source

443
of visitor traffic which the Commonwealth represented. To-day, for the first time, we are having to fight to increase, even to maintain, our share of traffic from what used to be an almost exclusive market for us. First, there is the increased promotional effort being made not only by our competitors in Europe, but by countries in the Americas and in Asia. Secondly, we have to remember that new generations of Commonwealth citizens no longer necessarily think of Britain as the home country.
The broad picture is one of increasing international travel to Britain, but one which is changing in some directions and is affected by the growing attractions of our competitors. Britain can benefit from this vast potential by taking action. The British Travel Association, as Britain's national tourist organisation, is, as your Lordships are aware, Her Majesty's Government's chosen instrument for the purpose of promoting travel to and within Britain. What is a national tourist organisation? Its organisation and function should vary according to circumstances. It can be, and often is, a Ministry of Tourism, but while that pattern might be appropriate in some countries, and notably the less developed countries, it has not been thought to suit Britain.
As your Lordships are aware, the British Travel Association is Government-sponsored. It is at the same time a co-operative representing about 6,000 local and national bodies and owners of tourist services and plant. It exists because tourists produce income for its members, as well as for the country as a whole. Its task is to create a demand for travel to Britain. It feeds back suggestions and ideas, and indicates to its members what it considers to be profitable lines for development. The Association has a three-fold task: first, of increasing the number of overseas visitors to this country; secondly, of fostering and developing travel within Britain by the British people themselves; and, thirdly, of encouraging in every way possible the improvement and development of tourist and holiday amenities and facilities within the country.
The affairs of the Association are directed by a voluntary board, who represent
444
not only the various industries which comprise the travel trade, but a wide range of other interests. In its work, the board is assisted by a number of committees which are also composed of representatives of a broad range of activities. The Association has a staff of more than 400, 150 of whom work in its twenty overseas offices, and here I should like to pay tribute to the loyalty of that staff. I have visited them in almost every country of the world, and they are a really splendid representative body and one of which the nation should be proud, because they are doing a marvellous job for us.
The Association's primary task is to create a demand for the destination—Britain. This is done by using the various modern techniques of promotion, including paid advertising, marketing schemes and public relations in all its forms. Its task is to create an appetite for travel to Britain, and to ensure that those whose appetite has been whetted by its efforts translate those desires into action by using the services of travel agents and carriers to come to Britain.
The funds with which the Association carries out its work derive from two main sources. First is the Government grant-in-aid, which in the current financial year will amount to approximately £2 million. The rest of the Association's revenue comes from membership contributions and from its own revenue-producing activities, such as the sale of advertising space in publications and the sale of those publications themselves. This revenue now runs at an annual rate of slightly over £500,000. The Association has, therefore, little more than £2½ million with which to promote Britain's tourist attractions in those overseas countries which have been shown by research to possess the best potential for visitor traffic to this country.
It is not claimed that without the existence of the British Travel Association there would be no tourist traffic to Britain. But it is fair to say that, without the Association's efforts, the annual revenue from tourism would be substantially less than it is to-day. Britain earns well over £300 million a year from overseas visitors, and, incidentally, hidden in that figure is £10 million contributed directly to the Exchequer by

445
tourists in the form of taxes paid on liquor, tobacco and petrol—a substantial bonus for the Treasury.
The promotion of Britain's tourist attractions is based on economic and market research. En order to create a demand, to produce traffic and to make sure that those who come here are satisfied, it is essential to discover where Britain's best tourist markets are, and what the tourists themselves want to do and to see. We have to compare these demands, actual and potential, with our tourist assets. Market surveys indicate the characteristics of Britain and of British life which appeal most to visitors from other countries. The nature of the appeal varies from one country to another, and we adjust our promotions and information work accordingly. Britain possesses certain basic powerful attractions which appeal strongly to foreign visitors—tradition, pageantry, great variety of scenery, ancient towns, fine buildings, a lively artistic and cultural present, and the powerful international magnet of London. Special emphasis on these attractions encourages business visitors, convention delegates, sporting enthusiasts and students of all ages, especially those who wish to learn English, to come to Britain. The task of promoting travel to a country where attractions for the visitor are varied—in part sophisticated, in part specialist, and by no means obvious—requires careful planning and skilful operation.
At the risk of repeating a point which the noble Lord, Lord Haire of White-abbey, has already made, I want to touch briefly on the so-called "Beefeater—Thatched Cottage" image. Britain's tourist publicity has been criticised in the past for the use of this. When it has been possible to confront the critics, it is usually true that they have not seen at first-hand the wide range of publicity material used throughout the world. Of course, Beefeaters and thatched cottages exist in the promotion, just as they exist in Britain, and just as they are part of British life and are admired by millions of British people themselves when on holiday. They represent our unique tourist attractions, unlike the Mediterranean beach which has no national monopoly. Any good salesman will emphasise the unique features of his product, and that is what we do.
446
Although the length of stay in Britain remains relatively long, in the past few years there has been a marked trend towards a shortening of the time spent here, reflecting the greater mobility of the traveller. This reduction in the length of stay is especially true of visitors from the more distant countries, which include the main sources of Commonwealth traffic. While the same trend has been observed in past years in most European countries, the average length of stay in those countries is now reasonably stable. This has occurred because the reduction in length of stay in any one place by touring visitors has been offset by the increase in the more stable recreational traffic, to such places as Mediterranean beaches and the winter sports resorts.
We grumble much about our climate, but it gives us the incomparable green of our countryside, and I submit that throughout the year it is the most temperate of any in the world, and is particularly suited to active recreation. We are now seeking to encourage the development of facilities for the enjoyment of outdoor recreation. This can cover a wide range, from sailing, pony-trekking, mountaineering and skiing to archaeology, birdwatching, potholing and underwater exploration. There is enormous potential for developing recreation in Britain, and we are only at the beginning of the upsurge in the demand for recreational facilities. We believe there is a need to design a national recreational plan to guide planning authorities. It might be on the lines of the comprehensive study of outdoor recreational resources recently carried out in the United States. The American survey starts from the assumption that different people, or the same people at different times, seek different types of recreation: some gravitate towards a crowd the sole aim of others is to escape from the crowd. To cater for both impulses—or, at least, to limit the progressive overcrowding of areas which need to be comparatively deserted to be fully appreciated—a system of classification of outdoor recreational resources is proposed.
The two recent "Countryside in 1970" conferences held in London under the chairmanship of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh brought together representatives of almost every organisation in Britain involved in activities

