Lords Sitting of 21 November 1966

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

COMPLAINTS AGAINST CHARTERED BODIES
2.36 p.m.
LORD FOLEY: 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 they are aware that there have been complaints by members of the public who claim they have sustained injustice in consequence of maladministration in connection with actions by professional bodies operating under Royal Charter, persons so aggrieved having no remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law; and whether Her Majesty's Government consider that such complaints might be suitable for reference to the proposed Parliamentary Commissioner.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am aware that complaints of this sort are made from time to time, but, as I told the noble Lord in reply to a similar Question on July 5, the Parliamentary
2
Commissioner's task will be to investigate complaints made against Government Departments, not against professional bodies of the sort to which the noble Lord refers.
LORD FOLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, I should like to ask him a short supplementary question. Is he aware that, whereas the Law Society, for example, are not allowed to adjudicate in matters arising re complaints concerning their own members, this does not apply to, say, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, who are allowed to quash complaints made against their own members? If I can supply the noble Lord with cases, will he entertain looking into the matter?
LORD SHEPHERD: Certainly, my Lords. If the noble Lord has any information which he cares to give me I shall be very happy to consider it and convey it to the appropriate department. The Law Society has a disciplinary committee which is an independent body set up by the Master of the Rolls. I am advised that any individual who may have a complaint against a member of that Society, or against a member of any other organisation under Royal Charter, may take the case to a' court of law.
LORD FOLEY: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that this does not apply, for example, to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. If I may, I will convey this information to the noble Lord.
LORD SHEPHERD: Certainly. Many organisations are concerned—for instance, the Institute of Directors. I do not know what the Government can do about the Institute protecting directors from time to time.

B.E.A. AND AIRCRAFT PURCHASES
2.38 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: 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 is the present position of negotiations with British European Airways on the Corporation's request for authority to order new civil aircraft to replace and supplement their existing fleet, and in particular for how long this question has been under discussion with the Corporation and when it is expected authority will be given for such orders to be placed.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, since my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation made a statement in another place on August 2, British European Airways have been considering their requirements for new British jet aircraft. This consideration necessarily involves detailed examination of the types of aircraft available, in varying combinations, from both technical and financial points of view. Government Departments have been closely associated with this work.
The Chairman of British European Airways wrote to my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade on October 28 to inform him of a resolution by his Board that the Corporation should place an immediate order for eighteen BAC 1-11/500 aircraft, with an option for a further six aircraft. He explained that this purchase would meet the first part only of B.E.A.'s requirement for jet aircraft. Under the terms of the Board's resolution, this initial order was made conditional upon the Government's agreeing that B.E.A. should have, by not later than April 1, 1968, a capital reconstruction and that this should be "on the same terms as that now accorded to B.O.A.C."
My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade replied
4
on November 3 that this condition was unacceptable to him since, even if a financial reconstruction of B.E.A. were, in principle, the right course (which had still to be discussed), it would be impossible to settle the terms of such a reconstruction or to decide what assistance the taxpayer should be asked to provide, until the Government had before them a full picture, both of the British aircraft fleet that B.E.A. would wish to buy and of the Corporation's financial prospects. My right honourable friend reaffirmed the Government's pledge of August 2 that they would ensure that B.E.A. was able to operate as a fully commercial undertaking with the fleet it acquires. Since this exchange of letters further discussions have been taking place between the Board of Trade and the Corporation. My right honourable friend is satisfied that all concerned are aware of the importance he attaches to establishing the conditions in which an early decision can be reached on B.E.A.'s proposed purchase of the BAC 1-11s.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask the Minister three questions? First, is he aware that every week of delay in respect of the fleet that is needed for operation in 1968 is prejudicing B.E.A.'s future competitive ability in Europe? Secondly, is it fair and reasonable to expect B.E.A. to operate under a general Government pledge for some financial aid, undefined in amount, at an unknown time in the future, instead of arriving at a fair and business-like decision now as to what assistance the Corporation should have for its future operations? Finally—and on the last point the Minister made—is it really fair and reasonable that B.O.A.C. should be granted a capital reconstruction to enable it to buy American aircraft, and that B.E.A. should be denied similar treatment in order to buy British aircraft?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, on the first supplementary question concerning the prejudicing of B.E.A.'s competitive position because of delay, I would point out to the noble Lord that negotiations are in progress and that it takes the agreement of both sides in a negotiation to come to the right decision. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade is anxious to conclude

5
these negotiations as reasonably soon as he can, but in view of the fact that large sums of taxpayers' money are involved a careful review of this matter is essential.
On the second point, the noble Lord asked whether B.E.A. can operate currently under these financial difficulties. The undertaking has already been given that this question is going to be very closely looked at, and this does not seem to be a matter which at the moment is prejudicing B.E.A.'s operations overseas. He has the assurance of my right honourable friend that this matter will be looked at, as indeed the pledge was given by the Minister of Aviation in the other place on August 2. On the third matter, a comparison has been made between the position of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. I do not think this comparison can fairly be made, and the situation with regard to B.E.A. must be looked at as it stands and in the light of the assurances already given.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, is it not a fact that in the statement of August 2 it was made perfectly clear that B.E.A. wished to buy American aircraft but they were instructed by the Government to buy British aircraft? Was it not also clear from that statement that the Government had undertaken to make up the difference in operating costs between these two kinds of aircraft? Why can they not now give a straight reply to B.E.A. about these matters?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, on a previous occasion a debate in another place on the affairs of B.O.A.C. gave rise to statements about the efficiency or economy of certain types of British aircraft which were extremely damaging to the future prospects of companies selling those aircraft overseas. The linking together of this question of examining the total financial structure of B.E.A. and the current contention that B.E.A. shoud buy British aircraft is likely to give rise to similar inferences about British aircraft. I should like to say that the aircraft under consideration are first-class aircraft which are competitive with all others in the variable circumstances to he found in the operation of aircraft. The question whether the aircraft are economic to operate is entirely dependant on the circumstances in which they are placed, so I would suggest that a debate along the lines suggested by the noble Lord should
6
not proceed because it might damage the interests of British aircraft manufacturers.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I must say I resent that, because it was the British Government's statement made on August 2 which linked these two things together perfectly clearly. It was made clear that B.E.A. wished to buy American aircraft but were being instructed to buy British aircraft, and it was said later on that the British Government had given certain undertakings to make up the difference in money. I know everything about the BAC1-11—it is a very fine aircraft—but the question is whether it is exactly suitable for the whole of the fleet that B.E.A. want at this moment.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I can only say that if someone rose and asked whether a Vauxhall was better than a B.M.C. car the answer would be that one has to consider the circumstances in which they operate, and the same sort of considerations apply to the economy of operating different types of aircraft.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, my noble friend is not asking that. He is asking what the Government are going to do to carry out the pledge which they have given to B.E.A.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I have already, on behalf of the President of the Board of Trade, given the undertaking that this pledge will be carried out.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, in many enterprises in the past vague promises have been made by successive Governments, which have never really worked out satisfactorily. Surely it is not unreasonable for the Corporation to ask now for a specific conclusion as to what help they will be getting when they commence the operation of these aircraft, because unless they know it now they cannot properly plan ahead.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, in the light of the fact that the Minister of Aviation gave an assurance in the House on August 2, which has since been reaffirmed by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, I think it is quite unreasonable to question whether this undertaking will be carried out. The question of the speed with which it will be carried out is a matter of

7
negotiation between two parties. If they can settle their discussions quickly then the undertaking will be carried out quickly; if one side delays in the discussions the procedure will be somewhat slower. But the undertaking has been given and it will be carried out.

AIR-CONDITIONING OF HOUSE OF LORDS CHAMBER
2.48 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: 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 to state the inclusive cost which was incurred in installing the air-conditioning system in the House of Lords.]
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, the final cost is not yet available, as there is still a little work to be done below the Chamber, but the total cost of installing the system will be about £140,000. This cost is reasonably near the provisional estimate of £130,000, as shown in the 1966–67 Estimates.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. At a time of financial crisis would he not consider that this was an appalling waste of money?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I will leave that to the judgment of each Member of your Lordships' House. I would, however, point out to the noble Earl that the arrangements for doing this work were made during the term of office of the previous Government. Indeed, I believe that the first half of the improvements (and I think the majority of the Members of this House will agree that they are a great improvement) was almost completed before the Labour Government came into office. So if there was any waste of money, as the noble Earl has suggested, it was really started by his own colleagues. When I saw this Question on the Order Paper I thought the noble Earl was going to congratulate the present Government on carrying out the policy of his Government.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, was the work not subjected to a great deal of examination such as the TSR2 project
8
was when the Labour Government first came into office?
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—and I do not suppose he is, of could be, sitting there, cosily, on the Front Bench—that we on the humbler Benches have been suffering for weeks past from a hurricane of cold air whistling up our trouser legs? And, although it is better to-day, may I ask whether some control is eventually going to be found regarding this pestilential innovation in your Lordships' Chamber?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, it is true that I have heard similar complaints from the other side, but my colleagues on this side can mostly manage to keep away from that sort of draught. The point is, however, that any complaints such as this—and, after all, this work has only recently been completed—are not my responsibility and should be addresed to the Chairman of the Administration Committee. I think it is natural that we should expect teething troubles.
LORD AILWYN: Touché, my Lords.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that gusts of cold air are probably preferable to gusts of hot air?

THE MINISTRY OF AVIATION
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the Ministry of Aviation.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS BILL [H.L.]
2.52 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is eighteen months since we had an exhaustive discussion in this House on the Crathorne Report on Sunday Observance Laws; and that Report, with certain modifications, has provided the basis for the Bill which is now before your Lordships. I should like at the very beginning to pay a tribute to Lord Crathorne and the members of his Committee, and to say that in this respect I

9
am rather like the page-boy in "Good King Wenceslas", in that I am only treading in the master's footsteps, because the Crathorne Committee's Report and recommendations were generally welcomed by both Houses of Parliament and the public, and, as I say, have provided the basis for this Bill.
I think the most remarkable feature of that Report was the general warmth with which it was received. In the past this issue of Sunday observance has generated a great deal of heat, if not very much light. I would remind your Lordships that it is only 70 years since you turned down a move to allow lectures and musical performances on the Sabbath; only 35 years since the law allowed museums and picture galleries to be opened and lectures to be held on Sunday; and even then, in 1932, proposals to allow stage plays to be performed were defeated. It is only twelve years since Mr. John Parker, M.P., introduced in another place a Bill to reform the Sunday laws, and it was heavily defeated on Second Reading, after fierce discussion. In the light of all this, it is to me quite remarkable that the Crathorne Report received such widespread acceptance, and I believe it to be a tribute to the sound common sense and reasonable way in which that Committee tackled this thorny subject. Moreover, I believe it reflects a basic change in public attitude of which Parliament has to take note.
Before coming to the actual details of the Bill, I hope your Lordships will allow me to say a word or two about the background and to deal with some of the general arguments which have been raised whenever this question of Sunday entertainments is raised. The mish-mash of ancient and hoary Statutes which govern our Sundays were brought in after the Reformation. Prior to that time—and I am now quoting the Crathorne Report:
"church attendance was formally observed but there was considerable freedom in the way the rest of the day was spent."
Thus we have to remember that we are not dealing here with a situation which has been with us from time immemorial. These old laws themselves changed the traditional character of the British Sunday. They were often imposed on a reluctant public which resisted them bitterly. As one writer of the period put it:
10
"Sunday has become as ball between two rackets".
These old laws, designed for a different age and a different period, are still in force. The Acts of 1625, 1627 and 1677 have largely fallen into disuse, it is true, but they have been used from time to time to curtail certain activities on Sundays. The Act of 1780, however, still largely governs us in the matter of Sunday entertainments and amusements.
These Acts were based on two basic propositions. The first was that it was possible to encourage and even force people to go to church by limiting the other activities available to them. No one, I think, would support that proposition now, and it was made quite clear in the Crathorne Report that this was not the view of the churches. Church attendance cannot be compelled by law, and no one to-day would ask that it should be. Indeed, the proposition falls to the ground in another way. Limiting other possible activities on a Sunday has not had the effect of filling the churches. On the contrary, in other countries which do not have the same restrictions on Sunday sport and entertainment as we do church attendance is as high as it is here in Britain, and in some cases notably higher.
The second proposition on which these old laws were based was that all sport and entertainment are undesirable at any time, and are particularly wicked on the Sabbath. Again and again in the Acts themselves, or in the arguments put forward by their sponsors, one finds phrases which describe Sunday sport and entertainment in terms such as "abuses and profanations", "profane exhibitions", "liable to corrupt good morals", while a Sabbatarian of the period said:
"The less pleasure men take on a Sunday the better".
That was the spiritbehind the Acts. It was seriously suggested then, and widely accepted by people, that to break the Sabbath by playing bowls, or even walking in the fields, was as great a sin as adultery or murder. That is actually in writing in a pamphlet which was issued during the period. In 1861, for example, the Crystal Palace, in order to get round the Sunday laws, was thrown open without charge to 40,000 people. "Organised gigantic wickedness" was how one writer described what went on.

11
What went on? Pole climbing, leapfrog and jumping over handkerchiefs.
Your Lordships may feel that all this has little relevance to the present day, and I would agree, and I have dealt with this matter only because we are still to some extent governed not only by these old laws but by the attitude behind them, the attitude that suggests entertainment is wicked and sinful. We may not agree with these old laws or with the thinking behind them, but they are still there on our Statute Book. The song has ended but the dirge lingers on.
The Crathorne Report summed up this issue of Sunday entertainment in a way which I feel reflects the sensible attitude of most people to-day. Even those witnesses who were opposed to Sunday entertainment on other grounds said,
"there was no objection to these forms of entertainment in themselves, and that there was no theological or ethical reason why they should be prohibited. The modern view appears to be that if an entertainment is improper on Sunday it is just as undesirable on weekdays."
That is a most significant development, because in all previous debates on Sunday observance up to Crathorne the weightiest objection was made on moral grounds.
The opponents of reform in this field raised the terrible spectre of the Continental Sunday. I have never been quite clear what this meant. This phrase has a smug insular ring about it, a suggestion 'that the people on our side of the Channel are somehow superior to those who allow sport and entertainment on Sunday on the other side of the Channel; that we are rugged, decent, God-fearing people and they are a mass of sin. There is an undertone about the phrase "Continental Sunday" which suggests vice and promiscuity. But I do not think that any serious person to-day would suggest that the French, the Swiss or the Dutch are less moral than we are, or that they have been corrupted by the so-called wild life they are said to live on Sunday. Certainly, as I have pointed out, the church attendance figures do not suggest this; and, of course, those of us who have been to the Continent, as I am sure everybody here has, will know that the Continental Sunday is just as much a family day there as it is here. I was glad to see that in your Lordships' debate on the Crathorne Report there was no
12
opposition to Sunday sport and entertainment on moral grounds, for this is clearly indefensible.
What other grounds of opposition are there? The main concern expressed in our earlier debate related to the traditional character of Sunday, and some fear was expressed lest this traditional character should be changed. I share this feeling. I believe that Sunday should be a special day and that it should be different. Nevertheless, I think we have to be realists about this; we have to grasp this nettle boldly. The character of the British Sunday has been changed in the last fifty years, and in the last ten years the change has been quite extraordinary. We should be fools and ostriches if we overlooked this. The coming of the motor car to almost every family in the land, plus comparative affluence in relation to the pre-war years, has changed the pattern of life in these Islands, mainly for the good, on seven days of the week, including Sunday.
The Crathorne Report expressed the fear that a substantial relaxation of the restrictions on spectator sports would mean large crowds and cause disturbance in certain neighbourhoods. But this is already happening, as we know. The sun has only to show its reluctant face in this country, and enormous crowds descend on the coast, on the countryside, on towns and on villages outside the main metropolitan centres. I know of one man living in the country who has bought himself a weekend flat in London so that he can escape into some peace. So we already have these crowds, and this is, in fact, the result of what has happened in the last ten years.
In this matter of the character of the British Sunday, the British people, as always, have anticipated Parliament and have voted with their feet. They have torn great gaps in the fences put up by our present Sunday laws, and where the law could not be defied they have bent it or twisted it. This summer, for example, we have had for the first time professional first-class cricket. This has attracted bigger attendances than for midweek features. But it was a subterfuge. The promoters found a way around the law. The spectators did not pay for admission: they paid for sitting down. They did not pay to get into the ground; they paid for their cars to be parked. And