447
affecting the countryside. It was encouraging, at these conferences, to sense the note of urgency about the need to plan and a new determination to act in cooperation. The shape which our environment takes is of supreme importance to the domestic holiday trade, which is the backbone of British tourism. We cannot hope to hold our position among the major tourist countries of the world if we do not develop our facilities to ensure the growth of a prosperous home trade upon which a successful export business is based. About £450 million is spent by British people on holidays within Britain every year. The demand for holiday services is growing at a faster rate than the demand for most other products. Haphazard development of tourist services will not provide the right solution to a basic problem of expansion. Increasing mobility is one of the main characteristics of tourism to-day. The resorts still have a vital rôle to play in the development of tourist facilities and services, but, because of the increased mobility of tourists, they now have to be regarded as the centres of recreational areas rather than as destinations in themselves.
As well as the need to develop recreational areas to a comprehensive national design, the other important requirement is to ensure an extension of the holiday season. As the noble Lord, Lord Haire of Whiteabbey, has already pointed out, two-thirds—that is to say, 20 million—of all British annual holidays are taken in July and August. This means that much of the capacity of our holiday services and basic natural resources is not used during the rest of the year. The spreading of the load must continue to be tackled by such measures as altering the dates of public holidays and changing the times of school examinations. Much has been done already, both by Her Majesty's Government and by the educational authorities. The recent decision to change the Whitsun and August bank holidays to fixed spring and autumn holidays, respectively, is a valuable contribution towards the extension of the holiday season. I would urge further efforts to achieve a more flexible school holiday pattern. Such changes, even on a small scale, can have a dramatic effect on the economics of the travel and holiday industry.
448
I have spoken about some of the achievements and problems of the British tourist industry. What does the future hold for tourism? So far as Britain is concerned there is no reason why by 1970 we should not be attracting an annual inflow of at least 4 million overseas visitors, with earnings of the order of £500 million. Within a few years tourism could well become Britain's leading export trade. But this will not happen automatically. In addition to facing increased competition from other countries engaged in the job of attracting visitors to their shores, we must become competitive in catering for recreation sought by our own people. The British holiday market is to-day worth nearly £700 million per annum, of which over one-third goes abroad. This country earns approximately as much to-day from foreign tourism as our own people spend abroad. It is, however, a fine balance but the very concept of a travel balance-of-payments is misleading. If we had done nothing to develop our own tourist trade in the post-war years, British people would still be travelling abroad on holiday each year.
Greater numbers of people are travelling between countries every year. Over 100 million international visits were made in 1964—and this figure could easily double in the next decade. If Britain is to obtain her share of this vast international travel potential, we must increase our promotional efforts in existing markets, we must expand in new territories and, at the same time, we must take steps to ensure that the necessary amenities are available for visitors when they are in this country. The British Travel Association's expenditure on promotional development is in the proportion of roughly £1 per £100 of tourist revenue. My Lords, we shall need more money. I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that there can hardly be a better investment for Her Majesty's Government and for the interests benefiting from tourist spending.
The main responsibility for attracting British people to British holiday areas is that of the Area Tourist Boards (such as the Scottish Tourist Board), of the local authorities and of the industry. Compared with the lavish spending on promotion to attract British people to go abroad, our

449
own interests too often carry out publicity on too small a scale. A determined effort to improve travel and holiday information should meet with a ready response. People are far more mobile and are prepared to make more trips per year if they are told what is available.
Official tourist organisations and local authorities are co-operating with the Association in the operation of nearly 150 information bureaux on a nation-wide network. We have seen continued progress in the provision of new hotels, in the modernisation of existing hotels and in the provision of motels. In fact, Britain has witnessed one of the biggest hotel development programmes in Europe in recent years. Each year more hotels and restaurants in the country's main tourist areas and resorts are offering standards of cooking and service as good as any to be found anywhere. But there is a growing need for more moderate-priced, good-standard accommodation, especially outside London, and I should like once more to urge Her Majesty's Government to assist in creating favourable conditions under which the hotel industry can expand, especially in seasonal areas.
The new investment incentives, primarily to help the manufacturing and extractive industries, which were recently announced by Her Majesty's Government seem to overlook completely the service trades. These service trades, which represent new industries, tend to be forgotten. I hope I have demonstrated that in the tourist field they are big exporters. They create employment, and they can bring prosperity to the very areas which have no industrial base because of poor natural resources. Our economy and the economics of the richer countries of the world are recognised to be changing fast. It is the consumer trades and the service trades which grow fastest of all. Of course, there are difficulties in applying the same tax benefits to the service trades, but where there is a will surely there is a way. If Her Majesty's Government want to promote their growth, ways could be found of helping them. I have mentioned one bonus—the contribution of overseas visitors to direct taxation. The trades that help to provide that money could do with some of it ploughed back. There are other bonuses. The travel movement could lead to the
450
development of ancillary services, trades and secondary industries. It is a generator of business.
There have been great improvements in Britain's internal transport services—in roads and railways particularly. But we ask those concerned with planning to bear in mind the expected growth of tourism and the need to cater for increasing development in existing holiday areas and for greater numbers of visitors, particularly those travelling by car. Some action could be taken almost immediately. The development of Britain's internal transport system has not been matched by growth and improvements in the ancillary services; for example, in the moderisalion of transport terminals, including facilities for good standard catering services at those terminals; in the provision of camping and caravan sites, roadside lavatories, car-parking facilities, picnic tables and litter disposal facilities. There is need for regulation of taxi fares beyond the six-mile limit, to deal especially with the problem of London Airport, and for improvements in the reception services and facilities at the ports of entry, for the simplification of customs and immigration formalities.
More important, in the long term, is the need to seek the enthusiastic cooperation of many Government Departments, local authorities and national organisations which are affected in the tourist industry. Too often holiday activity is a by-product of their principal activity. The word "holiday" sounds frivolous compared with the more prestigious but sometimes declining basic industries of the country. So many different interests need to do just a little more to make a very big effect.
The planning authorities, in their respective areas, need the guidance of a tourist plan, as has been done in Scotland. Authorities, national and local, could improve signposting and street marking; they could encourage the growth of camping sites. The owners of land and historic buildings could do more to improve access, to provide reception facilities, to put their treasures on show in a more up-to-date manner. We have priceless treasures in this country in our museums; but is a visit to a museum considered to be an attractive pastime?

451
Since so many authorities own or control tourist assets it cannot be unreasonable to ask them to welcome developers—indeed, to seek them out; to adopt an active rather than a passive attitude towards visitor traffic.
As we continue to attract vast numbers of tourists to this country so will the physical capacity of this country to accommodate and serve them have to be developed. Experience in the past two decades has shown that, generally speaking increases in hotel capacity and visitor reception services and facilities have not been as rapid as the growth of tourism. Easing the burdens and frustrations of travel; providing accommodation of the right kind, in the right places, at the right times; ensuring that the very attributes which motivate travel, the qualities of landscape, the very flavour of places to be visited, are intelligently preserved and made accessible to the traveller—those are some of the main tasks to be tackled.
Tourism has two great characteristics. First, it is perhaps the greatest single force for peace because, by bringing people together, it enables them to understand each other. Secondly, it is big business—in fact, it is the world's largest single item of trade. Tourism to-day is vital to Britain's economy. This fact is one that must be recognised—by Government, by industry and by the public as a whole.
7.5 p.m.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, like the previous speaker, I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Haire of White-abbey, for providing the opportunity for debating this important subject. I should properly declare an interest in that I am still on the staff of British European Airways, and British European Airways is interested in tourism. I do not intend to criticise the British Travel Association, as in my travels, which are extensive in the course of my business, I have seen the great work that they are doing overseas. In fact, I think it is useful to note that in the period under review of the Report that we are debating, the revenue obtained from tourism in this country was something in the nature of £300 million, of which a great proportion was obtained through the activities of the
452
Association with an expenditure of something like, I believe, £2·7 million. So I think one can say it is not bad going.
However, the Report is now some ten months old and many facets of the subject may have come into view since it was published. A very salient point in this Report is the fact that it regards the European market as our biggest potential for tourism. It also reports for 1964 an increase of about 14 per cent. over the 1963 figures; and it goes on to aim at a target of 4 million for 1970. I imagine that one of the objectives of our drive in tourism is to close the financial gap between money spent by our nationals going abroad and that spent by the Continental nationals coming to this country. If that gap is to be closed and if, as I hope, it is to provide surplus of benefit to this country, I would suggest that 4 million for 1970 is a little too low a target.
The Report draws attention, as have the two previous speakers, to many improvements necessary to amenities in this country, notably those of hotels, catering, port facilities and so on; and on page 13 of the Report there is a full list of these. I have little to add to that list, except possibly the provision of facilities for conferences, which I believe has already been mentioned; and I would also add a plea for more concert halls. These facilities, after all, are for the foreign tourist after he has arrived in this country; so, too, are the admirable offices of the Association in Regent Street. But I submit that our task now should be to examine what may still be done in his own country and own home town to induce the potential foreign tourist to come to this country.
I think it might be useful to examine the machinery we have for bringing this about. The previous speaker made considerable reference to the number of publications, films, throwaways, and information of all sorts that have been used—all of which are admirable. But I would submit that it is the live tourist office abroad which does as much good as anything else. I think I am correct in saying that there are some thirteen foreign national tourist offices in London. Yet of the offices that we have in Europe (and I think I am right in saying we have six), only those in Paris and Frankfurt are entirely and exclusively