13
all other kinds of excuses were found by the promoters to get the equivalent of the gate money without actually breaking the law. The public response proved that there is a demand for first-class cricket on Sundays, and certainly the counties need the right to play on Sundays. It may well be that no appeal I could make to your Lordships, or to the British public, on behalf of this Bill would be more likely to go home to your hearts than if I say that if this Bill becomes law, British cricket may well be saved.
There is a growing number of instances where the law is being mocked at by the public. At Brand's Hatch, for instance, they can get 40,000 spectators at a Sunday meeting. That is a big enough crowd, and 75 per cent. of the audience are young people. The organisers do not charge for admission; they charge for the use of the facilities. I believe that this kind of subterfuge is all wrong. I think it is bad when the law falls into dispute, when ordinary people are turned into law-breakers because the laws are no longer in accordance with the needs and the spirit of the time. To me, this is one of the most important reasons why these laws should be repealed or changed drastically, and why any new law we make should be in keeping with the needs and the spirit of the times.
Perhaps the most significant change about Sunday in the past ten years has been the advent of television on a nationwide scale. This has highlighted the anomalies of the present situation. Jack Warner or Max By graves can appear on television in make-up and costume on a Sunday evening at the London Palladium and be seen by 15 or 20 million people, but they may not put on the same makeup and costume and appear in a theatre before five hundred people, even if the proceeds of the show are for charity. Sir Laurence Olivier or Dame Peggy Ash-croft may appear in a Sunday night play on television, but they may not appear in their own theatres. If the law was absurd before, television has made it ridiculous. Most important of all, I think, is that television has tended to change people's thinking on these matters. They now regard it as normal and reasonable to watch a play or a variety show on Sunday, and they do not understand
14
why it should be right to do so at home, in an armchair, and wrong to do so in a theatre, from the stalls or the circle. We all want to preserve as much as possible of the traditional family character of Sunday, and I have tried to do this in the Bill. But we shall not do so if we ignore change or oppose change, or if we are too timid. As I say, in this matter, I believe that the public are ahead of us.
So far I have referred to the moral issue of Sunday observance and to the question of the traditional character of Sunday. There is a third line of opposition to change on which I should like briefly to comment. It is the argument that to have sport and entertainment of any kind on a Sunday is direct contravention of God's will as expressed in Holy Scripture. This is a view which has been advanced for over a hundred years by the Lord's Day Observance Society. I do not feel competent to comment on the spiritual side of the matter and I will leave it to others who are more qualified than I.
I should like to say one or two words about this Society itself. In our previous debate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester referred to the Lord's Day Observance Society as an anachronism and detached the churches from the point of view that this Society puts forward. I think that this sums it up. But anachronisms, like old soldiers, die hard. This Society is most active and in the past has played a leading part in frustrating any efforts to liberalise the Sunday laws. I have met the Secretary of the Society on several occasions recently and I have the greatest respect for his sincerity and integrity. He is also a most capable organiser. Although they are a tiny minority, they have been able to give the impression of strength, and I know that in the past this has influenced Members of Parliament.
I have with me a copy of a circular letter which they have sent to all their supporters, asking them to write to their Member of Parliament and to urge him to oppose any reform of Sunday. One paragraph of the letter reads as follows:
"Please do not send any part of this letter…for it is very important that your letter should not bear evidence of our having asked you to write."

15
All this may be quite usual in a political campaign. I mention it merely because noble Lords and Members of another place may get the wrong impression from their mail. Supporters of Sunday reform are not organised and seldom think of sending in their views. Those who oppose Sunday reform are highly articulate and they can give a completely false balance to one's mail bag.
I think it is fair to say that the Lord's Day Observance Society is not against the reform of a British Sunday: only they would reform it backwards, by some three hundred years. They have conducted campaigns against children's playgrounds in parks being open on a Sunday. They have stopped innumerable charity concerts. By laying information, they have forced the police to stop table tennis matches, and even exhibitions of bee-keeping. Some time ago they took advice as to whether it was legal for television to be transmitted on a Sunday. As I have said, I admire their sincerity, but sincerity can be no excuse for bigotry. Their zeal frightens me. These are the sardine men who would force all humanity into a tin of their choice. I hope I have said enough to explain my reasons for introducing the Bill and to cover some of the arguments against the reform of our Sunday laws.
The Bill itself is a fairly short and simple one compared to some your Lordships have had to deal with, and I will not take up your time by a detailed recitation of the object of the various clauses. In its broad aim—namely, to rationalise and liberalise the law while seeking to preserve in some measure the special character of Sunday—the Bill is consistent with the declared objects of the Crathorne Committee. But in some respects the means adopted to achieve these ends are somewhat different. I think that I should point to your Lord ships where we differ.
The first area of difference is on the proposal that all spectator sports be prohibited on Sunday mornings, which is Recommendation 7 of the Crathorne Report. We have qualified this so as to apply the restriction only to spectator sports that the public have to pay to watch, because in fact the Crathorne Committee, in this one instance, was more restrictive than the existing law. I
16
know that great concern was felt by many people who play amateur football on Sunday mornings, matches where supporters and friends turn up to watch but where there is no charge for admission. They were very concerned that if the Crathorne Committee recommendation was embodied in law it would interfere with their playing. This could have caused great hardship because there are no pitches, or very few pitches, which are available on Sunday afternoons. Under this Bill, they will not only be able to continue as before, but their position will be safeguarded. I hope that my noble friend Lord Stonham will be able to give them further reassurance on this point.
The second point of departure from Crathorne lies in the matter of time. The Crathorne Report suggested that the close season, if I may use that term, for Sunday sport and entertainment should be from 2 a.m. until 12.30 p.m., or to put it the other way round, that nothing could begin until after 12.30 on a Sunday. I have been a little more restrictive on this matter and I have put the time at 2 o'clock. The reason for this is that I was very impressed by the argument which was put forward in our previous debate by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, a view which was echoed by other noble Lords. He spoke of the Sunday mid-day dinner as being a great family bond. I must say that I have great sympathy for this point of view, and I agree that it would be a pity to loosen that bond. Therefore, because a 12.30 start might do so, I have made the time in the Bill 2 o'clock.
The Bill also differs on the question of Sunday employment. Crathorne recommended that the provisions of Section 22 of the Shops Act 1950 should apply to employees in cinemas, theatres and places licensed for music and dancing. I have not been able to adopt this recommendation, mainly because it is difficult to graft the provisions of the Shops Act on to entertainment. You will note that I have left the complicated issue of Sunday trading out of the Bill altogether and concentrated entirely on entertainment. I believe that the Government are studying the situation in relation to Sunday trading with a view to modernising and rationalising the law, but that is outside the scope of my Bill and of this discussion.

17
The final point of difference between the Crathorne recommendations and this Bill is on the issue of professional sport on Sunday. This is one of the most important questions. I believe that the time has come when we must make a proper job of the law and not pass a measure which by restricting certain activities will force the public to find a way around its provisions. We ought to stick by the principle that if a thing is bad on Sunday, it is just as undesirable on weekdays, and vice versa, and follow that through logically. Cricket is a case in point. If there is nothing wrong in paying to watch a first-class cricket match on Saturday, there ought to be nothing wrong in paying to watch a similar match on Sunday. It would be wrong to place those people in charge of cricket in a situation where, in order to continue playing professional cricket on Sunday, they have to resort to the kind of subterfuges I mentioned earlier. It would be wrong, in my view, to legislate so that a man who enjoys first-class acting can follow his interest on Sunday by going to the National Theatre, while a man who equally enjoys watching first-class professional sportsmen should not be allowed to do so on Sunday. And equally wrong to pass a law which would encourage people to wangle a way round its provisions, as in the case of cricket and Brand's Hatch.
I have already mentioned the fear that sporting events will attract large crowds and create a disturbance on Sunday afternoons. There is no evidence—and there was no evidence presented to the Crathorne Committee, and none that I have been able to gather since—that the Football Association, the Football League, or Rugby Union, would want to stage their matches on Sunday afternoons. I believe that in this matter the pattern has been pretty well set over the years and that they are finding that Friday evening matches under floodlights are more profitable than they would be at any other time. But we get disturbance in any case without these events, and it may well be that the attraction of some first-class games will help to spread the load and lighten the traffic on some of our coast roads.
Concern was expressed about professionals working on a Sunday. Well, many of them do so now. Most cricketers play seven days a week during the season;
18
many actors work six days a week in the theatre and do a concert or a television show on a Sunday. In fact, the number of people involved in employment on a Sunday, if this Bill were passed, would be very small. At a very rough estimate, if all the people employed in sport and entertainment were to work on Sunday the number would amount to about 200,000 people, or less than one per cent. of our working population. As for transport, I am told that this would involve only a slight increase in station staff and some increase in train crews. And since everybody involved in transport is already used to the idea of working some Sundays in turn throughout the year the problem there would not be a very difficult one. Of course I am not suggesting a seven-day week. I have not provided any material in the Bill about this, for the single reason that the trade union movement feels quite capable of protecting the interests of its members, both in the matter of compensation for Sunday work and in the matter of time off in lieu of Sunday work.
The most powerful argument in favour of the proposal in the Bill that professional sport should be allowed after 2 p.m. on a Sunday is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to draw a legal distinction between amateur and professional sport, and certainly difficult to draw a distinction in their ability to draw crowds. To impose a restriction on professional sport would merely be to create another anomaly, and we should have yet another law through which the public would drive a coach-and-horses. That is why I have suggested that we should be bold on this matter and that all restrictions after 2 p.m. on Sunday should be abolished. There is one further point to which I must refer. In common with other professional sport the Bill would allow horse-racing on Sundays. However, the existing restrictions on betting and gaming are not affected by the Bill, and so it will still be illegal to open a betting shop on Sunday or to bet with a bookmaker or on the Tote. Race-horsing without gambling may seem like Hamlet without the Prince, but I think it is right to retain these restrictions. Therefore, I have done nothing about them.
May I, in conclusion, make one personal point? As many of your Lordships know, I am a humanist. I am not a follower of any particular religion, and the

19
suggestion has been made in at least one quarter that my purpose in putting forward this Bill is to destroy the Christian Sunday. I am quite sure that that was not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, or his Committee, when they put forward their recommendations, and it is certainly not mine. This is a matter of conscience on which many people feel strongly and keenly, and I hope that I may be forgiven if I indicate briefly what my own conscience is in this matter. I may not agree with my Christian friends on many things, but I share with them my hope and deep belief in tolerance, kindliness, democracy, respect for human dignity and freedom. My own philosophy might be summed up in the words of the prophet Micah:
"And what shall be required of thee? To do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly according to the light in thee."
That seems to me to be an admirable philosophy of life. It is in the light of those beliefs that I could not be a party to any move to limit or restrict anyone's right to worship, or to believe, or to spend his days as he sees fit.
I am not connected with any commercial interest which would benefit from the changes which this Bill would bring, nor am I aware of any commercial interests who are campaigning for reform of the Sunday law. Certainly I have not been approached. My only purpose in intro-during this Bill is to rationalise the law and to enrich Sunday, so that it may be a day of true relaxation and pleasure.
A great deal has been said about the character of Sunday, but in one sense we in this House are in a privileged position. We see Sunday in one light. I ask your Lordships to remember that for thousands of people, especially young people, Sunday can be a day of unutterable, ghastly boredom. A recent survey taken by a B.B.C. programme, showed that two out of four young people whom they approached were bored with Sunday, and three out of four people whom they approached were in favour of some change and relaxation of the present laws. It is not so bad in a metropolitan area like London, but if you go into some small towns, villages and even big provincial towns, Sunday is still a day of gloom. So when
20
we talk about the character of Sunday let us remember this. The police will tell you that a great deal of vandalism takes place on Sunday, when groups of people with little to do roam the streets looking for an outlet for their excess energy.
I believe that a reform of the law would bring great relief to these youngsters and to the authorities. I believe it is long overdue. I believe the character of the British Sunday is in some ways special and unique, but this character is not really enshrined in law and it cannot be preserved by Statute. It stems from the nature and common sense of the British people themselves. Whatever we do, they will ensure that Sunday keeps its special flavour, and it is in this spirit that I commend this Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Willis.)
3.22 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for explaining in such detail what the Crathorne Report set out to do, and for explaining what his Bill sets out to do. I, at any rate, am grateful, because it will enable me to give a general blessing to the Bill and to concentrate on those parts of it which I do not like.
As the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, this Bill is based on the Crathorne Report, the Report of a Departmental Committee of which my noble friend Lord Crathorne was Chairman. Before we consider this Bill, there is one fact which we ought to bear in mind on this very difficult subject on which people hold strong views one way or the other; that is, that the Crathorne Committee published a Report which was unanimous. In view of that fact, I suggest that we should think twice before we depart from their recommendations. It was a most able Report, and very well argued. It also had the great advantage of being written in English which we all understood. We ought not to depart from that Report unless somebody can prove to us that it is wrong in certain particulars, but I am going to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, that in one or two respects the Report is right and he may be wrong.