453
occupied by the Association; the others are shared with various activities such as airlines and other ancillary businesses. But I am wondering whether, although this may be an economical thing to do, it is good to share offices with people engaged in businesses whose interests are not always precisely in parallel with those of the Association. Air lines, travel agencies, railway companies, shipping companies, et cetera, are interested in taking travellers out of this country as well as into it, and to those points where their business indicates the best return. So I think that it is not necessarily always a sound thing to share offices with these people.
My Lords, another matter which I think has to be looked at from the point of view of the potential visitors is our national image abroad. Reference has been made to the fact that our entertainment industry—I use the word "entertainment" to mean everything that comes, from a classical concert to a rock-and-roll dance; anything you like—is hedged about very generally by restrictive laws, regulations and licences of all sorts. Reference has been made to the British Sunday, which is not encouraging to foreign tourists. One can imagine a tourist coming to this country, without a great deal of money and with no friends with whom he can stay. It is a pretty bleak prospect for such a person to come to London on a Sunday and find everything tightly shut up, until about seven o'clock in the evening when there is a slight relaxation. He is much worse off if he finds himself in Wales or in Scotland on a Sunday. It is enough to drive him to drink—if he can find any in either place.
All these things will cost a great deal of money and in this respect the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, said that the Association must have more finance. I do not know whether going to the Government for further grants would be popular with the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Treasury at the present time. I do not think the travel trade would be pleased at the prospect of having to increase the generous subscriptions which are made. I am wondering whether it would be possible to convert the Association into a strong commercial corporation. A glance at the list of directors and the members of the council would reveal a splendid number of able commercial
454
people, and it would not be beyond their wit to devise a prospectus which would be attractive to the responsible interests in the City of London.
A Council so constituted and strengthened would be able to deal more comprehensively with affairs abroad, and might well provide the focus for the public opinion without which I do not think we can get, or it would be very difficult to introduce, legislation to change some of the restrictive laws and regulations and so finally to eliminate from the Continental mind the last traces of that rather baleful feature, "Mrs. Grundy". I have one other suggestion. If I remember correctly, some years before the war a very intelligent German Chancellor, I think it was Dr. Schacht, introduced a tourist Deutschmark and brought a great deal of tourist traffic to Germany. Is it not possible for us to have a tourist pound?
7.15 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, like the previous speaker, I must also declare a commercial interest in this subject. I earn my living both as a tour operator and as a travel agent. It is I who help to produce those glossy brochures which the noble Lord, Lord Haire of White-abbey, treated so tactfully and so temperately in his excellent speech. I also have another, but not commercial interest to declare, in that I am President of the London Tourist Board, which is part of Lord Geddes's family. It is, perhaps, not elegant for a member of the Council of the B.T.A. to praise the work of his colleagues, but at least I may be allowed, I hope, to say a few words in praise of my Chairman and the admirable way in which he has conducted our affairs over the past few years. My Lords, I think it is a paradox to have someone with the capabilities of Lord Geddes in this job. We asked for a professional and we got, surprisingly enough, a really professional man. We make him work like a horse. We deprive his distinguished company of his services for years. We never pay him a penny, and then we are surprised that it is going to be so difficult to find other people to take on the job. This is a situation which I do not think that we can allow to continue indefinitely. I have deliberately not mentioned it to the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, beforehand. Probably he will

455
not speak to me again, although of course his successor may.
I should like to endorse very strongly the word of praise he offered to the Overseas Offices of the British Travel Association. In my tours I have, I think, visited 16 of the 20 overseas offices, and I can endorse the magnificent work which they do. It is overseas that the work of the B.T.A., to which you, my Lords, and I, contribute as taxpayers, is best to be seen. They do such a powerful amount to counteract the traditional B.T.A. image which has falsely got about—the Old Curiosity Shop, the changing of the Guard—and both noble Lords who have addressed themselves to this subject have explained how that came about.
They have another image to cope with. All the speakers have so far mentioned, naturally, grounds on which they could see improvements that could be brought about in our tourist facilities. Temperate and reasoned suggestions have been put forward by all three noble Lords. This is quite contrary to a certain type of sophisticated critic, and particularly the traveller abroad, who builds up quite a false image of our country by over-facile criticism. There is always somebody who has had that nightmare meal on British Railways; there is always someone who turned up at one minute past eight at a fashionable hotel to find the kitchen locked. We always hear far too much from them. There is always someone who is going to tell us, "Don't go to suchand-such a place; it will be ruined by tourists". They do not mind taking advantage of the facilities that tourist money has brought there, or the improvement in conditions. It is a type of criticism which the B.T.A. officer abroad will tell you that he has to counter everyday. He meets with it from our visitors abroad to an extent out of all comparison with its real weight.
The noble Lord, Lord Haire of White-abbey, referred to this operation as a co-operative one; and indeed it is. It is one thing which everyone can do. I am not suggesting for a moment that there is no room for improvement in our catering and in our hotels but, as the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, pointed out, the amount of building, particularly of moderate priced hotels, in this country since the war, has been enormous. Those
456
who tend to be critical of British catering—there are critics who are loud enough—have only to look at the astonishing number of prizes which British cooks win in international culinary exhibitions to see that there is another side to the coin. That is the trouble: bad news in the tourist world is always good news, and good news is no news at all.
Perhaps I may come nearer to my own trade, the tourist trade. We have been under criticism of late because of things like the "Fiesta" trouble and the "Omar Khayyam" trouble where, owing to faulty arrangements, tourists were stranded and, of course, made their grievances loudly heard; and rightly so. We do not hear so often from the hundreds of thousands of holiday makers who had happy and satisfactory holidays. Bad news is "news". But, my Lords, bad news must not occur too often, and this is why the travel trade is trying to put its house in order and why we have launched this "Operation Stabiliser". We should like people to realise that the 1,700 members of our Association are not all rogues and vagabonds, and that they are doing their level best to raise the standard of their trade, to increase its financial stability and its own image, and to increase the service which they can give to the customers, the holiday makers of this country. I hope that the work the Association is doing to put its house in order will meet with some success and some approval.
There are two other points that I should like to make concerning the other side of the coin. Of course, it is always the complaints that come to your desk, as any businessman—or the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, as Chairman of the B.T.A.—will bear out. It is the complaint that comes in more often than praise, and for exactly the same reason. But it is gratifying to think—and I speak here as President of the London Tourist Board—that an increasing number of congratulatory letters are coming in about the tourist trade in this country. People are bothering to write, to point out improvements and congratulate on successes, which they would not have done ten or twenty years ago.
One of the most gratifying words of praise that comes with increasing frequency is the word of thanks to the ordinary man in the street for his helpfulness towards tourists. Noble Lords may