21
I am sorry that the more important part of the Crathorne Report, the part dealing with Sunday trading, is not covered in this Bill, but I appreciate, as the noble Lord implied, that that is really a Government matter. As the noble Lord Stonham, is shortly going to speak, I hope that he will be able to let us know how far Her Majesty's Government have got in bringing in a reform of the Sunday trading laws, because that is very important. There are certain matters which I suggest need amending in Committee—and I, at any rate, shall try to do that—and they are all to do with sport. It would appear from the Report that the Crathorne Committee had more trouble making up their minds on this subject than on anything else.
May I first of all refer your Lordships to paragraph 119 of their Report? This is the paragraph which deals with the times at which events may start on a Sunday. The Committee recommended 12.30 p.m., and the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has said 2 o'clock; and this is the one instance when I think the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has chosen better than the Report. It seems to me that 2 o'clock is probably a better time. I am drawing your Lordships' attention to this paragraph, because the wording shows exactly what was in the minds of the Committee when they made their recommendations. The Committee were talking in this instance about the timing, and they said:
"We do not agree that any secular activities should be prohibited in order to encourage church attendance, but we think that the suggestion has merit on other grounds, namely that of preserving the special character of Sunday as a day that provides at least a measure of freedom from compulsory work."
The first point was mentioned by the noble Lord. That was behind all of the Committee's recommendations. The other point behind their recommendations was that Sunday should be different, and that if people wished to be quiet they should be able to be quiet, in so far as modern crowds allowed.
May I next refer your Lordships to paragraph 116 of the Committee's Report? They divided the types of sports into spectators' sports and players' sports, and they contemplated arriving at the definition of calling "spectators' sports" those sports for which an entrance charge was made for spectators, and "players' sports" those sports where no charge was
22
made for the spectators. But they came to the conclusion that that would be quite unfair, because in Rugger clubs, and so on, the main benefit of the Sunday game is derived by the players, although to help the club funds there is a charge for entrance.
The Committee then went back to this question of the special character of Sunday, and in paragraph 116 they said:
"From the point of view of preserving the character of Sunday, we think that there is a real difference between a professional contest organised to attract large crowds and the local club games organised primarily for the players' recreation but which attract some spectators."
In the paragraph before that, they said:
"From the evidence we received, it appeared that a substantial relaxation of the restrictions on spectators' sports would do more to alter the character of Sunday than a relaxation in relation to entertainments. The crowds would usually be larger".—
and this, of course, deals with the point about other people having a restful day—
"and cause more disturbance to the neighbourhood and a good deal of extra employment would result, not only from the sports themselves"—
the point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Willis—
"but also from the need for transport, catering and other facilities."
—including, I might add, extra police on duty. I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, made far too little of this question of extra employment. I believe that it is of the utmost importance. I agree that the amount of extra employment given to people taking part in the sport would not be large, but I suggest that the number of those in what we might call the ancillary services who would be affected would be very large indeed. For that reason, I consider that the Committee were right in trying to divide sport into these two classes, and that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, may be wrong.
The Committee then went on to say, in paragraph 117—I am skipping whole lines, but I am not taking things out of context:
"Generally speaking, we believe that sports in which the participants are not remunerated do not lend themselves to commercial organisation and do not regularly attract large crowds of spectators on a scale to interfere with the character of Sunday."
Then, my Lords, they went on to say that there may be one or two cases where the purely amateur sport will attract large

23
crowds—tennis, for example—but that they will be few and far between. But to have an exception to a rule does not make that rule a bad one, and, anyway, the exceptions will be few.
Going on to their recommendation on this matter, the Committee said:
"We recommend that the promotion of spectators' sports should be prohibited if the participants receive either directly or indirectly any reward in money or kind for taking part."
That was the criterion they produced to differentiate between what would cause disturbance, large crowds and extra, ancillary employment, and what would not matter on a Sunday. If those taking part were paid directly or indirectly, then it would be a spectators' sport and should not be allowed on a Sunday. I do not see any difficulty in putting that into the law, and on balance—and we are here talking about things on balance—I believe that to be right. It is the professional sport that will stop Sunday being a different sort of a day from the rest of the days of the week, and will above all—and, as I say, this is most important—cause much extra employment on a Sunday. Those are my views, my Lords. I believe the Crathorne Committee were right and that we ought to try to amend this Bill in Committee to coincide with what that Committee recommended.
May I say just one word about the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, as regards racing? He said that under the rule that was suggested by the Committee concerning professional sport, horse-racing would be impossible and would not be worth carrying out as this would involve amending the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, which has not been done in this Bill. Of course, he is quite right. But there is another form of racing which creates large crowds and which I mention merely because he did not; that is, greyhound racing. The greyhounds, of course, are not paid for running—they are the participants in the sport—but they would be covered by the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, and it would not be worth running greyhounds on a Sunday if betting was not permitted. So I do not think we need to be worried about those forms of sport being outside this particular Bill.
In conclusion, may I repeat that I think the Committee were right on this
24
particular matter of sport, and that that differentiation ought to be made. I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading, and also that your Lordships will support us in the Amendments that we shall put down on the next stage.

THE MINISTRY OF AVIATION
3.33 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has just made in another place. I will now quote the Prime Minister's words:
"On June 16, 1966, I told the House that, whilst the greater part of the research and development work of the Ministry of Aviation would be transferred to the Ministry of Technology, a comprehensive examination was in hand to determine to what extent the procurement responsibilities of the Ministry of Aviation in the defence field might more appropriately be transferred to the Ministry of Defence.
"I have now studied the results of this examination, and have decided that the present responsibilities of the Ministry of Aviation (other than those already taken over by the Board of Trade) form a closely connected group that should not be divided but rather be transferred to the Ministry of Technology as a whole. The organisation for research, development and procurement on aircraft, guided weapons and electronic equipment, whether civil or military, will remain broadly in its present form; but under the Ministry of Technology it will make a significant contribution to achieving our aim that the Department should be a major instrument of progress in the engineering and electronic field. We are already reaching a situation where research in aeronautics and avionics is producing developments capable of much wider use, and the aircraft and associated industries will themselves gain also by the opportunity of participating in some of the wider fields of research sponsored by the Ministry.
"It is at the same time of the greatest importance, both militarily and financially, that Ministry of Defence

25
interest in the control of military projects should be fully safeguarded. Much has been done recently to improve co-ordination of the machinery of management between the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Aviation, and the fruits of this must not be lost.
"I therefore intend that the existing Ministry of Aviation organisation for handling development and procurement will not be dismantled in its new home in the Ministry of Technology; that the Minister of Technology will be supported by a Minister who will be generally responsible for the functions to be transferred from the Minister of Aviation and will act as the normal link with the Secretary of State for Defence on matters of defence interest. The detailed arrangements will ensure also that the Secretary of State for Defence will continue to take the lead in all business with other countries on defence projects.
"These changes will take place very early in the New Year."
My Lords, that concludes the Prime Minister's Statement.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for himself repeating this Statement. I see his reason for doing so. It seems to many of us a grave Statement and a wrong answer to the problem, and, therefore, with his usual courage, he has taken it upon himself to deliver the Statement to this House. It seems to me that the confusion and uncertainty as to the future of the aircraft industry revealed in the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Brown, earlier to-day has been compounded rather than otherwise by this action.
I should like to ask the noble Earl one question. On June 16, following the Statement in another place to which the noble Earl has referred, Mr. Wilson said that he would be seeing representatives of the industry and that he thought, frankly, that they would be against such a transfer. He has seen those representatives, as we know. Could the noble Earl say to what extent his expectations were proved true? From such detail as the noble Earl has given us in the Statement, it seems to me that the Minister
26
who will be supporting the Minister of Technology and acting as the normal link with the Secretary of State for Defence on matters of Defence interest will be in a rather curious position. I cannot think of any precedent for such a post, although there may be one. However, the fact that it is a precedent, if it is, is not in itself wrong. He will not, presumably, sit physically in the Ministry of Technology. I should have thought that the Minister of Defence would be grateful to have the Minister sitting, as it were, geographically in the Ministry of Defence itself, with the duty of keeping the Minister of Technology in touch with these things.
It also seems to me that it is imposing very considerable difficulties on the Secretary of State for Defence that he will continue to take the lead in all business with other countries on defence projects. Without any responsibility for research or for procurement, he will none the less have to be the salesman for British armaments abroad. He has not proved a conspicuously successful salesman as it is; with this extra difficulty imposed upon him, I doubt whether he will even do as well as he has done up to now.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite entitled to offer his views, which can hardly be said to be very dispassionate, but I will try to answer the one particular question which he put among his various comments. He wants to know about the opinions of industry. The Prime Minister has met representatives of the aero-space industry, and officials have subsequently pursued discussions with that industry and also with the electronics engineering industry. It appears that the views held by these two industries, and to some extent within these industries, are by no means unanimous. The aero-space industry see some advantage in separating the sponsorship function from the responsibility for contractual relationships between the Government and industry. On the other hand, the electronics industry emphasises the importance of not separating development, design and production and favours associating this responsibility with general Government support for the industry. All these views were very carefully considered before we reached a final decision.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for repeating this important Statement. I must admit that I personally should have preferred the Ministry of Aviation to continue, but if it is not going to continue I think the Government are right in bringing the research and development work and the procurement responsibilities under the umbrella of one Ministry. I should like to ask the noble Earl, in view of his previous connection—as also mine—with the old Ministry of Civil Aviation, whether there is going to be any similar close liaison between the Ministry of Technology and the Board of Trade with regard to important functions relating to civil aviation.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the contact will be close. It was good of him to remind me that both he and I were Ministers of Aviation. In that respect at least—and perhaps only in that respect—we have an advantage over the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald. But I should just point out that these are very difficult matters which I do not believe can ever be settled in any very dogmatic spirit. To take the history of civil aviation, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, will recall, at one moment it was part of the Air Ministry, then it was alone, then it was part of the Ministry of Transport, and then of the Ministry of Aviation. Now civil aviation is under the Board of Trade. On every occasion there was something to be said for the course taken by the Government concerned. I can only suggest that this has been gone into very carefully without any kind of Party bias, and this is the conclusion which seemed to be the best on the available information.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl one question? The answer would be one that needs careful study in some detail. The civil aviation operation industry is constantly engaged in research and development on its own, and accepting the results of research and development from various governmental bodies. While I do not disagree with the Minister that these things cannot be settled by a paper plan, will the Government consider some sort of machinery which will link together the triangle of civil aviation operators, the Board of Trade and the
28
Ministry of Technology so that these three bodies have a free interchange of information without undue delay for the benefits and results of research to come to the actual operator?
THE EARLOF LONGFORD: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that that observation, coming from him with his vast experience, will be carefully considered. Nothing can be worse than an inadequate relationship between what used to be the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Ministry of Supply. When I became Minister of Civil Aviation a good many years ago there was a moment when we were not officially on speaking terms with the Ministry of Supply. We all want to avoid that kind of situation in the future.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether the Minister to be appointed to the Ministry of Technology and to have liaison with the Secretary of State for Defence will have a seat on the Defence Council?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot answer that.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I follow up what the noble Lord has said? From the point of view of the Services themselves I do not think this makes all the difference because they have always had to deal with a third party, however much they disliked that, and they will still have to do so. But I should have thought from the point of view of the Minister of Defence and the Ministry of Defence that this might raise considerable problems; because the Ministry of Aviation was always the fourth wheel of the coach. There was the Army, the Navy and the Air Force and the fourth wheel was the Ministry of Aviation. More and more in recent years, the Ministry of Aviation has come under the ægis of the Secretary of State for Defence (or the Minister of Defence as he then was). It will be of the greatest importance that that control over expenditure of research and development is not lessened in the Ministry of Defence because so much of the defence budget derives from the workings of what was the Ministry of Aviation. I very much hope that this new Minister will be powerful enough sometimes to argue with his boss and that the Secretary of State for Defence will be able to control what

29
happens in what is, after all, very nearly his own Department.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I feel there is a lot of force in what the noble Lord has said. I am fortified in that feeling because my noble friend Lord Shackleton also considers that there will be a great deal to be looked into in that connection.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS BILL [H.L.]
3.45 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, if I may bring your Lordships back to earth and to the Sunday Entertainments Bill, I would begin by joining the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in expressing grateful thanks to my noble friend. Lord Willis for creating this opportunity for Parliament to take a decision on the weighty question of whether, and if so how, the law on Sunday observance can be rationalised and liberalised. I would also express my thanks to my noble friend for the lucid and cogent, if at times forceful, way in which he explained his Bill. The long, vexed subject of statutory intervention in the observance of Sunday is a question which closely affects the individual consciences of all of us. It is a matter on which widely differing views are sincerely and sometimes tenaciously held.
In such circumstances it is proper that Parliament should make the necessary changes through the medium of a Private Member's Bill and that all decisions should be left to a free vote. That is certainly the view of Her Majesty's Government. Our attitude throughout the passage of the Bill will therefore be one of neutrality; and Government supporters, whether Ministers or Back Benchers, will be perfectly free to vote as they wish. In our view it would be improper in a matter of conscience such as this for the Government to try to impose a view. I shall therefore do my utmost to refrain from commenting on the principles involved in the Bill but reserve the right, if your Lordships give it a Second Reading, to comment on the
30
practicability of any particular proposals which may be put to the House during the later stages.
The Government thought it right to afford my noble friend Lord Willis drafting facilities to enable him to clothe his proposals in appropriate legislative form, and the services of the Parliamentary draftsmen will be available to my noble friend for the Committee and Report stages so that any decision which your Lordships may reach will not be frustrated for lack of technical assistance. Although, as my noble friend explained, the proposals in his Bill differ in some respects from those of the Crathorne Committee, its obvious purpose is broadly to give effect to the spirit of Crathorne, namely, the sweeping away of the existing clutter of obscure and often illogical statutory restrictions upon Sunday entertainment—my noble friend called them, in a very graphic phrase, "a mish-mash of hoary Statutes"—and to replace them with a simpler and more liberal system which, although representing a significant relaxation of the present law, will nevertheless preserve the special character of Sunday.
My noble friend reminded us—and I found it somewhat surprising—that it is eighteen months since we debated the Crathorne Report; but I recall clearly, as he said, that the Report was warmly supported by all thirteen speakers who took part in the debate, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, to which I had the honour of replying. I note that to-day we are to have contributions from three noble and reverend Lords. When we debated the Report of the Crathorne Committee in March, 1965, a feature of that debate was the three very valuable contributions from the Bench of Bishops. In particular the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York made it clear that he would welcome anomalies which bring Sunday observance into ridicule, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield—
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I should not like it to appear that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, had been misreported. He said that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York would welcome anomalies. I think he meant that the most reverend Primate would welcome their being done away with.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. What I should have said was that the most reverend Primate would welcome the removal of the anomalies.
I was saying that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield had some adverse comments to make on a point of detail, but he too, welcomed the prospect of the removal of anomalies; and, as my noble friend Lord Willis has said, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester assured us that the survival of the Lord's Day Observance Society and its propaganda is an anachronism from which the Church of England must dissociate itself. In the whole debate on that occasion your Lordships expressed the unanimous view that society would be better for the removal of unjustifiable restrictions and anomalies so that everyone in his own way could enjoy Sunday as a day off with a difference.
Your Lordships believed that there was a majority public view in favour of a wise and moderate relaxation of the present law, provided that Sunday retained a special character as a day primarily devoted to relaxation and family pursuits. You felt that people overwhelmingly treasure Sunday as a break in the rhythm of work, but also overwhelmingly they want, within reasonable limits, a freedom of choice about the way in which they spend their day. It is for your Lordships to decide if that be the objective we have in mind, and whether this Bill achieves it.
The present restrictions on Sunday pleasuring cannot be reduced to a simple formula, and if my noble friend Lord Willis made anything clear he certainly made that clear in the early part of his speech. Indeed, the complexity and piecemeal nature of the present law constitutes the major part of the case for reforming it.
But broadly speaking, as things stand at present, if an admission charge is made all forms of public Sunday sport and entertainment are prohibited, except cinemas, museums, lectures, debates and concerts; and the prohibition covers the whole twenty-four hours. That is the present position. But that is "broadly speaking." In practice the interpretation of the principal Acts is so obscure that there is an unlimited field for anomalies.
32
For example, if a singer has a natural beard, his public song recital would be a permitted musical entertainment. But if the beard were false it would not. Similarly, the wearing of the kilt would make a performance illegal unless, of course, the artist were a Scot.
We could go on for a long time repeating anomalies of that kind. The remedy proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, is simple. It is that there should be no restrictions whatever on any Sunday sport or entertainment, except that during the twelve hours from 2 a.m. on Sunday morning—3 a.m. in London—until 2 p.m. on Sunday afternoon we should prohibit any sport or entertainment which the spectators have to pay to watch. If your Lordships decide that that is what you want this certainly would be perfectly clear, and in the view of my Department it would be workable.
My Lords, for the removal of any doubt which may exist, may I now deal with some of the points raised in public discussion on the Bill, and to which my noble friend Lord Willis and the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, referred. First, Sunday morning football. It would not merely be Sunday morning football because it would include other spectator entertainments started during the morning. Clause 2 would not debar amateur football on a Sunday morning unless the events were spectacles "designed for the entertainment of members of the public" and the public were charged for watching. There would be no bar if the promoters were content as, for instance, is the case with county cricket clubs, to confine their profits during the morning to the sale of programmes and refreshments, the imposition of parking charges, voluntary collections and so on. But the kind of amateur sport—I was going to say mainly amateur, but I think it is entirely—which you see in the parks with almost no spectators would find no kind of prohibition in this Bill. It would go on with no let or hindrance, and if spectators did come, an offence would not be created.
In this matter the Bill has taken as its criterion the payment of admission charges, rather than whether the sport is amateur or professional. I know the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, objected to this, but I am dealing with the position

33
under the Bill. I understand that this criterion has been adopted for two main reasons. First, because the chief object is to prevent the disturbances liable to be caused by large gatherings of spectators on Sunday mornings. Here admission charges provide a good empirical test. With due respect to county cricket at which, unfortunately, the attendances are relatively small, it seems unlikely that an event could be promoted commercially on any considerable scale purely on the basis of voluntary collections and side charges.
The second main reason for the adoption of admission charges as the criterion is that in these days (and here the view expressed is at variance with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent) the distinction between amateur and professional sport has become somewhat blurred. Certain amateur sports, for instance, athletics, and Rugby Union in Wales, have as much drawing power as many professional sports, and could cause considerable disturbance if staged on Sunday mornings. Whether amateur football comes within this class or not, a concession could scarcely be made for it alone. Eventually, and quite soon, it would have to be generally extended, and it might then be very difficult to hold the line at amateur sport.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, asked how far we had got in our consideration of the Sunday trading laws. As my noble friend Lord Willis explained, his Bill is not concerned in any way with the position regarding Sunday trading. The recommendations of the Crathorne Committee regarding Sunday trading are being considered as an integral part of the exhaustive—and I would underline that word—and comprehensive review still being undertaken by the Home Office of the whole law relating to retail trading hours generally, that is, weekdays and Sundays. This review arises from the recommendations put forward, not only in Part III of the Report of the Crathorne Committee, but in the Home Office White Paper on Retail Trading Hours which was published in 1965 and which, among other things, contains tentative suggestions for amending the Shops Act 1950. It has, and is, entailing a very large number of consultations and the unearthing of an almost equal number of opposed and varying views. But when
34
the review is completed, the Government will have to come to a decision and announce their proposals, which we shall do, but the time for that is not yet.
My noble friend Lord Willis asked me if I would deal with the point of Sunday racing. As he made it clear, his Bill does not prohibit horse-racing, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent pointed out, dog-racing, for that matter, on a Sunday. But neither does it amend the provisions of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1953, which prohibit on-course betting and the opening of licensed betting shops on Sundays. Since, as I understand it, race meetings could not take place without betting, the practical effect is to prohibit Sunday racing. It might be useful if I explained to the House what would be entailed if at a later stage it were proposed to extend the scope of this Bill so as to permit Sunday betting.
Section 5(1)(b) of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1953, restricts betting on any track to 104 days in the year and it may not take place on Sunday. Under the Act, "track" means premises on which races of any description, athletic sports or other sporting events take place. The prohibition is therefore comprehensive. The Act further provides, in paragraph 1 of Schedule 4, that all licensed betting offices must be closed on every Sunday. The practical effect of these prohibitions is thus to preclude Sunday racing.
Any proposal for modification of prohibitions on Sunday betting would seem certain to attract to the Bill some very controversial issues. In the first place it is probable that it would encounter stronger opposition from those who favour keeping Sunday different from weekdays—for whatever reasons—than proposals for relaxing restrictions on Sunday sport. Nor, very probably, would it be only a matter of allowing betting on the horses and greyhound tracks. Undoubtedly there would be demand for the Sunday opening of licensed betting offices, a matter which of itself would excite controversy. On the one hand, it would probably be argued that it would be unfair to allow on-course but not off-course betting. Moreover, if the betting offices were not open there would be widespread illegal betting; and experience before the passing of the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960, suggests that this would be a real

35
risk. On the other hand, a proposal to open the betting offices on Sunday could certainly be expected to attract strong opposition. Indeed, it seems only too likely that the issue of Sunday betting would in fact be so controversial that my noble friend Lord Willis might feel that the inclusion in his Bill of a provision to permit it might well endanger the whole Bill.
In view of what I said when I commenced my speech, I hope that the House will feel that I have been as helpful as I can be and that I have given as much information as I can. Finally, I would assure your Lordships, if such assurance is needed, that Her Majesty's Government wholeheartedly support the principle which animated the Crathorne Report that there should be one day of rest per week. We support also the right of every man to attend a place of worship on his own equivalent of the Sabbath Day. It is our earnest hope that, as the result of your deliberations, Parliament will produce a law on Sunday observance which is clear, certain and acceptable to the great majority of the public and which will thus be respected and can be enforced.
4.5 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I confess that after a busy Sunday in four different parts of Sussex, I find a Monday afternoon discussion on Sunday entertainment a little unrealistic. At least in my contribution this afternoon I am at a disadvantage with most of your Lordships, who have been enjoying a day of rest unhindered by other activities.
I want to say how grateful I am for the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, in bringing forward this Bill, and though I am not in full agreement with all that he said, I am in sympathy with much of it. It is perfectly true, as he said at the beginning, that the climate of opinion in the world has changed a great deal in the course of the last ten years, and not only generally; the climate of Christian opinion has changed also. There remain a strong minority, to whom the noble Lord referred, who would continue to resist any alteration in the existing laws. They would say that the restriction on Sunday activities which these laws seek to enshrine is based on
36
Divine law and any departure from it would be a departure from Divine law. Personally I do not wholly agree with that view, nor would a great deal of other Christian opinion; but we respect it. I thought that the noble Lord was perhaps a little unkind, I am sure not intentionally, in his remarks about those people. In any democracy, the existence and perseverance of minorities is very important, whether we agree with them or not. They keep alive attitudes and points of view which may be very necessary for the general pattern of society, and I would honour them in many ways without agreeing with the stand they take.
The far larger body of Christian opinion has in many ways, through spokesmen in your Lordships' House and elsewhere, already acknowledged much of what has been said in the Crathorne Report, the spirit of which has been enshrined in this Bill. We should like to remove anomalies and illogicalities from the present law. It would be unrealistic to suggest that new laws will not create new anomalies, and already, from what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said, it is clear that this Bill creates several new ones which would have to be dealt with in one way or another if it came into action. None the less, we should like to have a realistic reappraisal of these matters.
We recognise that those old laws were framed for a different form of society from our own. There is far greater leisure in our society and a greater number of better ways of employing that leisure in a healthy way. There is a great deal of divergence of views in a modern society and respect ought to be had to all these different views. We should not like it to be supposed that we wish in any way to use these old laws, even if we could do so, to impose upon other people certain views or customs which they could not in their hearts accept. We should not hope by making other things illegal to make people more religious, any more than we should suppose that by making cricket legal we should make better cricketers. We should say that we want more cricketers, and not more spectators, to get better cricket. No doubt the same would apply in religious activity. None the less, we welcome the spirit of the Crathorne Report, which seeks to rationalise and to liberalise the

37
situation. This is an attitude which perhaps would not have obtained in your Lordships' House, certainly it would not within the Churches, a generation ago.
Even at the risk of some repetition, I would reiterate what I regard as three important considerations which ought to be brought to bear on any legislation which affects Sunday. I would first make clear that, much as we would welcome changes, these should never embody any departure from our own conviction that the whole institution of Sunday has a religious foundation. In other societies there may be other ways of using leisure and change and of giving it its place, but the establishment of a special corporate day of the week for the community as a right and, indeed, as a duty from Almighty God came first from the Jewish faith and was taken up, transformed and transmitted by the Christian faith, and it has been enshrined in different ways in all communities that have sought to be in any degree Christian communities. The observance of this Sunday has certainly changed, and it is different in different parts of the world to-day. Yet we must go on asserting this central fact with what is its corollary. The corollary is not only that all who profess themselves to be Christians have the duty of worshipping on Sundays in one way or another, but that the State itself, which at any rate professes a sympathy for the Christian faith, has a duty to keep open the opportunity of that faith in full measure.
When the Crathorne Report was debated in the Church Assembly, shortly after the debate in this House, while there was a great deal of sympathetic reception for it, the Assembly was anxious to assert to the Christian community as a whole that we could not think of the recreation of Sunday without the worship of Sunday, and that neither one nor the other should stand by itself. In this particular respect we have a concern for the young, or, as we say, the community of the next generation, as they grow up. What we should be doing here would be something that affects them even more, it may be, than it affects us. It would be useless later on to deplore the decline of religion in this country, with all the attendant consequences that there might be—and many of those consequences most of us would deplore—if the Church were being unduly hampered or handicapped
38
in its opportunities of gathering them together and teaching them the Christian faith in their early years. Moreover, young people are very sensitive to the values of society around them. They know what kinds of things that society respects, and they know what kinds of things it ignores. And this will shape their own lives. In all this we could not support anything that seemed to depart from our own obligations to maintain this Christian essence in our own Sunday.
Secondly, we must go on to endorse an opinion to which the Crathorne Report gives a good deal of space and which has already been referred to by the promoter of the Bill and others: that it is important that Sunday should in some way or other be preserved as a different kind of day from other days, and that this is important for the community as a whole, and not merely for believing individual members of that community. This was expressed to the Committee in the evidence given by many people who are not themselves particularly Christian bodies.
It is difficult to define what makes it a different day. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, has reminded us, quite rightly, that it is a different kind of day on the Continent without necessarily being a less religious day than it is here. None the less, we have grown up with a certain kind of pattern, and we cannot necessarily transfer ourselves to another kind of pattern without losing a great deal in the process. It is not just a matter of what we do or do not do. It means a certain ethos about the day; something that comes from the attitudes of society and is expressed ultimately in the laws that they observe. It is, indeed, difficult to define what we mean by a different day, but it should always make us watch critically any legislation that is going to affect that day.
One thing more or less in the day might seem to make no difference to it, though I suppose that if a Chancellor of the Exchequer said that one tax more or less would not make all that difference he would not carry his audience with him. One thing more or less may, in the end, upset the whole balance and destroy the spirit, the quiet or the freedom of it. This is what we have to watch. In particular, if the changes that

39
ensued in Sunday were seen to be based not on the genuine human considerations which are in the mind of and were expressed by the noble Lord, but were in fact derived from commercial considerations, from the interests of private groups, then I think this would produce a kind of cynicism in the community. It would be, in T. S. Eliot's phrase:
"…the greatest treason:
To do the right deed for the wrong reason."
This is what might happen.
What is the essence? It is respect for our own national tradition and our Christian tradition; it is respect for personal convictions; it is respect for individual freedom in the face of the pressures around it; it is responsibility one for another. If all these were being subordinated to the promoter, the sales-man or the box office in the end, then I think we should have a travesty on this day which is called a different day, and people would come to despise it.
The third consideration to which I would refer is the preservation of leisure; the chance for as many people as possible to stand aside from the economic pressures of ordinary life, to sit back, or to go out and recreate themselves in such ways as will really bring them a change. I wish, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has said, that this Bill could have extended wider to cover something of the trading or the industrial problems that beset Sunday, because I think the interference with the rightful leisure of the individual is probably more menaced there than it is by our concentration on sport and entertainment. This Bill deals only with the latter.
The question before us is to what degree in our provision of entertainment for certain sections of the community shall we be taking away freedom from other sections of the community? How far will their private, personal rights be sacrificed? We should all agree that some work is necessary, and that a changing and more complex society must involve more necessary work. But how much is necessary? There is always a tendency to regard the luxuries of one stage as the necessities of the next; and there is always the salesman attitude which would suggest that, "We cannot do without this if we are to live a life at all".
40
There must come points when we must resist encroachments, because they would lead to steadily advancing areas in which private freedom was interefered with. It might be, for instance, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has already stressed, that if you are presented with the anomaly of legal racing on Sundays, but the illegality of betting on Sundays, you then open up a whole new question whether there is another small section of the community whose Sunday must be taken away for the purposes of providing for the great public at the race meeting on a Sunday afternoon. This may go on. It is in this respect that, like the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, I have some hesitation about the Bill as it stands, and can only give it modified approval.
It is a great regret that our criticism of such a Bill seems to centre on public sport. We all want more sport and more opportunities for recreation for the community; we all want to get away from the charge of bored youth in our cities. But what we really mean is more opportunities for them to enjoy actively their sports themselves; more facilities for them, rather than providing them with a subject of spectator hood, which is not the best way of serving youth. This may be a kind of escape from the more important obligation to the younger generation to provide them with activities of their own. Partly for that reason, I would endorse again the distinction which the Crathorne Report seeks to draw between the player sport and the spectator sport. It may be difficult to draw this up in legal terms, but none the less it is a very real distinction. Is it not a question of what will happen ultimately, when the full resources of modern organisation are let loose on Sundays? If, sooner or later, they develop the full potential for sport and entertainment I think we shall cease to have a day, at least after 2 p.m., and possibly before that time, that is any different from Saturday, and we shall have taken away an increasing amount of liberty or Sunday rest from a great number of people.
When this question arises it will not be sufficient to say that the individual can refuse to work on Sundays. This entirely underrates the amount of pressure which can be put on an individual, either deliberately or unconsciously, from the

41
organisation to which he belongs. The pressure of private interests can be exerted with a great deal of resource and know-how. To the normal publicity they can add the prestige of the event and things build up so that a person cannot, in a sense, contract out of his own part in them.
The organisation of sport to-day is a complicated network of events, meetings, leagues and the like, and it would be difficult for one individual to pull out of his share in them. I could not but notice that when the Crathorne Committee took the evidence of a number of sporting associations they found many against Sunday sport, and they also made this comment:
"The National Greyhound Racing Society said that they had always been against Sunday racing and in their view all forms of entertainments, sports and games that involve betting or gaming should be prohibited on Sunday. If, however, the law were to be amended they asked that greyhound racing should be granted equality of treatment with other betting sports."
There it goes. As soon as it starts happening somewhere, inevitably it will happen somewhere else, until we reach the stage where we cannot retrace our steps. We shall have taken away this very important institution, Sunday, and the result will be seen not in ten years but possibly in fifteen to twenty years' time. Therefore I give some warmth of approval, but with certain strong reservations, to the terms of the Bill.
4.23 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, I had hoped that by now the Government would have the courage to bring forward a Bill to implement the Crathorne Committee's recommendations as a whole. That Committee's Report was published nearly two years ago, and considering the explosive character of the subject it has, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, himself said earlier, come in for gratifyingly little criticism. But now, instead, we have this Bill, introduced in lively, colourful and straight-forward language by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, which deals with only half the field covered by the Crathorne Report, and in that half it departs considerably from the very sensible Crathorne recommendations.
I cannot believe it would be right to legalise all forms of professional sport
42
on Sundays. For one thing, it means collecting huge crowds together, with all the extra transport services they require, not to speak of the extra police needed; and this seems to me to cut right across the principle that so far as possible we ought not to alter the law in ways that would necessitate great numbers of extra people having to work on Sundays. I can see no objection to allowing cinemas to be open anywhere on Sunday afternoons and evenings, freeing them from the rather niggling restrictions in the 1932 Act, and simply allowing the local authority to enforce any special conditions that seem desirable locally. As to theatres, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, pointed out, I know it will be a break with tradition when we have them open generally on Sundays, but for television plays to be permitted on Sundays and for live performances in theatres to be prohibited seems to me to be absurd.
The borderline anomalies under the present law are absurd, too. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred to some of them in his speech. I can put on Welsh national dress to sing "Men of Harlech" on a Sunday if I can claim that it is normal dress for me because I am Welsh. But if the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, did that she would be committing a criminal offence because she is from Scotland. I cannot be sure what the law would say if the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, sang on Sunday as Lady Godiva.
As a small girl I grew up in the ordered life of a busy vicarage. Sunday was a very different day from the rest of the week: clean clothes; breakfast at nine instead of at eight; church morning and evening, with afternoon Sunday school thrown in for good measure. This was the pattern of the day. The only games we were allowed to play were games which were supposed to have a religious flavour, though I doubt whether right reverend Prelates would recommend them for religious instruction nowadays. We were expected to learn by heart one of the collects, or a few verses from the Bible, or part of the Catechism, and we were never allowed to knit or to sew. And it is not so very long ago that this was a fairly common pattern all over the country. Although it was natural to gird against some of this