457
remember the old joke in Punch of the two workmen, one of whom said, "Who's that over there?", and when the other replied, "Don't know—he must be a stranger," said, "Right! Heave half a brick at him." Now people almost embarrass a stranger with the desire to give him wrong directions and put him on a bus going in a completely different direction.
Another word of praise is for the fact that we have not yet fallen into the trap of graspingness. Paris is having a poor time as a tourist centre, compared with the success that she basked in after the war. People are complaining with increased vigour of the graspingness of Parisian hoteliers, shopkeeps and restaurateurs. There was rather a touching letter in one of the Paris trade papers the other day from an American who had complained in some remote French hotel about being charged the equivalent of 7s. 6d. for a boiled egg. Complaining to the hotel-keeper about the price, he asked, "Are boiled eggs rare in this part of the world?" "No, Monsieur", was the reply, "but tourists are." Do not let us have that attitude in this country.
I think we can learn two more lessons from Paris, and here I should like to have the support of the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government. In the London Tourist Board we are trying to do two things in particular. We are trying to get London established as the conference centre of the world. The London Tourist Board are, of course, firmly of the opinion that London is automatically the first tourist attraction in the world, but now we want to get the conference business on a sound footing. This is in its infancy. We have set up a convention bureau and have had great help from all of those properly concerned. It will be, we realise, a long-term business, but already we brought last year 107 conferences to London. We are overtaking Paris; indeed, we think we are well ahead of Paris this year. Those conferences in 1965 brought in £2 million on this market, which is one hitherto untapped. That is the first reason why I am asking the noble Lord's support for the work of the Board, and I hope the Government will be as generous and as helpful as they possibly can be.
458
The second point is quite different. We realise we have fallen badly behind other countries in the use of one of London's greatest attractions—London's river. I have gone abroad to Paris and to Amsterdam to see the splendid way in which they use their rivers as a tourist attraction—and their climate is not all that much better than ours, though, of course, the seasonal nature of London's weather is a handicap. We have enlisted the help of everybody concerned—the owners of launches, the riparian authorities, the Greater London Council and the brewers who have public houses down by the river. We have planned a long-term campaign to interest Londoners in their river and to provide the greatest possible number of resources for the Londoner and for his visitor. We regard the use of London's river as one of the easiest means of providing a new attraction for tourists.
I need hardly say that the moment we launched this campaign a flood of "funny stuff" came from just those people who think that London has been ruined by tourists, the sophisticated who regard any attempt to bring in tourists in any increasing number as a discomfort to them and as a handicap to their particular idea of civilisation. We have to give and take, but I think we have some claim for our case as well.
Two or three days ago, some anonymous friend with, I think, more wit than kindness, put a review in my locker outside of a book, Teach Yourself Arabic, 8s. 6d. For reasons which I need not go into, I am not likely to wish to teach myself Arabic for some time to come. I hope that the day will come in due course, but not at the moment. Guide books and phrase books have always had a fascination for me. Ever since the phrase,
"Lo, the postillion has been struck by lightening",
I have been looking for similar remarks in phrase books. This Arabic phrase book starts off splendidly with this one:
"He has some deaf black slave girls."
Further on, I read:
"A girl was paralysed for about fifteen years; she could not turn from side to side."
That would be bad enough for most of us, but not for this linguist. He goes on,

459
in case we have any glimmering of hope for the poor girl,
"Nor could anyone else turn her."
This is the one I particularly like, and it applies to the remarks I have been making:
"If you do it again, we shall again make a lampoon on you, the words of which will travel."
It is the second "again" I like. I do not know what is the opposite of a lampoon, but I hope that those who believe with me that a lot of damage is done by those who make lampoons on the British tourist industry and talk about places being ruined by tourists, will agree that we should do the opposite on them. And I hope that, as a result of this debate this evening, our words will travel, too.
7.23 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I do not propose to speak at any great length, and I do not need to declare an interest, except as a traveller and as one who enjoys holidays. But I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and the British Travel Association upon the magnificent way in which they have tackled the problems of the industry, and also on their excellent Report, which I have read with the greatest possible interest. In my new position as Chairman of the Consumer Council, I get a great deal of information from ordinary people. On the questions of travel and holidays, my Council have received many letters, some in terms of praise, some not. I hope that my contribution will not be considered too critical, but that it will bring the debate down to what is not so good, as well as what is good.
Before I get down to the points I want to raise from the consumer's point of view, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Haire of Whiteabbey, for his excellent speech, and also the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who is one of the biggest and most successful of the spokesmen for the travel business, for his speech. I agree with everything that has been said and I have no criticism to make of the speeches made so far.
There are one or two points which I hope will be picked up by the Government or by people in the commercial side of travel. One of them is the ques-
460
tion of diversifying holidays. I am glad to say that in Scotland (the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, mentioned the Scottish Travel Association) we have made use of the snow on our mountains during the winter-time for the development of winter sports. This is now a flourishing part of the travel industry, and new centres are springing up. For example, in Aviemore, new hotels are being built.
I should like to compete with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in his proposal that London should be a world conference centre: I am very keen that Edinburgh should be a great conference centre. We have had some experience with our Musical Festival, which has now been running for seventeen years and is one of the great annual European Festivals. We have plans to build a new conference hall and centre for both music and drama. I hope that we shall amicably, but nevertheless forcefully, compete with London on the question of having a conference centre. I agree, too, that we must develop diversity in travel in every way possible. Air, sea, rail, bus, motor-bike, caravan, pony—even Shank's mare—all provide improved assets for holidays. I think that we should (I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Geddes is well aware of this) develop all those various ways of spending holidays so that we need not always go to the sea or to the mountains. There are a great many ways in which we can develop holidays.
Now may I come to one or two points of complaint that we get in the Consumer Council offices. I do not want to fall into any of the pitfalls suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, by saying that what I am going to say now I look upon as news, in so far as it is not actually good news. I agree with him that one of the devastating things in life is that if you want to get into the newspapers, or to get recognition, you can be certain that if it is bad, you will get it quickly, and that if it is good, you will not get it at all. I want to bring to the attention of the experts that we have in the House this evening a number of complaints that have come to our office. I have chapter and verse, but I am not going to give names and addresses, because that would not be right in a debate of this kind.
People advertise holiday cottages, and quite often they are not what they are described to be. We have heard of quite