43
parentally imposed discipline, I look back on those days more with pleasure than with anger. But they will never come back again, and it is all wrong to imagine that by retaining restrictive legislation that prohibits all kind of entertainment one can just put the clock back.
Years ago, when I was earning my living in London, before I got engaged to my noble relative on the Front Bench, I often found Sunday a lonely day because there was so little to do in the afternoons and evenings, unless I had been invited out with friends. Sometimes Sundays seemed very long. So I hope I have some right to speak as one who has seen both sides of the case. People nowadays have still more free time on Sundays, and if they are denied by law to do things which seem to them to be reasonable the law is not likely to make them any more Christian. But I do draw the line at professional sport, and I think that most people would do so, too, if they thought out all that it implied. I believe nearly everyone feels that as many people as possible, themselves included, should have their Sundays different from ordinary working days. But we fall foul of this principle at once if we allow big matches and sporting events to take place; and in practice this means professional sport.
So, my Lords, I do not like this Bill, in that it opens wide the gates to large-scale professional sport on Sundays. I like much better the Crathorne Committee's idea of legalising all forms of unpaid amateur sport and games on Sundays, whether or not the public are charged for admission. The sooner the funny old antiquated Acts of Parliament are swept away, the better. I hate to know that my sons are committing a criminal offence every time they play village cricket on the opponents' ground on a Sunday afternoon.
But, above everything, I would plead that we get right away from cant. I remember just before the war visiting a Ministry of Labour rehabilitation centre for young men who had been long unemployed. There was an excellent football field, but the men were not allowed to use it on Sundays because of the strong local feeling against playing games on the Sabbath. You see, my Lords, this took place in Wales and when I asked what the men did instead
44
on Sundays I was told that they stayed indoors and played cards all day. I am a loyal Welsh woman, but I cannot believe that leaving those young men to play cards indoors on Sunday, instead of football out of doors, did much good for the cause of either religion or Welsh culture. Perhaps we all have to drop a few scales from our eyes if we are to get the laws about Sundays right, but I do not believe there is necessarily a conflict between religion and common sense, and I submit to your Lordships that the Crathorne Report got much nearer to reconciling the two than this Bill does.
4.30 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, if I may I should like to express my appreciation of the clarity, the courtesy and the temper in which my noble friend introduced this discussion this afternoon. In his penultimate remarks as a humanist, I think he spoke for every Christian or would-be Christian, and with the customary ability of the humanist, to misquote the Scriptures for his own use, he somewhat mutilated the reference from Micah, which I think distinguishes a little his position from mine. I believe it is right that we should seek to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly according to the light that is in us. That is very good, but it is not the Scripture. The Scripture says and walk humbly "with thy God", and that slightly distinguishes the approach I would make to this.
As a matter of Christian importance, I believe that this Bill goes some way to satisfy what I believe to be our legitimate needs and to clear away some of the abuses which have in the past dogged, and still continue to dog, our path. I declare my own interest, that I want to see the preservation of those truly Christian elements in Sunday which have been of immeasurable importance in the instilling in this people the virtues which we still possess, and I think it would be a grave injury to our national life if those essential qualities were in any way impaired. Therefore I do not regard this Bill as some kind of Pisgah height from which we can see a promised land and can more quickly come to it. On the other hand, I do not regard it as part of the wide gate that leads to destruction. I have a great deal of sympathy with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, and in one particular measure I would think it probably

45
better that we should adhere to the principles of the Crathorne Report. I involve my judgment upon that and should like to hear more about it in Committee. On the other hand, I believe my noble friend is entirely right in his insistence on preferring 2 o'clock rather than 12.30.
There are two clauses in the Bill which, surely, should delay no one. The first clause seeks to get rid of the mish-mash, the rag-bag of hoary and obsolete laws, and if there should be needed any evidence in support of that proposition it comes from none other than the Lord's Day Observance Society themselves, who, in the voluminous propaganda they have sent me (in the hope, no doubt, of a deathbed repentance) say that they themselves believe the application of these laws is now well nigh impossible—and I think the "well nigh" is a concession to sentiment rather than facts. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, I would say that we should devote very little time to what are obsolete laws which need to be revised, so that we ourselves, as Christian people, and the community as a whole, may not be brought into contempt for our stupidity and our adhesion to propositions which are ridiculous, as noble Lords have already declared them to be in this House.
No reference has been made as yet to Clause 7, that sordid piece of legislation, the Cinematograph Fund which was practically as ineffective as it was morally dubious and, I think, a great matter of embarrassment to those who expected to receive it, but so far as I am concerned as a charitable organisation received very little of it. The burial of this indecent corpse is a very good thing. It is, if I may say so, between Clause 1 and Clause 7 that we are involved in controversy, and it is a controversy or, at any rate, a discussion, held within a House the proceedings of which this afternoon were begun with prayer and so committed to the prosecution of the Christian faith. Therefore, it is no impertinence on my part that I should seek to speak of that Christian faith. In fact the impudence, if there is any, is from those who would seek to exclude it from your Lordships' deliberations.
It is a pity, I think, that much of the objection that will be directed to this Bill comes from a particular organization to which reference has been made. I
46
should like to delay your Lordships a little by saying something about the Lord's Day Observance Society's propositions, because I think they need refutation; they are articulate if ill-informed and they are widely dispersed if, I think, they are intelligently almost negligible. I have nothing but respect and admiration for their enthusiasm, and if I may pass a comment on my own pastoral experience, it is very often those who have the weirdest theological notions who dedicate themselves the more thoroughly and consistently to the prosecution of gooddeeds. But in this regard of the Lord's Day Observance Society and its propaganda thereto, they are, as I see it, theologically completely wrong, and historically they are without any sense of the truth as I believe that truth has to be maintained. Theologically it is for a Christian absurd to seek to equate the seventh day of the week, the Sabbath, with the first day of the week; to assert that because our friends, the ancient Hebrews, were prohibited from working on the seventh day of the week, therefore modern Christians should be prohibited from playing games on the first day of the week is a complete non sequitur.
In fact it is true to say that the propositions of Sabbatarianism have in essence nothing to do with Christianity at all. They are an unwarrantable intrusion which can only be maintained by those who, irrespective of any normal and customary arguments of theology or history, mingle ancient laws with modern laws and assume that they both, because they appear within one cover, have the same final authority. Sabbatarianism is not a Christian command, it does not belong to the Christian faith. The Lord's Day, which is the first day of the week, is a commemoration of the Resurrection of Our Lord. It is a day of worship and of gladness; it is not a day of mere legal prohibition and abstention from work. In the second place, the Sabbatarians, in the persons of the Lord's Day Observance Society, make the equally fallacious assumption that inertia is the same thing as piety. This has, if I may say so, a provenance which is not altogether disreputable. The emergence of the Sabbatarian habits within Protestantism in general and Nonconformity, in particular, are to be found in the very century in which these particular

47
legislative Acts are also to be found, and they took place at a time when the average six-day working habits of the general populace were out-of-doors and were largely muscular, and therefore it was no privation to spend the Lord's Day largely indoors resting from the labours of the week.
Where, added to this, there came the onrush of the industrial society, I think we ought to speak with even greater care and sympathy and charity of those who first promulgated the first Sabbatarian principles and who so earnestly and sedulously follow them. Those of your Lordships who know something, as many undoubtedly do, of the characteristics of work in industrialised areas, particularly among the early Methodists, will know how arduous, prolonged and intolerable were the conditions in which they had to work six days a week. I knew a miner, an old man, who told me that when he was a youngster he never saw daylight from September until May, except on Sunday, because for the rest of the week he went down the mine when it was still dark, and when he emerged it was dark again. The idea which is prominent, in fact is central, to the argument of the Sabbatarians, particularly the Lord's Day Observance Society, in this respect, is that Sunday should be a day of rest; and if we were living in the industrialised conditions of the early days of the 19th century their arguments would still be very sound. But that day has gone, and with it a large measure of the argument to which the Lord's Day Observance Society are committed. I do not subscribe to their attitudes, but I would, if I may delay your Lordships a little, try to say what to me is the Christian demand which we legitimately ought to make.
I believe, with my friends of the Church of England, that what we are concerned about is to make Sunday a different day, a day on which the vast majority of people will have the opportunity of changing the way of their living and thereby securing a rhythm in life which is not some fastidious appurtenance but belongs, as I see it, to that natural law which must always presuppose and pre-exist, spiritual law. It is that with the coming of the artificialities of our industrial society, we have destroyed the rhythm of day and night—electric light
48
does that. We have destroyed the rhythm of heat and cold, our internal systems of heating will do that; and we are in danger of producing a continuum in which there is no rhythm and balance at all. This is not a peculiarly Christian claim. I believe that it is a natural claim, and anything which can support this rhythmic relationship between six or seven, or five days (it is not committed purely to six days), and anything which can maintain that rhythmic balance of life is to be cherished and is, I think, part of our proper inheritance.
I was delighted to hear the noble Baroness speaking of Sunday as she knew it as a child. It brought back to me my own memories of childhood, which were almost identical. We got up fairly late, and we went to morning Sunday school. Thereafter we went to church, and we came back home for a large lunch. We went back to Sunday school and after Sunday school we came home, had high tea; after high tea we repaired to the drawing room, and there my mother played the piano, and we sang hymns until it was time to go back to church. We went back to church; we came home and had supper, and then my father said "It is a good thing to go to bed early on Sunday"—a magnificent expression of the truth of making a virtue out of a necessity. We were done for! We had been singing and worshipping and praying all day, and if we had wished to stay up later we should have had to do more of it. If your Lordships will notice the correlation between the Sunday of nonconforming Sabbatarianism, which begins late and ends early, I believe you will appreciate one of the essential characteristics of this argument. The piety used to take a lot longer. We now have much more time either to kill or to use.
Therefore, those who claim that this Bill will be a measure of our emancipation are, I think, compelled to recognise, as we must all recognise, that we are in the process of elongating our leisure without at the same time filling it with the appropriate measures which can make it creative. This is not a Bill which will open the gates to a new world; it is a Bill which will clear away a great deal of the rubbish that belongs to an old world and will challenge us with a new kind of vitality in the world into which we have already moved, willy-nilly, and

49
in which I hope we shall take our place constructively and effectively.
I do not claim for the Church that we should be mollycoddled as a hot-house plant. If we can profess our faith without fear or favour, our faith must be this: that we do not insist—how can we?—that those who do not accept our particular beliefs should come to church; but we should like to seek for them the same opportunities as we desire for ourselves, that once a week there should be created an opportunity whereby men and women, and children particularly, shall have a new opportunity of seeking those ways of life which are largely precluded from their acceptance and realisation for the rest of the week. This I believe to be a reasonable, a Christian and, above all, a natural law. It is in some sense to further it, that I believe that this Bill has its merits, and should certainly be given a Second Reading.
I should like to conclude by saying that I do not believe for one moment that it is necessarily true that if this Bill goes through we shall have started a slippery slope, and that we shall go further into depravity and dissipation. What I do believe is that this Bill can give us an opportunity to set our sights in a new direction, to clear away the rubble of a past generation; and then of recognising that we have much yet to do in securing the proper use of leisure in an affluent society, or, as I prefer to think of it, in the Kingdom of God.
4.45 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I do not think any speaker so far has referred to that one particular class of sport which in my experience shatters the peace of Sunday afternoon more than any other, namely, the class of sport which entails the use of the unsilenced internal combustion engine, of which I suppose the prime example for my case is the thing called a motor-cycle scramble. I am not at all againstmotor-cycle scrambles at any time, and if parties of young men wish to go on Sunday afternoons to the moors, or far into the Fens, and make a deafening noise with motor-cycles for the whole of Sunday afternoon and evening, for myself I should be delighted that they should do that, particularly if the alternative was going to be that they would lounge about in the streets of some towns. But I question whether the practice which obtains nowa-
50
days, whereby these motor-cycle scrambles take place in a field on the outskirts of a village or town, and are allowed to shatter the peace of the people in the village or town who are trying to spend Sunday afternoon in their garden or house, with their windows open, should be permitted. I do not find anything in this Bill as at present drafted which deals with this particular problem. I hope that this problem will be dealt with at some time, and effectively, in the course of this Bill's progress through Parliament.
4.47 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Willis on having brought forward this Bill, and also on that magnificent historical, sociological and moral survey which he gave in his opening remarks. He will no doubt obtain some satisfaction from the fact that every speaker has said that he believes in giving the Bill a Second Reading. But he may shudder when he thinks of the sledge-hammers that are going to be brought out on the Committee stage.
What kind of a day should Sunday be? Should it be a standardised kind of day, regulated so that everybody does the same thing and thinks the same thoughts? That might not be easy to achieve. Unfortunately, there are no such beings as standardised men. My noble friend introduced this Bill as a humanist. I would support it as a Christian, though not a very demonstrative one, or a church-going one, except on special occasions. This is probably due to the fact that I had an excess of compulsory church-going in my early days. In this, apparently, I share the experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, and of my noble friend Lord Soper. When I was quite young I was a choir boy, and a good little choir boy. Other people thought so as well, because one Sunday night one anonymous member of the congregation put sixpence in an envelope and sent it round to me at the vestry door, saying it was in appreciation of the way I had sung the solo that night.
I was one of those boys who had to go to St. John's morning service, who had to go to Sunday school at St. Monica's in the afternoon, who had to sing in the choir at St. Monica's on Sunday evening. Every Wednesday evening there was the Church Lads' Brigade. On one evening

51
a month there was the Band of Hope. Every Friday evening there was the choir practice. Then, when I was 16 and went in the Army, there came the customary round of compulsory church parades. I ought to add that in later life I bought an old rectory in a little Essex village and spent the twenty happiest years of my life there. But I bought it solely out of worldly considerations, although many of my letters used to come addressed to "The Reverend Charles Leatherland".
Against that background, what should be my approach to this Bill? Should I look upon it as something which is going to change the face of Sunday and our society in the process? I hardly think so. I think that this is merely a question of bringing Sunday observance law into line with changes which have already taken place in our society and in our conduct—changes which have already been accepted by the generality of people. It is a fact that church-going has diminished and is diminishing, and there are several reasons for this decine. One has to face the fact that many people have lost faith. I will not delve into the reasons for it—I am no theologian—but I think one can assume that many people have lost their faith because under a Divine Providence we have seen the two most terrible wars in history. Then there is the sociological aspect. There has during my lifetime been a growth of class consciousness, and I know that it is the view of many working men that the Church is no place for them—that it is mainly a middle-class institution. I would forestall anything that noble Lords of Roman Catholic persuasion might say by remarking that, so far as their Church is concerned, that certainly would not be a proper allegation to make. Then there is the influence which has been wrought upon some people by the state of open hostility that has prevailed between the various Churches for so many years, indeed for so many centuries. I welcome the fact that overtures have recently been made to heal that rift, but I am rather doubtful whether very much will come of them.
Whatever the reasons may be, we have to face the fact that there has been a diminution in church-going. The churches which were full in my boyhood days are
52
now half-full, many have been closed, many parishes have had to be amalgamated. Whether this is for the better or for the worse I should not dare to say. It is an accepted fact that for many young people it has been for the worse, yet for many middle-aged people what has happened is that they have channelled their efforts into various forms of worthy human endeavour, charitable and otherwise. And it would surprise me to find that all the young men and women who are concerned with organisations like OXFAM are practising Christians.
What is this Bill going to do, or not going to do? It is not going to reduce the size of any one congregation in this country. Every person who wants to go to church will still have the opportunity and the freedom to go to church. What it is going to do is to say to those people who do not want to go to church in any case, but who want to have recreation and amusement, that they shall have opportunities afforded to them to indulge in recreation and relaxation. We are living in very strenuous days. Many branches of industry embody repetitive, monotonous processes on soul-destroying assembly lines, processes in which Man has become the servant of the vast machine. I believe this has bred certain neuroses which are probably at the base of much of our industrial trouble to-day.
It is a fact that working hours for the bulk of the population have been reduced, but much of the benefit of those shorter working hours has been neutralised by the long hours people have to spend in travelling in great discomfort to and from work. The result is that most work-people get home at night completely exhausted, far too tired to participate in any form of outdoor amusement, whether it be entertainment or sport. And with millions of women working it is also a fact that many women have to spend most of Saturday doing their shopping.
If those people want on Sunday to be allowed to indulge in recreation or sport, or wish to visit places of amusement, I think that it would be very healthy indeed to sweep away the bonds which at present prevent their having the opportunity to do so. That is the essence of the reasons for which I support this Bill. I am sure the Bill will be welcomed by large numbers of women who are so

53
tightly tied to their homes by their domestic duties from one end of the week to the other that their homes have virtually become prisons. It may be said, "Well, they have their television for recreation and relaxation." But the television does not make a conspicuous contribution to the cause of piety and good morals, good behaviour, good thinking or good citizenship. Many of the programmes we see on television are nothing but decadent, violent, immoral slush, and although the television has proved a boon in many ways it is in other ways one of the great enemies of our age. I should like to see encouragement given to people to get away from their homes, their firesides, for this one day in the week, and to go out as a united family.
Of course, the Bill is not perfect. Some of its imperfections have already been mentioned by other noble Lords. I am not particularly keen on that implication in the Bill which would permit striptease shows to go on until three in the morning on Sundays in the West End of London. I am not very happy about the lack of any stipulation on gambling early on Sunday morning. But these are perhaps points which can be dealt with better on the Committee stage than on this occasion. What is a very important point is the fact that a number of people who hitherto have had their Sundays free are going to find that they will have to work on Sundays. I do not know whether my noble friend, Lord Willis, underestimated the numbers, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, or whether he is in fact accurate; but, whatever the number may be at this particular moment, in five or six years' time it may grow considerably. I should not like to see any man compelled to work seven days a week against his will. I should not like to see him threatened with the sack for refusing to work seven days a week. It has been said that the trade unions can well look after their members in this respect. I think that something a little more watertight than an undertaking like that is desirable if the Bill is to be as perfect as we should like it to be.
As for the supposed inconvenience to any individual who has to work on Sundays, I think the effect of this can be exaggerated. For many years as a newspaper editorial executive I had to work nearly every Sunday in the year. It is
54
true that I had a compensatory day off later in the week, and I feel that this point ought to be embodied in any Bill which attempts to deal with Sunday observance in the future. In actual fact, I used to get Tuesdays off, and Tuesday was the day when the local foxhounds hunted in my neighbourhood, so that a good time was had by all. Then on Wednesday morning, perhaps a little bruised, but sore and satisfied, I was able to go back to my desk and face with equanimity anything that happened to come along. I think the objection that this would create Sunday work can be overdone. But I should like to insist, as I said, that there should be a compensatory day off and, in any case, that no person should be sacked for refusing to work seven days a week.
I have been talking about horses. Let me look at another branch of equestrian endeavour. No, it is not Sunday polo—there are people who know more about that than I do; it is this question of Sunday horse-racing. There are millions of people in this country who are keen followers of horse-racing. I am not one of them. I would rather be on the back of a horse than back a horse. But those people get no opportunity whatsoever of going along with their families to a race meeting. I should like to see them given the opportunity to do that. I know that it would have been a complicated procedure for my noble friend to incorporate in this Bill something which would amount to an amendment of the 1963 Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, but I think we must face that. We must realise that horse-racing is a healthy, exciting, outdoor sport, specially suitable to spectators, and even if we have to amend the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act so that the Tote and the bookmakers on the course—and on the course only—can operate on that day, I should like to see some amendment of that kind made.
My noble friend Lord Soper referred to Clause 7 of this Bill. Clause 7 deals with the Cinematograph Fund, which permitted county boroughs and county councils to make a levy on cinemas which opened on Sunday, and to build up a fund out of which they would support worthy charities in their locality. Speaking as a former finance committee chairman of a county council, I know the very fine work that that fund has done in our county. At one time it was yielding

55
£20,000 a year, which we divided between a multitude of charities ranging from cancer research, on the one hand, to disabled ex-servicemen's organisations, on the other; and even to homes for unmarried mothers. I am sorry to see that go, although my noble friend Lord Soper spoke of it with some concealed scorn, but the plight of the cinema industry in recent years has been such that it was in any case a rapidly diminishing revenue. I think that within a year or two it might have faded out altogether. Therefore, I accept that and regard it as something which inevitably had to come.
Finally, I think that it would be well of us to show some tolerance to allsorts of people, some tolerance even to their weaknesses. I know there are some people who say that there should be no work and no play on Sunday, yet they are only too willing to accept the results of the hard Sunday work of newspapermen and railwaymen, of doctors and nurses, of farmers and fishermen, of postmen and firemen and policemen; and what is virtuous in one case surely cannot be vicious in another.
There is just one more matter which has not been referred to in this debate, and that is the question of visitors to our shores. There are many American visitors who come here, people with a lot of money who are prepared to spend it here, but who frequently cut short their stay in Britain to go over to Paris earlier than they would otherwise do because of what they call our dismal Sunday. I am sure that our balance of payments could benefit if a stay in Britain were made more attractive to these people and while I would not for a moment dare to think of basing an argument in support of this Bill on a materialistic foundation such as that, I feel that it is one of the incidental matters which we might bear in mind. I prefer to base my support of this Bill on the fact that it is bringing into harmony with to-day's needs and to-day's views a whole set of legislation which is hopelessly out of date. I believe it is for the greatest good of the greatest number, and I beg leave to support the Bill.
5.5 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am happy to join in welcoming this Bill, and
56
I understand why the method enjoined upon the noble Lord, Lord Willis, was what might be called the negative-productive approach. Its terms are restrictive to be expansive, as it were. I hope it will also be effective as it deserves. I should myself have liked to see it go a little further in certain respects, but I shall not dwell on that as I hope it may become law unhindered by too much amendment, either well-intended or ill-intended.
Moreover. I would as soon see this very necessary piece of reforming legislation in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, as I would in the name of anyone else. He has already provided entertainment himself for seven days a week, and under this Bill he is enabling others to join him—others so far prohibited from doing so. In studying the text of the Bill, it strikes me that even with the noble Lord's name attached to it, it would be hard to sell as a television script. But then it has not been composed as a television script, and he is merely showing his versatility—with the Government draftsman "ghosting" certain passages for him, as we have been told.
Next Sunday is the first in the Church's New Year, and it seems very apposite and encouraging to me that the Year should begin with this new reform having earned the approval of your Lordships, as I hope it will, in this initial stage. To my mind, it will make the English Sunday a more Christian occasion, not less, as the Lord's Day Observance Society would have us believe in their expostulations.
Twenty months ago, in a debate on my own Motion on this subject, which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, I drew particular attention to the difference between the Christian Sunday and the Jewish Sabbath which, it seems to me, society continually, even obstinately, confuse with one another. This has to be clarified because, according to my instruction, one is the weekly celebration of Our Lord's Resurrection, and therefore a day of gratitude and rejoicing rather than a day of abnegation and public repentance, which may be a perfectly respectable interpretation of the Jewish Sabbath. One is Sunday, the first day of the week; the other is Saturday, the last of the week, and never the twain need overlap; that is to say,

57
so long as they are both honoured by those following the two religions. On that occasion, with a glow of complacent and doubtless sinful pride, I won support even from the right reverend Prelate the Archbishop of York for my theme that our Sunday is a day of re-creation for the week to come. Significant hyphens can be introduced, it seems, at both ends of this building, but I hope that this one will not be the subject of argument.
It seems worth repeating again my conviction that none of the supporters of the Bill would wish as a consequence to see any abuse of the Lord's Day or any abuse of religious practice. Indeed, the noble Lord promoting the Bill made that clear for his part. It seems to me that he has in fact been able to avoid this, as was his intention. The freedom that his Bill will give from 2 p.m. onward, allows those who wish to go to the morning service to do so without other temptations, and makes allowance also for the "Sunday dinner" which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester rightly considered to be important and valuable in the pattern of English life. The right reverend Prelate insisted that Sunday should be retained as a "different" day, and I do not believe that the Bill in any way destroys this. The term has been repeated frequently in this debate.
Together with other noble Lords, I have been circularised by the Lord's Day Observance Society with a letter asking us to vote against the Bill at this stage, and listing ten supposed reasons for so doing. The letter states that:
"This Bill is regarded with deep and anxious concern by a very considerable body of British opinion…".
While ready to believe in the sincerity of the Society's members themselves in their concern—utterly misplaced, as I deem it—I see no basis for believing that any considerable body of opinion shares that concern.
The last of the ten points states:
"The most serious aspect of the Bill is that, if passed, it will result in a further departure of our nation from Almighty God, His Word and Commandments, with both ill-effects upon the spiritual and moral life of the nation and the certain removal of the Divine Blessing from us as a people."
Phew! Personally, I am ready to consult the Bench of Bishops on this likelihood;
58
and, unless there is an especially sinister ecclesiastical fifth column working for "Old Nick", they are not going to lead us into this peril. In this I was much fortified by the views of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, even though he was one who made some of the more friendly and kindly observations about the Society to-day.
There is hardly any piece of legislation, however beneficial, which does not create some new problem or difficulty. The noble Lord promoting this Bill has foreseen any that I could foresee. He did not say as much as I had expected about the theatre. One of the most successful actor-managers of our day, whose name is identified with long runs, was in my home the other day, and although he referred approvingly to the noble Lord's design, he was anxious about its possible effects on the theatre. Of course, the long-running play is the most vulnerable in this respect. My noble friend Lord Derwent made this very point on the earlier occasion. I was hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, would say that Equity could deal with this. He did, in fact, in rather general terms, when he referred to the confidence of the unions themselves in being able to deal with these problems; and my own impression (and I should be grateful if he would back it up) is that Equity, as one of the unions most concerned, would feel confident that it could sort it out amicably with management.
In closing, my Lords, I shall only quote, very briefly, from one verse of one hymn which I invoked on March 17 of last year. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester regarded it as a rather old-fashioned hymn, and hoped that I had not entertained myself with it during one of the less interesting parts of the sermon. While regretting that he should speak deprecatingly about old-fashioned hymns, I still have no doubt that he would have distinguished himself far better than I in the Catacombs, had we met in that epoch of Christianity. I can put his mind at rest on the matter of sermons in our Parish Church at Wragby. We are happy in having a Vicar who has never, in my experience, delivered a dull sermon. I cannot even recall a dull or dragging passage; so he provides no deterrent to a proper observance of the Lord's Day before 2 p.m. In case the right reverend Prelate

59
the Bishop of Leicester, on reading this debate, as I hope he will, may cast acquisitive eyes through the pages of Crockford's, I have concrete reason to believe that this clergyman is virtually irremovable.
My Lords, the hymn from which I quoted the last time is that which goes:
"Around the Throne of God a band
Of glorious angels ever stand;
Bright things they see, sweet harps they hold,
And on their heads are crowns of gold."
I said at that time that this occurred to me as describing a typical Sunday in Heaven. Without himself claiming that he is creating quite the same thing on earth by his Bill, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, I believe, in fact, that the noble Lord is doing what he can to prepare us for it.
5.13 p.m.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, on personal grounds I should like to be able to support the Bill sponsored by my noble friend Lord Willis, for we all recognise his great sincerity in his attempt to exclude certain acts from the scope of the Sunday Observance Act 1677. Indeed, personally, I am always wary of any Act passed during the Stuart period, excluding the Cromwellian period. As a Welshman. however, I feel bound to oppose the Bill, for we in Wales are so indebted to Sunday as an institution, as I shall endeavour to show. Clause 8 states explicitly:
"This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland".
I should not have intervened in this debate had the words "and Wales "been added to this clause, but I believe the noble Lord would have been up against a constitutional difficulty to add those words, though presumably an Amendment can be moved if the Bill goes into Committee.
Wales, as I need hardly point out, is very different from England in many respects. We have our own traditions, our own way of life, our own literature, our own language. As one of our poets has said:
"A wado hyn aed a hi
A gwadad i'r haul godi".
I have been asked for a translation. It is:
60
"Whoever will deny what I have said now,
Let him deny that the sun rose this morning."
Let me point out, too, that Wales is the only Socialist country in the world. Out of 36 seats allotted to us in the other place, 32 are held by members of the Labour Party. There are only two Tories. So the question of finding a leader of the Tory Party in a Welsh Parliament would not arise. It could be mutually agreed that one acted as Leader and the other acted as Deputy Leader.
A NOBLE LORD: What about the Chief Whip?
LORD MAELOR: They would have to be tellers, too; so there would be no one to vote.
I am going to claim that this extraordinary political situation is strongly connected with the Sunday as we now know it. I find that the early leaders of the Radical and Labour movements in Wales were closely connected with the churches, and were the product of our Sunday schools—men like Mabon and William John, in South Wales; and T. E. Ellis and David Lloyd George, in North Wales. Nurtured in the churches of those days, they tramped the country proclaiming the social gospel, and found a ready response in the hearts of the faithful churchgoers.
Wales is also 100 per cent. a Non-conformist country. There is no connection between Church and State in the Principality. Our Bishops no longer sit in your Lordships' House. But Wales is also nonconformist in the strict sense of that term, and nonconformity has always been jealous of its hold on Sunday. It would be hypocritical on my part this evening to claim that to-day, even in Wales, Sunday is what it used to be, or that the chapel-goers are so numerous. There has been a great decline in church attendances. But it is not without significance that as church attendance declines, many evil things are on the increase. There are to-day more betting shops in Wales, in proportion to the population, than in any other part of the United Kingdom. There are 758 of these in Glamorganshire alone, and 161 in our capital city of Cardiff. I am told that Sherman's company, in Cardiff, have at least 130 betting shops in South Wales.