461
a number of them that have not been the beautiful holiday bungalows depicted, with all the amenities, but cottages that have been resurrected and have not been inspected by the health authority; that are not equipped with proper sanitation, and are not in salubrious surroundings in the countryside, but in a field which may not have been cultivated for some time and is full of stinging nettles. I hope that we may get some help from local authorities and from people who put forward suggestions of this kind, through magazines or newspapers, by their insisting that the advertisement describes the holiday cottage and that the description and the object coincide. We have had many complaints on these lines.
Then there have been a considerable number of complaints about the fact that so many brochures (and this includes the nationalised services—the noble Earl, Lord Amherst speaks for B.O.A.C.—as well as other services) have in very small print what I call the exclusion clauses for responsibilities. This happens more particularly when things go wrong, and I have three here which, if any noble Lord wishes, he can look at. This is something that we in the Consumer Council feel should be looked at carefully. We feel that travel agents should take responsibility for the services they provide and sell, in the same way as the trader has to take responsibility under the Sale of Goods Act for the goods he decides to stock and sell. Many agents hide behind exclusion clauses, of which I can give your Lordships one or two examples.
The first one is:
"All arrangements for hotel accommodation, meals and refreshments and entertainments and for the use of steamers, vehicles, trains, ferries, aircraft or other means of conveyance operated by persons or bodies other than the Company are made by the Company as agents for or on behalf of the passenger on the express condition that the Company shall not be responsible for any loss, damage, injury, delay or inconvenience caused to passengers as a result of any such arrangements for hotel accommodation, meals and refreshments and entertainments or in any such steamers, vehicles, trains, ferries, aircraft or other means of conveyance…"
That, as we all know, is something which, unless you study these things carefully, you do not see in the prospectus. I have another example of the same thing, and
462
this comes from a tour organisation, who say:
"All arrangements made for hotel accommodation, the use of other companies' vehicles, steamers, aircraft, launches, ferries, etc., are made by—Tours Ltd. as agents on the express condition that they shall not be responsible for any loss, damage, injury, accident, delay or other inconvenience caused to passengers in any such hotels, steamers, aircraft, launches, vehicles, ferries, etc."
This, situation, we believe, could be improved. For a disaster, of course people cannot be held responsible. But for the ordinary run of a tour, we feel that the responsibility taken by the travel agent should bear some relation to the kind of responsibility that people have under the Sale of Goods Act. The exclusions even extend to camps run by commercial firms. These things, I feel, should be looked at, because I believe it would add to the happiness of people who are either travelling with a travel agent or buying a tour that is arranged for them if these exclusion clauses, which so often cause great difficulty and unhappiness to the traveller, were not there.
There is one type of tour about which we have practically no complaints, and I should like to say a word about it. Mind you, I do not want to give the impression that the complaints I am telling your Lordships about are tremendously widespread, because they are not; but if we are having a debate, let us bring up the difficulties as well as the things that go well. The tours about which we have had few complaints are run by the British coach tour organisers in this country. High praise can be given to coach tour operators, because they seem to be deeply concerned about their passengers. The people who go on these coach tours do not send in anything like as many complaints (I understand from my office, which receives complaints, that there are practically none) compared with those who go on other tours.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has spoken about a scheme which the travel agents have inaugurated and which is definitely a step in the right direction, but we still feel that there are steps which might be taken and which would go further to compensate people for any disasters that may overtake them. The two bad cases mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, Fiesta Tours and Omar Khayyam Tours, as we all know,

463
have been heard in the courts. The way they operated was most unfortunate. I feel that what has been suggested is definitely a step in the right direction, but we should like some more safeguards. If I just mention them, I hope that the Government may consider them in the event of there being any suggestion for legislation with regard to travel agents and tour operators.
In the first place, we should like agents to accept liability to the holiday-maker for their own errors and for faults on the part of those directly responsible for providing facilities—that is to say, a false prospectus, or for a tour to a resort advertised as having golf courses, swimming baths and so on, which turns out to have nothing of the kind. Those things should not be encouraged or allowed. The travel agent could insure himself against a certain amount of liability which would enable him to recover damages in the event of an accident taking place or of hazards outside his control. We think there should be less of the exclusion clauses in the brochures of tours which are put out to attract tourists.
We also think that any agency which is starting up—and this does not apply to those we are discussing now, because they are well-established agencies—should possess adequate operating capital. It is easy to start up a travel agency with practically no capital at all, and we believe that that should be one of the tests. We believe that there should be some form of monetary guarantee, and that the agency should employ properly trained staff. That may be extremely difficult, because when you say "trained staff", you are at once asked "How do you get trained staff in a world in which it is very hard to come by them?" Agents who have trained staff might be encouraged still further, and I am sure that it would pay handsomely from the point of view of the agencies, because the services they gave would be much appreciated. Also, all the agencies should adhere to a code of conduct similar to that of A.B.T.A., which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, knows well.
We should like to see this vastly expanding industry encouraged in every way, but it should also be concerned with the consumers of travel. The buyers, the
464
clients, are also people whom we must consider carefully. We think that in this expanding industry it would be a good plan if the standards could be raised; that there should be registration of travel agents, and that there should be definite guarantees which protect the consumer as well as the promoter. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that we have no desire in any circumstances to suggest that the image of travel here is not first-class—I think it is. Of course, we can improve it, and I should be the first to want to help in every possible way I can. The industry has grown up very fast, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Haire of Whiteabbey, has said, we are hoping to have millions of visitors by 1970, which shows that it is something of great importance to the economy of this country. I hope that the interests of those who are purchasers, buyers and consumers of travel will be considered just as much as of those who run the industry. In the main, they are very efficient, but there are some black spots, and one wants to be rid of them.
7.45 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, there is one thing with which all previous speakers agree, and one with which I am sure the Government will not quarrel, and that is that tourism is very big business. We in the tourist business—and in saying that I feel that I should also declare my interest, as I am deeply involved in tourism, having nearly 600,000 visitors to my home every year—agree that one thing is clear, and that is that tourism can be built up. In 1952 we had about 80,000 visitors, and last year nearly 600,000 visitors. One thing which is clear, in whatever tourist business you may be, is that the tourist must be won. The tourist will not come naturally to this country, and one feels that in the depths of some Government Department there is still the idea that tourists will come to this country willy-nilly, which is just not true.
Last year I went round the world twice on lecture tours to encourage tourists to come to Britain. In these tours, I had tremendous help from the British Travel Association. I should like to support previous speakers in saying what a wonderful job these overseas offices of the British Travel Association do. They

465
welcome anybody concerned with tourism in this country, because by their presence they think they can use them to get publicity for travel to Britain generally. I had some special survey figures on overseas visitors to Beaulieu last year, and they bore out two interesting points, one of which the noble Lord, Lord Haire of Whiteabbey, touched upon. It is that the visitors from France and Germany are rapidly overhauling those coming from the United States and Canada. The second point which gave me great personal pleasure was that there was a great increase in the number of visitors to my home from many of the countries in which I had lectured.
I should like to say that I support the fact that we must leave it to the British Travel Association and their offices abroad to present the correct image in the countries where they are situated. It is no good our trying to say what image we want England to have abroad, but it is true to say that overseas the whole Continent of Europe is considered the Continent of Antiquities. This is the home of their heritage, and this is what they come to Europe to see. Whether those antiquities are Beefeaters or thatched cottages, or the Louvre in Paris, this is what they come to see. I feel that we should leave it to the experts on the spot to put over in those countries the image which they know will draw.
One factor which seems to be holding back some of the offices abroad is a lack of money. I know that this is the usual cry, but the more money we can give for promotion overseas, the better. As your Lordships know, there are two basic points about tourism for any country. First of all, tourists want to know of places to stay at and places to see. As regards places to stay at and eat, I think we are all agreed that there has been a considerable revolution in the last ten years in the standard of hotels and food in this country. The sad thing is that it appears from the latest Government White Paper that the tourist industry has been left out so far as investment allowances are concerned. I feel they ought to think very carefully again whether the climate which has been produced for the improvement of hotels in this country is to continue or not. Unless there is consistent stimulation for better hotels and better food, it is possible that this revolution will begin to slip.
466
I was somewhat amused to see that the White Paper talks of extractive industries. I feel that perhaps one could look upon tourism as an extractive industry, but not too large a one. One of the biggest extractors are the Government themselves, because on every glass of beer or whisky, or packet of cigarettes, that I sell over my bar in my hotel maybe I get a profit, but the Government get 50 per cent. profit, so there is something to be said for this. Perhaps we can ask the Government to think again about the investment allowances which hotels desperately need in order to modernise themselves continually.
Now with regard to places to see. In this I must talk about the subject which is nearest to me, and that is the stately homes of England. As your Lordships know, in 1945 very few houses were open, and it might well have been that these houses would collapse and become great ruins or dusty mausoleums such as there are in other countries. But due to the efforts of many individuals, we are now extremely well off in the fact that many of our houses have been preserved. Indeed, there are about 500 houses open to the public in this country, attracting about 7 million visitors a year.
I think we ought to appreciate the fact that Government grants exist, and they have at times been given generously. But at the moment they are not enough to make quite sure that these houses can be preserved indefinitely. It is only a small increase that is needed to do a proper job. Owners cannot afford to spend large sums of capital on maintaining these old houses. It would be much better for us financially, and probably much more comfortable, if we went and lived in smaller houses. It would also be wrong for us to spend large sums of capital on our houses when it would be far better for the country if we spent it on agriculture and forestry. But in return for this Government help I think the Government should demand from the stately homes a slightly more professional attitude.
Looking around the Chamber at this time of the evening, I am glad to see that I have not many of my rivals here, because I want to say that many of the stately homes are very inefficiently run, without any idea of business and with a completely amateur approach. To

467
paraphrase a famous remark, they certainly need a smack of firm management. Owners of stately homes cannot have it both ways: unless they accept the fact that they are part of the tourist industry, and use modern methods of promotion and business control, they will not, I feel, keep up in the race. It is said generally that all these stately homes run at a loss. I do not accept that this is necessary. With good business management, leaving aside the question of repairs, there is no reason why a reasonable profit cannot be made from the attraction of tourists. It is perhaps right for me to say that I am not ashamed of saying that in the early years I did make a loss, but I am now making a profit. I am putting that profit back into improving and increasing the facilities for visitors who come to view. I should like to feel that my efforts will be rewarded by tax reliefs and investment incentives. The irony is that I have never asked for a grant to repair my roof, but I have had so many visitors that my floor is wearing out.
Having made those remarks, I would sum up by saying that all of us in the tourist business in this country look to the Government for help in many ways, in little details like fixing the date of Easter, in the provision of more money for promotion, and also for giving incentives for those working hard in the tourist trade, whether it be in hotels, restaurants, stately homes or museums, because every penny that we can re-invest in this industry will be of great value to the country as a whole.
7.54 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I should like to say how glad I am to have a chance of taking part in this debate, even at this late hour, because I have long been interested in the tourist industry. I must declare my interest. Apart from a small financial interest in the hotel industry, and from having represented for many years in another place a county where the tourist industry was of prime importance, I am also the President of the English Lakes Tourist Board. This Board, now 33 years old, is supported in the main by the smaller local authorities and has never sought publicity, but it has done a great deal of good work in a quiet way.
468
It is strange that until recently very few people had any knowledge of this industry or expressed much interest in it. Even the Board of Trade is a comparatively recent convert. To-day, while old-stagers realise that there is a lot more to be done in developing and strengthening the industry and its organisation, I want to strike a note of warning. We should take notice that there are too many people wanting to jump on the bandwagon because of the supposed glamour of the industry and for fear of being left out. Some of them are very respectable. In our part of the world, the county councils are even a little suspect for showing an interest so late in the day. Again, we should take warning of the danger of promotion for promotion's sake, because the "P.R." fraternity are not infallible and are likely to do harm as well as good. Our super-publicity-minded Regional Economic Planning Council's hasty utterances are causing a good deal of apprehension in the North of England.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Strang, is no longer here, because responsible reports, including those of the National Parks Commission, have included a whole series of warnings against the danger that our area (I do not speak of places like Beaulieu, but of the English Lake District) may be swamped by mere numbers. Vast numbers are coming into our district on their own along the motorway, so it is not a question of publicising the Lake District in order to increase the numbers. Our task is to try to make better use of our resources, and I imagine that this applies to other rural parts of the British Isles. We must try to extend the season. That is happening slowly in the Lake District, but we must increase that trend. And we must interest people, too, in the surrounding areas, such as the Pennines, The Solway and the Roman Wall, as well as the centre and the Lakes.
We must also accept new ideas. Traffic must be controlled on the minor roads, even if this is a reversal of the highway authority's usual policy of up-grading every country lane into a modern motor road in the interest of "traffic flow". The Germans are a long way ahead of us here.
The Lake District is small and precious, particularly to the youth of this country for the unique opportunites for adventure it offers. It can claim to be our premier

469
holiday area—leaving London out of consideration. Yet it is always at risk. Not so long ago your Lordships saved the Lake District from one of the periodical attacks from Manchester Corporation, seeking water on the cheap, and it may well be that your Lordships will be called upon in the near future to defend it again.
On page 30 of the Annual Report reference is made to a North-West Tourist Conference organised in Black-pool in December, to consider the establishment of a regional tourist organisation for the North-West. That was a mistake, and the credit should not go to those who organised the conference but to those who made sure that it did not do any harm, because resorts on the Lancashire coast and the Lake District resorts have entirely different problems and do not go well together. Then we have our planning council with their ambition and loose talk about "super resorts". Lastly, we have inconsiderate visitors, with their litter and their noise on water as well as on land, spoiling the pleasure of other people.
Noble Lords have referred to the rising standards of cooking and accommodation in our hotels and boarding houses. In the North of England we are proud of our tradition of hospitality and standards of innkeeping and cooking, and we would claim that we are far ahead of the South of England and the Midlands.
The taxation problems of the hotel industry have been mentioned more than once and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, who will reply for the Government, will press on the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is a strong case for treating hotels and restaurants as industrial premises, so entitling them to some writing-off of the capital spent on improvements. At the present time that is not possible, and we must be about the only country in Europe which has to carry that burden. It is only the buoyant trade of recent years which has enabled us to finance overdue improvements, and such few private bathrooms as one may find in country hotels have probably been built with taxed income, and not as in other countries.
Our affluent society is very demanding. It is becoming "scampi-minded", as somebody put it to me the other day, and as a result some few hotels are being
470
encouraged to charge too much, which is a bad mark for the industry. I deplore the ever-longer and more expensive meals to be found in country hotels and ever more characterless wine labeled "Liebfraumilch". Three well-prepared courses ought to be enough for most people on most occasions. If the quality were up and the price down, it would be, I think, an advantage to our tourist trade.
The hotel industry has a great future ahead of it in this country, and it offers to those employed in it more and better opportunities and rewards than many of them suppose. Further, there is the opportunity for many to make a start in business on their own in a small way with a reasonable chance, if they put their backs into it, of seeing their small business grow into bigger ones; and that is more than can be said about many of our industries to-day, not least the film industry, whose circumstances and affairs were being discussed in this House earlier this afternoon. I imagine there are no openings there for the small man to start in business on his own. In conclusion I should like to say that I hope the British Travel Association will accept my thanks for their very great services to the industry; I wish them well and I hope they will continue their good work, tempering their energy with discretion.
8.2 p.m.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, may I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Haire of Whiteabbey, for having introduced this subject? He has had it on the Order Paper for a long time, and I am glad it arrived to-day. He has made a very considered and studied speech and brought up all kinds of problems, including whether we should begin to drive on the right-hand side of the road. I think the only thing he missed out was that the metric system would be a very good thing for the tourist trade, but otherwise he seemed to go over the whole field. I will try to answer a few of the questions as they came along.
The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, has declared his interest—yet he did not. He gave the usual House of Lords nominal declaration, but in point of fact that really was not adequate. By his services to the British Travel Association—I will make him blush, because I know he is a sensitive