61
To the same extent that the churches and chapels are closing in Wales, betting shops are being opened; and I leave noble Lords to take their choice between the opening of churches or the opening of betting shops.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester warned your Lordships' House some months ago of the evil of gambling. The figures he gave are simply staggering. Britain, he said, spends £610 million on horse-racing, £125 million on dogs, £100 million on pools and £35 million on bingo. That would be enough to put Britain solidly on her feet to-day in the middle of this financial crisis. I am more than afraid that the passing of this Bill will greatly increase the desire for betting and also the facilities for betting. I know that in my noble friend's Bill provision is made for no betting to be done on Sundays; but then they will bet on Saturday on what is to take place on Sunday. I am not myself a betting man, but I believe that betting is done before the event, certainly not after it.
Personally I see great value in having one day of the week set apart from the others as a day of complete relaxation, not just from work but also from entertainment. I believe in our Sunday as we have it now, a day for complete relaxation from both work and entertainment. It has been referred to by one or two noble Lords as "the Sabbath". I do not believe in the Sabbath; that is a purely Jewish institution. I believe in the Lord's Day—that is, the Lord Jesus Christ. It was instituted in order to commemorate weekly the great event, if we believe in it, of the Resurrection of Our Lord on the third day.
My Lords, one of the first working-class Members of Parliament was John Burns and he had this to say about Sunday:
"To rest on Sunday is physically good, mentally restful, morally healthful and commercially advantageous for the British people."
John Burns was a representative of the working class of this country. I am mindful of the experience of the late Ernest Bevin, when he was Minister of Labour in the darkest hour in our Island history. Following Dunkirk there was a great shortage of war materials, and Ernest Bevin decided to ask the workers to work seven days a week. They readily responded, and the gap was soon closed.
62
But at the end of a few months Ernest Bevin found that production was declining constantly and consistently, and he was glad to reinstitute one day of rest in order to increase production. Indeed, we all know it is true that we in this country to-day produce more per man than in Japan, where they work seven days a week.
Again, speaking as a Welshman and in spite of what I have said regarding church attendance nowadays within the Principality, I would claim that we in Wales still respect and uphold the traditional Sunday. This was put to the test some five years ago. The then Home Secretary, now Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, decided to have a referendum on the question of the Sunday opening of public-houses. The people of England will be surprised to know that there are two opinions on a question like this—and this shows the difference between us and our friends across the Border. As a result of that referendum in 1961 (and there will he another vote in 1968), eight counties—Carmarthen, Cardingan, Pembroke, Denbigh, Merioneth, Caernarvon, Anglesey and Montgomery—voted against Sunday opening. This was in spite of the fact that within some of those counties, within at least six of them, are the most popular holiday resorts in the United Kingdom where thousands of people from other parts of the world spend their holidays every summer. Yet those eight counties voted against the Sunday opening of public-houses.
Sunday closure is one of our traditions—I am speaking a good deal about tradition this evening; but who are we in this House to mock tradition, for every action of ours (and this is true also of the other place) is steeped in tradition. As I have said, Wales is a Socialist country and it is also a very democratic country. It places great value on local government and the local councils in Wales are very jealous of the powers conferred upon them. Allowing every type of sport and entertainment after 2 p.m., as is proposed in this Bill, will take away from the local authorities a great deal of their powers in this matter. Surely they know more about the local conditions and circumstances, which vary so much from district to district, than anyone else. For example, we have the question of Sunday cinemas, where a local option exists.

63
Some districts in Wales have voted against the opening of cinemas on Sunday; as, for example, have Neath and the Rhondda Valley. It is extraordinary to note this in regard to the Rhondda Valley, because there you have a decline in church membership more pronounced than in any other part of Wales; yet they voted against the opening of cinemas on the Lord's Day. Are the wishes of the electorate to be ignored by allowing the general opening of cinemas as proposed in this Bill? The private owners or companies are bound to open them simply to reap profit. After all, these places are run by private enterprise and the only motive in opening them is to make profit. They are not opened in the interests of the public, I am sure, but in their owners' interests.
It appears to me that the Bill allows the opening on Sundays of the theatres, public dance-halls, circuses, fun-fairs, soccer, rugby, boxing, wrestling and so on. One does not need a great deal of imagination to see what is going to happen. It will be a free-for-all among the profit seekers. We shall have the Sunday schools in Wales losing their membership because the young will be tempted to go to these entertainments. In this respect I would refer to what my noble friend Lord Leatherland said: that it would not reduce congregations. I am sure it will do so because the youngsters, and particularly the young of our Sunday schools—and the Sunday schools in Wales are still very popular—will be tempted to go to the fairs rather than to the Sunday schools, or to go to a football match rather than to the Sunday school.
It is true that the law does not make Christians; but in a so-called Christian country we expect the law of the land to make it easier, rather than more difficult, for the Church to carry on its work. The tendency will be for those of us who oppose this Bill to be dubbed "killjoys" and "kill sports". I cannot be placed in that category for I love sport; I am a faithful follower of the Wrexham Football Club and I am excited this evening at having seen that we are second in the League. I am not a kill-joy, I can assure you. But I am a Welshman, and as a Welshman and a professing Christian, and as one brought up in the
64
atmosphere of the Sunday which has prevailed in Wales, I feel bound to oppose this Bill and, if it goes to a vote, to vote against it.
5.31 p.m.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, I should like to start by immediately declaring an interest, since I am actively involved in many sides of the entertainment industry and stand indirectly, and even possibly directly, to gain financially if this Bill is passed. I suppose therefore that I fall into what is referred to in the Crathorne Report as the "profit-making minority". For this reason, I should like briefly to cover this angle of the question: who, in fact, would make money out of Sunday entertainment as opposed to sport? The answer, briefly, is the small man in the entertainment business, the man who at present is feeling the pinch of the present Government's financial squeeze on the one side, and the never ceasing thrust of the giants of the entertainment industry on the other. It is also interesting to observe that the giants in the entertainment industry might even gain by the law remaining as it is, since most of them have a large interest in commercial television which, of course, is already free from all Sunday restrictions.
The fewer the people who go out to a public entertainment on Sunday the more who will stay at home, wilfully mentally inhaling the claims for some detergent or breakfast cereal—to the great financial gain of the giants of the entertainment industry. No, my Lords, it is, as usual, the small man who is getting the thin end of the bargain and he would gain financially by the passing of this Bill. I would even venture to suggest that the small-time actor and entertainer would profit also, because in a profession in which unemployment has always been familiar, and where the average unemployment figure is some 40 per cent. of the possible work force, the real basic considerations are only two: "Where is the next job coming from?" and, "Shall I get paid at the end of the week?"
The insecurity of the profession is astounding to anyone unfamiliar with it. The present problems of redundancy in other industries are an everyday hazard in ours. The brunt of the burden falls

65
mainly on the small theatre and clubs, managers, et cetera, who employ actors and entertainers. The more money they make the more likely it is that they will continue to supply work for the actors and entertainers, and the more sure those people will be that they will be satisfactorily employed. It is interesting to note from Appendix D of the Crathorne Report that 11,000 members of Equity, the actors' union, were asked whether they were opposed to the Sunday opening of theatres. Only 401 replied that they were. The fact that only 843 replied, "No" is of no significance at all, in my opinion, since it may be assumed that only those who were opposed would bother to reply. I maintain that in fact 10,599 said, "No", directly or indirectly. The position of unions in the entertainment industry is perhaps unique since performers have a choice of being members of Equity or of the V.A.F. and, to my knowledge, many members of the profession belong to neither.
I feel that it should also be mentioned that outside the London area, and especially in the north of England, 90 per cent. of all variety entertainment workers have a seven-day week now. Mostly they are employed in members' clubs which open for a full seven-day week. It has become so much the normal and regular practice for entertainers to work a seven-day week in the North that there is one variety theatre in Leeds where, because of the law, entertainers are contracted to work a seven-day week, but being unable to appear at the theatre on the seventh day, the entertainers are "sold" to local working men's clubs at a vast profit. I think this shows quite clearly that the entertainer already has a seven-day week, whether he wants it or not.
A very large percentage of variety entertainers work much of the year abroad, and except in some Moslem countries where establishments close on Fridays, they are used to a seven-day week already. They are paid by the day for seven days. This provides them on average with approximately one-seventh higher wages than they receive in this country. In recent years the change-over from theatres to clubs, especially in the north of England, has deprived entertainers of one-seventh of their salary, or an extra day's work, whichever way you
66
care to look at it. The opening of Sunday theatres might have saved this situation—and at the same time might well have saved the theatres themselves.
For people engaged in a tour of the provinces in a play or a show Sunday does not provide much of a rest. Moving personnel, scenery and props from, say, Manchester to Brighton between 11 p.m. on Saturday night and Monday rehearsal is a dismal, difficult and hard job, as I can assure your Lordships. Anyone who has ever had a part of that way of life hardly looks on Sunday as a day of rest or family recreation. The only worship for which there is time is a hasty prayer that British Rail will not be late. However, the move must be made, and it might be very much more convenient in many ways if it were made on Monday.
I have been involved in the entertainment industry and entertainment projects in 56 different countries, and again, apart from the Moslem countries, Saturday night is universally the best night of the week for such enterprises. In all non-Moslem countries where theatres, clubs and places of entertainment open on Sundays, Sunday is the second best night of the week. In Moslem countries it is the third best night of the week. It can therefore be seen that by closing places of entertainment on Sundays one is depriving the industry of the second most financially important night, which is hardly a help to an ailing industry. The theatre, especially the provincial theatre in this country, is in desperate need of help. Would noble Lords not prefer to see it pay its own way rather than be provided with ever-increasing subsidies at both national and local level?
The theatre in this country has now become eminently respectable. Even the disqualification from voting at national Elections applies no longer to Peers, lunatics and strolling players. Now it is only Peers and lunatics who are not eligible to vote. The danger is that there may not be any players left, strolling or otherwise, if there are no theatres left, and many theatres could have been, and may still be, saved if this Bill becomes law. Any cinema or television producer or director will agree that acting talent develops best in the live theatre, and that the live theatre must be preserved. Why not give the live theatre a better chance to pay its own way and so reduce the

67
national expenditure, even if only slightly? I am told that at one of the great revue theatres of Paris (known very well, I am sure, to many of your Lordships, especially those with a pastoral background) 25 per cent. of the income is derived from Sunday takings 35 per cent. on Saturdays, and 10 per cent. each on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. The theatre closes on Mondays and one can easily understand why.
My Lords, I should like to turn briefly to the attitude of the general public. Paragraph 45 of the Crathorne Committee's Report states:
"Other churches and religious organisations argue that most people did not wish for a change."
I believe that other churches and religious organisations here referred to are completely wrong. The public now have more spare time and leisure time than ever before and will, one presumes, have more and more over the coming years. It is in this connection that the entertainment industry becomes of deep significance. If the industry fails to keep pace by providing entertainment to fill that leisure time there will be a vacuum and we all know—I am sure that the occupants of the Bishops' Bench would not disagree—the old saying:
"Satan finds work for idle hands to do."
How much better that the "Mods" and "Rockers" should go to "pop" concerts and shows than that they should overwhelm our seaside resorts with a "rumble" or a "punch-up"? Any member of the public in those towns will, I am sure, tell you that.
The supposed apathy of the public to the question stems, of course, from Sunday television. Why should they get dressed up and go out on Sunday when they can stay at home and watch the television? But take away the television on Sunday and see how fast the public would clamour for this Bill. Television is surely the Lord's Day Observance Society's best friend, for without it most aspects of Sunday observance would have disappeared long ago. The public would be in an uproar and possibly would even vote into power a Party with this Bill in their programme. It is my opinion that a far higher percentage of people in this country would be concerned about being deprived of their Sunday television
68
than would be interested in Vietnam or the position of our gold reserves. This may be unfortunate, but I am sure it is true. The Government may well learn that I am correct when they attempt legislation against pirate radios, as did the Dutch. A great deal has been said about the anomalies of the law as it now stands, and although this may probably be slightly specialised I should like to point to what I feel would be the anomaly to end all anomalies, that is, pay television on Sundays.
I have stayed on the path of this Bill about which I know most, but before closing I should like to pass to a subject about which I am not speaking in any way as an expert or an authority, but as a normal member of the public, that is, professional cricket. Like many other noble Lords, I come from a part of England, Yorkshire, of which it has been said that cricket is our religion. I assure your Lordships that this is not the case, but at the same time we feel very deeply about the traditions of the sport. Winston Churchill said in 1948 that had we been intelligent enough to teach the Russians and the Americans how to play cricket, there would have been no cold war. I believe that professional cricket on Sundays would definitely save a large number of county cricket clubs from being extinguished altogether. I am sure that all noble Lords who feel as strongly as I do about this would wish to legalise this aspect of the sport.
Earlier this afternoon the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, referred to the possibility of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, playing Lady Godiva. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, would be the ultimate authority on this, but I believe that the law as it stands says that she could do so only if she stood completely still and under a blue light.
5.44 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think that the House is most grateful to my noble friend Lord Willis for introducing this Bill. Certainly the present law is full of anomalies. From the opposing point of view I think it is possible to defend the one that says that there should be no Sunday entertainment of any kind and my noble friend Lord Maelor, who knows Wales so well, put up a strong

69
case from this standpoint and from the point of view of certain parts of Wales. What I think is indefensible is the legislation which permits certain Sunday entertainment only provided that a special tax is levied on it. I should like to say a few words on the Sunday opening of cinemas and the so-called Sunday charities tax. I should state that I have an interest in the film industry, and I am also a member of the Labour Party film group; but I speak entirely for myself about a matter on which I feel strongly and on which I first ventured to address your Lordships some ten years ago.
Under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, as your Lordships are no doubt aware, the Sunday opening of cinemas is dependent on three factors. First, local opinion must be in favour of it. In parts of Wales, to which my noble friend Lord Maelor alluded, obviously there is no majority in favour of the opening of cinemas, and they are not opened. I have no quarrel with that at all. The second point is that Sunday opening must receive the subsequent approval of Parliament. And this, I understand, has never been withheld. The third condition is that the so-called Sunday charity tax should be levied. Section 1 of the 1932 Act requires local authorities to demand a payment from the cinema proprietor based on the estimated profits. These are estimated by the local authority and not by the cinema proprietor.
This levy, or tax, or conscience money, whatever we care to call it, is then given to a charity of the local authority's choice, not of the choice of the cinema proprietor or of his patrons. My noble friend Lord Leatherland said that this tax raises fairly substantial sums, but I would submit in reply that charity money should be raised spontaneously and voluntarily, not by Statute. Furthermore, the people giving money to charity should have some control over where the money goes, because even in charity payments there are people who do not wish to give money to certain charities. For example, certain animal lovers are not prepared—whether rightly or wrongly I do not know—to give money to help medical research.
The Crathorne Report said that in 1963–64 nearly £135,000 was paid to charity in this way. The Crathorne Com-
70
mittee recommended the abolition of this charity tax—quite rightly, in my view. I think I can do no better than quote the scathing words in paragraph 72 of their Report:
"We found it difficult to discover that the 'tax' had any moral justification even when it was introduced; if there were ever grounds of expediency, they no longer exist."
How can the levy possibly be defended any longer? As other speakers have said, we now have television films in the home on Sundays. Yet the patrons of a cinema, seing the same type of film, have to contribute directly to this levy.
There is also the attitude of some of the local authorities. Certain local authorities, notably the Greater London Council, have been most reasonable and have abolished this tax, or they levy only a nominal amount of about £1 a year. But I understand that about fifteen local authorities still require heavy payments. And all local authorities, whether reasonable or unreasonable, have the right to bring the tax back at any time. Sometimes the tax is as high as 10 per cent. of the estimated profits. If these fall below the estimated figure, there is no appeal. And, as I have said, neither the cinema proprietor nor his patrons have any control over the charities selected, which are designated by the local authority.
The cinema industry has itself, of its own free will, raised substantial sums over the years for chosen charities, through its première charity showings and so on. At present the industry is facing great difficulties, with declining audiences resulting in cinema closures; there are other rivals, notably television, for the people's leisure. Yet cinemas which are struggling to survive are still burdened in this way. I submit that it is high time this anomalous and indefensible, and indeed hypocritical, tax should be abolished altogether.
5.49 p.m.
VISCOUNT FURNESS: My Lords, in rising to support the Second Reading of this Bill I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for the manner in which he introduced it. As your Lordships know, I am a Roman Catholic, but I do not speak on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church here today but on behalf of myself. I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and with most noble Lords who