471
person, but I have no mercy—he has done a wonderful job during these last few years, and at great personal inconvenience, for it was nearly a full-time job. In some ways, the same goes for the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who is the Chairman of the London Tourist Board. It really is a wonderful thing that this country has at its service such people who are prepared to give their time and energy for an object of this sort with the interest of the country at heart.
The noble Lord need not have apologised for the image of the Beefeater. Of course we need the image of the old as well as the new. In any case, I would have come in for a terrific bombardment from my noble friend Lord Bowles, who was absolutely bridling during the time that the noble Lord was apologising for the image, because he happens to be Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard. He murmured, "These are my men", and I think he was quite right. May I thank the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, for the studied views that he has expressed, knowing the subject intimately from close observation, as a practical person engaged in the travel industry and British European Airways.
I thought the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, was as usual very bright and on the ball. I could not help but chuckle when he was talking about the help that was given to tourists by people in the localities, and how people in giving directions and so on were helping the tourist trade to flourish. I remember the case of some foreign people who came into our locality a year or two ago. They asked a local how they should get to a certain place, and after a long time the local said, "I don't think I would start from here if I were you". The husband of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, went with us to Nigeria, and we had a great affection for him. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes was on the same mission, and it was interesting that we had to present a mace; I have wondered many times in recent weeks if it is in the same position as we left it. Lady Elliot of Harwood spoke about the implications of her particular field of consumer interests. I shall have something to say about that in a moment, and also about Lord Montagu of Beaulieu's speech. I wish
472
to have a word about the stately homes. Lord Inglewood has been a great champion for the Lake District and has caused the gritting of many teeth in Manchester on many occasions because of his obstinacy, as I always consider it, but I suppose he would call persistence.
LORD INGLEWOOD: There is water for all in the north-west of England. It's just a question of whether you must grab your neighbour's water, in the cheapest and easiest way, even if you damage his interests in so doing.
LORD RHODES: We will not go into the question of our neighbour's water, but will leave that for some other time.
This has been a good debate. It has been quite distinctive, in that the people who have spoken have been intimately connected with the subject and know what they are talking about. It is true to say that the growth of international tourism in the last two decades has been phenomenal. It has been, as has been said by so many people—and I will try not to go over too much of the ground—an important contribution to the credit side of our balance of payments. And when I say that Her Majesty's Government are determined that the impressive progress achieved so far shall be maintained, I would add that we are determined that it should be improved upon, because this is precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, wants; and we are out to back him as much as we possibly can.
The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, has quoted statistics. To save time, I will cut out a lot of the material I have, but I do not want to omit one figure that I think has not yet been mentioned. In 1964, 3 million people visited these islands, and I have no doubt that when the figures for 1965 are produced they will show that fresh records were broken. I do not know whether the noble Lord has the figures, but I shall be interested to have them as soon as they are available. I recall with pride another personal thing, because I was at the Board of Trade when the present Prime Minister was the President of the Board of Trade. Is it not astonishing and significant, as we see these things unfold, to recall the number of really imaginative projects that were introduced about that time, and before? We have been discussing earlier this evening films and art. The whole

473
Statute Book is strewn with imaginative projects. I should be willing to debate this at any time, but this is not a time for partisan or Party politics.
When my right honourable friend was President of the Board of Trade he entrusted the Association with the comprehensive mandate which is as good today as ever it was. I know, from personal knowledge, that he has watched with pride its progress since those early days. The B.T.A., as Lord Geddes has reminded us, was then charged with a three-fold task. The first was to increasing the number of visitors coming from overseas to the United Kingdom. The second was to foster and develop among residents of this country the practice of spending holidays at home—something which has been recently commented on at the Boat Show. My answer to some of the play to and fro across this House the other day, would be that that is the second principle of the British Travel Association. All that my right honourable friend was doing was just laying in front of the visitors the second object. The Association's third task was to promote in every way the improvement of the tourist and holiday accommodation, catering, transport, entertainment and a whole list of things in the United Kingdom.
My noble friend asked if we thought it would be successful. May I say that we at the Board of Trade think that the British Travel Association is succeeding, and is doing its work well. Of course we do. I again congratulate the noble Lord on his Annual Report, which has been given as the reason for this debate. With the increase in the standard of living, particularly in Western countries, I suppose that international tourism also will increase dramatically in the immediate future, and we feel that here in the British Travel Association we have the medium to cope.
In one of the most stimulating sections of the Report, the Association states its belief that a National Recreational Plan, based on surveys, should be prepared to guide recreational development. The noble Lord mentioned the Duke of Edinburgh's speech on the countryside—I think the title was "The Countryside in 1970". I must mention that at the same time the Minister of Land and Natural Resources announced his plans for a new Countryside Commission, to take over
474
the powers of the present National Parks Commission and, in addition, enlarge opportunities for the enjoyment of the countryside generally, and not only in the National Parks. I hope that at this late hour I shall not draw upon myself any fire from the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, on this matter.
A major proposal is that, in consultation with the Commission, local authorities should establish country parks, with facilities for car parking, picnicing, and so on. The Government are also encouraging authorities responsible for reservoirs to allow public access, and thus to help to meet the increasing demand for boating, and other water-based sports. I want to make an appeal (this is my own personal appeal) to local authorities and local councils who are at present making plans for new reservoirs, to see that their plans include provision for the use of the reservoirs in the way I have suggested. These places can be of inestimable value for scores of thousands of people who are now, and will be in future, taking up these new sports. It is a good investment, not only for travel associations and our tourist receipts, but also in the health of the country. I have one in mind, in particular. I hope that my remarks will be heard by these bodies. A survey is already being carried out by the Social Survey Division of the Central Office of Information on present and future demands for facilities for indoor and outdoor sport and recreation.
I come now to a most important part of my noble friend's introductory speech, about the extension of the holiday period. It has been said this afternoon that two-thirds of all British holidays are taken in July and August. This causes congestion on the roads, on public transport, at resorts and in holiday areas. There is no doubt that this congestion would be relieved if the summer holiday period could be spread more evenly over the months from June to September. I am sorry to have to be so platitudinous, but that is true and it cannot be said too often. What has been done? We have announced that for each of the next three years the spring and late summer bank holidays—I am using the phrase "bank holiday" in the old way—will be the Monday nearest respectively to the end of May and the end of August. More

475
important, I am glad to say, in answer to my noble friend, that most of the examining boards for the G.C.E. examinations are arranging this year for these examinations to be completed by the end of June. This will be of great help. This change will be helped by the severance of the spring bank holiday from Whitsuntide, and should enable the schools to fix their summer holidays more flexibly, so that other people can fix their holidays perhaps just outside the peak period.
Criticism has been levelled about the difficulties and changes that have taken place regarding the investment allowance. I should like to say a word on this matter. In the Report that we are discussing we are urged to assist in creating favourable conditions under which the hotel industry can expand. Some criticism has been made of the measures proposed in the recent White Paper on Investment Incentives. It is true—and I am not getting away from it—that under the terms of the proposed legislation hotels and other service establishments will in future lose the investment allowance on their equipment. This loss, however, will be cushioned in the short term by the increase of the initial allowance to 30 per cent. I know it can be argued that the initial allowance is not so good as the investment allowance, but there is this opportunity of the 30 per cent. initial allowance.
Moreover, the White Paper makes it clear that hotels and similar establishments will continue, as previously, to be eligible for assistance in the new development areas, subject to the existing condition about the creation of additional employment, which really means that the criteria about providing employment in development areas applies. I will tell your Lordships something about the assistance that can be given. It can be in the form of building grants of 25 per cent., or in special cases 35 per cent., or Board of Trade loans can be obtained for plant or for working capital.
LORD INGLEWOOD: Everywhere?
LORD RHODES: Yes, in the noble Lord's district. I am coming to that in a moment. Do not get impatient. They take in practically the whole of Scotland, Northern England, including the Lake
476
District, almost the whole of Wales, Cornwall and North Devon. I am sorry, but I have no crumb of comfort for the noble Lord who spoke so eloquently about stately homes. These, of course, are major tourist-areas, and it follows that new or extended hotels in many places which would not previously have qualified will now become eligible for the kinds of assistance I have mentioned.
The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, mentioned the contributions by the Government to the British Travel Association, which this year will amount to nearly £2 million. In parenthesis, may I say that this £2 million which is injected into the travel industry provides a massive indirect benefit for hotels and restaurants which cater for overseas visitors and helps to bring them in. The British Travel Association Report refers elsewhere to the need to modernise transport terminals and provide good standard catering services at these terminals. I feel very keenly about this, because I sometimes come into Euston station, and I have wondered when it is going to be finished. I have something more cheerful to say on that in a moment.
Much is being done to improve the standards. At London Airport an extensive development programme to improve landing facilities for aircraft and passengers has commenced and will continue over the next three or four years. Six piers will be built to give covered walkways between passenger buildings and aircraft. The first pier was opened in June, 1965, and a second pier is under construction. As one who uses London Airport a good deal, may I say what a boon that pier has been; there is no question about that. It is a wonderful time-and-energy saver. If six of these are going to be built, it will be of enormous benefit to many people arriving in this country. At Gatwick Airport an enlarged terminal building was completed and brought fully into use early in June, 1965. Provincial airports have also been extended or improved. Additional space has been added to the terminal buildings at Luton, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Bristol, Liverpool, Southend, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Leeds-Bradford, Belfast and Edinburgh.
There has been quite a lot of criticism, as your Lordships know, and it as well every now and again to enumerate

477
what we are doing. British Railways, for their part, have recently made improvements at the seaports of Dover and Folkestone. The last two or three years has also seen a significant increase in the car ferry services between Britain and Europe, and inland the full impact of electrification will be felt this summer on British Railways main lines between London, Manchester and Liverpool. I do not think we realise that we are near the point when some of our railway services are going to be the best in the world. When it becomes a fact that every few hours in the day one will be able to get from Manchester to London or the other way round in 2 hours and 35 minutes, it will make a lot of people sit up and take notice. But that is not all. Other services to Holyhead, Heysham, the North-West of England, and Scotland will also benefit from the accelerated timings over the route from London to Crewe. Five new routes are being added to the "Cars by train" network, making 15 services in all and giving space for 30 per cent. more cars. The routes which these trains will serve will penetrate into the heart of the main tourist areas.
A point was made about the speed of the clearance of baggage and the way in which foreign visitors are treated when they come to our ports or airports. Her Majesty's Customs have collaborated on this in a splendid way. Last summer they made a study of procedures for examining baggage in several countries on the Continent. After what had been said about the necessity for speeding up the process, they went over there to see the situation. They also made their own experiments at certain seaports and airports in this country to assess the effects of different procedures and methods. Arrangements to help passengers and customers alike are now being worked out in the light of these experiments and studies. It is a fact that different circumstances at ports call for different procedures, but at places where changes seem desirable and feasible the lessons learned will, so far as possible, be applied in good time for the increased volume of traffic that we are expecting this summer. In addition,
478
the Customs are preparing informative leaflets to distribute abroad to help visitors on their arrival here to understand any questions about their baggage which may be addressed to them.
I should like to mention a point in which I am particularly interested. During this summer the World Cup series will be played in this country. I do not know whether that gives the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, a great deal of satisfaction, when he thinks about questions of accommodation and how we are going to cope. Nevertheless, a large number of people will be coming here and will be spending a great deal of money. It is interesting to see what the Government have done about this. They have shown imagination and anticipation, and if everybody plays his part in this matter as the Government have done, then all will go well.
The Government have made available to the Football Association a sum approaching £500,000 towards the cost of facilities, so that the games can be suitably staged. I suppose that most of the money needed will be distributed by the Association to the six football clubs on whose grounds the World Cup matches are to be played. But the remainder is to be spent principally on providing for the reception of overseas visitors attending the games in London and elsewhere. Estimates of the number of overseas visitors to the games are incomplete, but there is evidence of great interest by agencies acting for such visitors. Overseas visitors will undoubtedly make a substantial addition to tourist-spending in this country as a direct result of the Cup.
What I am trying to get at is this. While we are known to be friendly and hospitable people, if folk in this country really excelled themselves this year about; the way in which they received the large numbers of visitors who come to this country it would do an enormous amount to cement relations with countries abroad. I am doing my bit. I was in Mexico in October, and I have booked a room downstairs for a hundred influential Mexican visitors. We are aware of what will be needed long before the visitors come, and I want to sound a little

479
clarion call to people to rally, because British prestige could then be increased enormously and exports of a different nature could be helped.
I have nearly spoken for long enough. I just want to say a few words to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu—I apologise if I have not answered everybody's questions because it is too late. We listened with great interest and delight to what the noble Lord said. I expected and hoped that the noble Duke, the Duke of Bedford, might have taken part in this debate as well, but he has not shown up. He is probably busy preparing for his summer visitors. As the owner of one of the stately homes—I suppose one of the stateliest in the land—the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, has had the satisfaction of playing a direct and enviable part in the tourist industry of this country. He is right. Our stately homes are among Britain's leading tourist attractions, and the survey carried out by the British Travel Association showed that ancient buildings and ancient homes were among those items which formed the greatest attraction to visitors from the United States. It is estimated that in 1964 our historic houses and buildings attracted more than 4 million visitors. As your Lordships—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu—may know, a Working Party has been set up to formulate plans to encourage more visitors to Britain's stately homes, and I am glad that the noble Lord is serving as a member.
I once went to Paris as a visitor to the Council of Europe at the Palais de Luxembourg. I went up the steps of that gorgeous place, with a man who was grumbling at every step. He said, "I have come through the slums of north Paris, and people have no right to put up buildings like this when they have slums in north Paris." An old German Socialist was walking up the stairs at the same time, and I shall never forget what he said as long as I live. He said, "Excuse me. This place was built long ago for £200,000. It has given pleasure to thousands of families. If you were thinking of spending money to-day, do you think you would get the same value out of
480
£200,000 worth of bomber? Would people be climbing into a bomber 200 years from now?" It was salutary for my friend, and it was salutary for me. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, success with an increased number of visitors from abroad this summer.
We must not forget the consumer, and I cannot finish without saying a word to the noble Baroness. Here, again, just as in the debate on the film industry, there is no question that it is the consumer who is the important person. As your Lordships know, I introduced the Protection of Consumers (Trade Descriptions) Bill in this Chamber last week, and we are starting our discussion on it next Tuesday. It would not, therefore, be appropriate for me to anticipate what I shall be saying then, and in any case it is getting late. But I think I can safely draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Bill will go some way to stopping deliberate or reckless false statements about holiday accommodation, about which I think the noble Baroness who was campaigning for this for a long time will be highly satisfied.
I began earlier by referring to the importance of tourism to the national economy, and the Government recognise this. They are wholeheartedly behind the British Travel Association. They are indebted to the Chairman of it; they are indebted to those who give their time to the furtherance of its aims. I should also like to say, in his absence, that the same applies to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. If I have failed to deal with any points I apologise, and I finish as I began by saying to my noble friend Lord Haire of Whiteabbey that we are indebted to him for having initiated this debate.
8.37 p.m.
LORD HAIRE OF WHITEABBEY: My Lords, at this very late hour you will not wish me to make a second speech. It may be all right for my noble friend Lord Rhodes to speak for a second, and sometimes a third, time in an afternoon; he is always good value. But may I be allowed to thank noble Lords and the noble Baroness for the contributions which they have made to this

481
debate, and for the atmosphere of sweet reasonableness which they have brought to it? And may I wish all your Lordships a happy holiday? I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (PROHIBITED EXPORTS AND IMPORTS) ORDER 1966
Fifth Report from the Special Orders Committee made; to be printed, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before nine o'clock.