71
have spoken this afternoon, in saying that it is highly immoral that we all have to think of necessary subterfuges to circumvent the law as it stands, and the Bill introduced to-day will go far to meet this point.
The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, seemed to think that it was impossible to go to church and take advantage of other activities on Sunday. Surely we can go to one in the morning and to the other in the afternoon. I am not the successful producer connected with long runs to whom my noble friend Lord St. Oswald referred. I am a very unsuccessful producer, guilty of many of the shortest runs in the history of the West End. Both my noble friend Lord St. Oswald and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked what the position of Equity was. I am assured by Equity that they stand by their 1963 position, which is quoted in paragraph 81 and the relevant appendix of the Crathorne Report, and which I mentioned to your Lordships in our previous debate. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is much more knowledgeable than I about the entertainments industry. I am certainly not connected with it in 54 countries—the best I can do is four. I do not know what the position of the Variety Artists' Federation is, but from the Press I know that Equity is now trying to do a "takeover bid". But I should think that Equity members, the Esher Standing Contract, would insist on a free day if that day was not Sunday, and that that free day would certainly be a day not preceding a matinée day. The proposed take-over bid, as it were, by Equity of the V.A.F. is perhaps long overdue, if things are, as I am sure they are, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.
5.53 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, as I am not wearing my "dog collar", I suppose I ought to start by declaring an interest as a leader of Sunday worship; but I must say, for myself, at any rate, that I do not feel those interests in any degree threatened, hampered or injured, or likely to be, by anything that is in the Bill before us to-day. In fact, I would say that all those inside the Church are every bit as ambarrassed as those outside it are irritated by these old Sabbath-day laws, with their anachronisms, their anomalies and their openness to ridicule. All have been agreed that our laws are anachron-
72
istic and open to ridicule and anomalous, but until recently few people could agree what should be done about it.
But recently things have changed. In 1961, thanks to the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, the Departmental Committee was set up to review the whole law relating to entertainments, sports and pastimes and trading on Sundays; in December, 1964, thanks to the skill and diligence of the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne and his Committee their report, from which we have all derived so much benefit to-day, was laid before Parliament; and in March, 1965, thanks to the initiative of my noble friend Lord St. Oswald, who has spoken to us again today, we had a debate in this House, all of which together have given the noble Lord, Lord Willis, a good Tory background to the bold reforming Bill which he has produced for us to consider.
We find from all that has gone before—this, I think, is rather surprising, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, has drawn our attention to it—that the main views of most churchmen about Sunday harmonise quite readily with the main views of most nonchurchmen. We find a substantial majority of people able to share in common the view that Sunday should be kept as a day with a difference, for rest, for worship and for recreation. This is a strong base from which to start reform. This appears to be the kind of Sunday that most of us would like, and the next step has to be to determine the kind of reform needed to get it.
The noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, and his Committee, and their Report, point the way past the various hazards that lie to either side: on the one side rigorist bodies like the Lord's Day Observance Society and on the other radicals, far more radical than the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who would introduce us to a free-for-all Sunday in which our freedom to do as we like would almost certainly be jeopardised. The noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, has steered us away from these hazards, and has added the further valuable advice and guidance to us not to set too much store in this reforming legislation on balance, neatness and logic, but rather to strive for a law that is understandable, widely acceptable, clear, certain and enforceable.

73
This brings me to a slight diversion on the role of Her Majesty's Government in regard to all this. The Crathorne Report, as well as showing how absurd and unnecessary some of our earlier argument and discussion have been, also showed quite clearly that reforming legislation does not now involve deep theological principle, deeply held personal convictions or any further violent controversy. It has turned out to be a matter of straightforward social policy, and one would have expected, I think, a dynamic reforming Government to just get on with it. But, in fact, after two years in power, nearly two years in which to study the Report, and eighteen months after debates in both Houses of Parliament confirming a broad measure of agreement about what should be done, they seem to lack the conviction to do more than fly a kite and help the noble Lord to introduce a Private Member's Bill. However, that is by the way, and the greater our welcome to the Bill the noble Lord has brought to us, and even greater our desire to help him now to get on with it.
I now turn to the Bill in relation to the Report. As the noble Lord has already said, the Bill seeks to implement the whole of Part II, relating to entertainments, sports and pastimes. It is not, except incidentally, concerned with employment, and not at all concerned with Sunday trading. It deviates in three places. The noble Lord mentioned them all. I have nothing to say about the first. With regard to the second, I am sure that he was wise to accept the general view of the House, as expressed in the last debate, that 2 o'clock is a better time than 12.30 to mark the change in the day when certain things are not permitted before becoming permissible in the afternoon. It is when we get to his third deviation from the recommendations of the Crathorne Report that we get into what I think is going to be trouble for his Bill if it is not successfully amended at a later stage. This is the point at which he, but not the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, would permit or allow to develop large-scale professional sporting events on a Sunday afternoon or evening. This is a significant deviation with which we shall need to deal decisively one way or another at a later stage although perhaps not now. The Crathorne Committee themselves foresaw difficulty in giving legal effect to their own recommendations about this. In
74
paragraph 116 of their Report they say:
"We should like to limit Sunday sports to those in which the participants receive no payment and which are likely to attract only a comparatively small number of spectators. We could find no simple way of drawing a line that is capable of legal enforcement to achieve this purpose; it is very much a question of degree and is more easily recognised than defined."
I am sure this is a difficult problem, but I think it is one which we have to face squarely and to do what we believe is right and not what is easier for the drafting. This problem is not only difficult in the sense foreseen by the Crathorne Committee; it will also lead to controversy, because in the Gallup Poll at Appendix B of the Report the two sexes voted different ways on this issue, and this will generate heat if anything does!
I think the Crathorne Committee believe, and the Wolfenden Committee—the Committee set up to review the matter of sport in the community, under the Chairmanship of Sir John Wolfenden—believe, and I think most of us believe, that what is wanted on a Sunday afternoon and evening by the great majority of people is the maximum freedom to develop local events, amateur sport and participant games, and the minimum compulsory employment, noise, disturbance and intrusion into family life. There are no moral issues involved here. This is a matter of where we judge the public interest chiefly to lie. I do not share the belief of the Wolfenden Committee that this freedom can be secured by appeals to restraint. I believe, with the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, who put this point to us earlier this afternoon, that this freedom needs the protection of the law, and I doubt whether that protection will be secured by the present drafting of this otherwise quite admirable Bill.
It is quite true, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has said, that none of the big sporting interests is so far campaigning about this, but there is surely a great deal of money waiting to be put into the organisation of large-scale Sunday sport; and if a few commercial organisations start to exploit Sunday others, like the Football Association and the Football League, who at present are not disposed to arrange any Sunday matches at all, may well be constrained and tempted to change their minds. If that happens then

75
the present good intentions, as I would judge it, of the great majority of us, and the wishes of the great majority of people outside Parliament—which, after all, have been ascertained and analysed with fair certainty by the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, and his Committee and expressed in their Report—will be disdained and overridden.
This has happened before—has it not?—in the case of the Betting and Gaming Act? Good and admirable intentions have been frustrated by the failure of the law to grapple with problems which were not foreseen. We must try to anticipate them. This is no doubt a difficult point, and we shall have to look at it carefully when we come to deal with Amendments at the Committee stage. Nevertheless, for my part I would commend this Bill to your Lordships for a Second Reading. Meanwhile, I would invite Her Majesty's Government to weigh with great care this provision which, if it is left as it stands, would permit every sort of large-scale professional sport, indoors and outdoors, on Sunday afternoon and evening.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? I have listened to his arguments with careful attention and much appreciation. I want to be quite clear on one point. Is the noble Lord saying, "My objection to this Bill is with regard to sport only, and professional sport at that. I am not objecting to paid entertainers in the entertainment business like the theatre"?
LORD SANDFORD: No. I am not objecting to that, for reasons which I did not deploy because they are so admirably deployed in the Report itself. I would fall into line with that, but I would take up the position about large-scale professional sport that I have been trying to expound. What I think we need is guidance at a later stage from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, or whoever is to speak for the Government, on this issue of what is practicable or impracticable in the way of Amendments to the Bill which will restrict and restrain, if not to keep completely out of Sunday, these large-scale professional sporting events which the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, and his Committee clearly feel should be kept out of an English Sunday. I hope we can do this and at the same time maintain,
76
as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has undoubtedly done so far, the essential idea of this Bill and transform it into a law which will be understandable, widely acceptable, clear, certain, and readily enforceable.
6.7 p.m.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, we have had a wide ranging debate this afternoon and I should like to thank all those noble Lords from all parts of the House for their contributions and for the kind words they have had to say about the Bill. Naturally I have been delighted by the response it has received. I should like to emphasise once again, although I am sure he must be bored by the number of times his name has come up in the debate, that it has been inspired by the excellent Report by the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, and his Committee. I am not at all worried that the Bill should have come out of a so-called Tory background, because as my noble friend Lord Stonham says, there was a Socialist on the Committee and we all know that out of the strong often comes forth sweetness.
There have been a number of criticisms of the Bill as it stands to-day, and I can assure the House that I will read the Report of the debate to-morrow, and again the day after, with great care, and I look forward to discussing these matters further at a later stage. I very much welcome the support given to the Second Reading. I think perhaps I have been made saddest by having to cross swords with my noble friend Lord Maelor, for whom I have the greatest respect, and I am just sorry that on this particular occasion we are facing each other, a Welshman and an Englishman, across the border and fighting out an issue on which I know we both feel very strongly and deeply.
I would apologise—I do not know whether it should be to the noble Lord. Lord Soper, or to the Bible—for misquoting Micah. As a matter of fact, I have a note that I was misquoting because I was quoting something written by a lady who used the words in a recent essay, but I was getting near the end of my speech and in order to save time I did not explain this because I thought that nobody in this House would recognise it. That will teach me in future! I will not delay the House any longer. I thank your Lordships very much indeed and

77
hope you will co-operate in giving this Bill its Second Reading so that we may discuss the other important questions at a later stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
6.10 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STRANG in the Chair.]
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved, after Clause 23, to insert the following new clause:
Power to alter distribution of certain payments made by nationalised boards in lieu or by way of rates.
.—(1) The Minister may by order provide—

(a) that the sums paid to the Minister by the British Railways Board, the London Transport Board and the British Waterways Board or any of those Boards in pursuance of section 100 of the Local Government Act 1948 (which relates to payments by those Boards in lieu of rates) shall, instead of being distributed as provided by subsection (2) of that section (which provides for their distribution among the rating authorities in England or Wales in proportion to the rate able values of the authorities' areas for the relevant year) be distributed as provided by the order;

(b) that the adjusted basic total of rate-able value; mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 (which relates to the rating of Gas Boards) shall, in the case of all Gas Boards or any Gas Board specified by the order, instead of being apportioned and allocated as provided by that sub-paragraph(which provides for its apportionment and allocation among all the rating areas in which, in the relevant year, gas was, or was treated as, supplied to consumers or manufactured by the relevant Board) be apportioned and allocated for the purposes of that Schedule as provided by the order;

(c) that the apportionment of the aggregate values of the distribution and generating activities mentioned in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Local Government Act 1958 (which relates to the rating of Electricity Boards) shall, in the case of all Electricity Boards or any Electricity Board specified by the order, instead of being made as
78
provided by sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of that paragraph (which provide for the apportionment of those values by reference to net annual value and generating capacity) be made as provided by the order;

(d) that sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2 (which provides that the aggregate values of the generating and of the distribution activities of the Central Electricity Generating Board shall each be taken to be one half of the Board's basic value as determined for the relevant year under that Schedule) shall have effect as if for the reference to one half there were substituted references to such other fractions as may be specified by the order in relation to the Board's generating activities and distribution activities respectively;

(e) that, in any enactment relating to rating specified by the order, any reference to the manufacture of gas shall include a reference to such dealings with gas as may be specified by the order.

(2) If the Minister is of opinion that payments by way of rates should be made by Gas Boards by virtue of this subsection by reference to any premises used by the Gas Council or a Gas Board for the reception or liquefaction of gas or the evaporation of gas in a liquid state, being in any case gas purchased by the Council or the Board, he may make an order designating the premises for the purposes of this subsection and providing for the determination, by such method as may be specified by the order, of a value for the premises for those purposes; and where such an order is in force the Minister may direct—

(a) that the value determined as aforesaid shall he apportioned among such Gas Boards as may he specified by the direction in such proportions as may be so specified; and

(b) that each Board specified by the direction shall, during such period as may be so specified, be treated for rating purposes as occupying, within the area of the rating authority in which the premises designated by the order are situated (and whether or not that Board occupies or is treated as occupying any other hereditament in that area), a hereditament of a rateable value equal to the proportion of the value aforesaid allocated by the direction to that Board; and

(c) that subparagraph (3) of paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 shall have effect during the period aforesaid, in relation to each Board specified by the direction, as if the Board's adjusted basic total of rateable values mentioned in that subparagraph were reduced by an amount equal to the said proportion.

A direction under this subsection may be revoked or varied by a subsequent direction there under.
(3) Before making any order under this section the Minister shall consult with such associations of local authorities as appear to him to

79
be concerned, with any local authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable and—

(a) in the case of an order in pursuance of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, with any Board mentioned in that paragraph which appears to the Minister to be concerned;

(b) in the case of an order in pursuance of paragraph (b) or (e) of that subsection, with the Gas Council;

(c) in the case of an order in pursuance of paragraph (c) or (d) of that subsection, with the Electricity Council;

(d) in the case of an order under subsection (2) of this section, with the Gas Council.

(4) An order under this section may contain such incidental, supplemental and consequential provisions, including provisions altering any enactment or instrument, as the Minister considers expedient for the purposes of the order.
(5) In this section "Gas Board" means any Area Board constituted for an area in England and Wales under the Gas Act 1948, and "Electricity Board" means the Central Electricity Generating Board and any Area Board within the meaning of the Electricity Act 1947."
The noble Lord said: The new clause which I propose to insert in the Bill deals with the arrangements by which the Gas, Electricity and Transport Boards' payments by way of rates are distributed among the rating authorities who receive them. These Boards are all assessed by statutory formulæ which are somewhat complex. The formulæ first govern the overall rate liability of the Boards and then prescribe how their payments are to be apportioned among the receiving authorities.
A Working Party has been looking at the present arrangements for some time, and it has become clear that technical developments in recent years, particularly in gas, are creating anomalies in the existing formulæ. This clause is accordingly aimed at enabling the Minister, after consultation with the associations of local authorities and the industries concerned, to make orders changing the present methods of apportionment among rating areas. The clause does not deal with the total level of rates, which can be looked at as part of a general review of rating. The clause has the very limited objective of making the distribution of rates among the receiving authorities fairer. It will not have any impact on the industries, but from the local authorities' aspect should be welcomed as giving
80
an opportunity to iron out the present anomalies.
Broadly, subsection (1) of the new clause will enable the Minister to refine the present formula: by giving due weight to processes, such as the reception and evaporation of liquid gas, which were not foreseen when the formula' were devised. Subsection (2) is needed to ensure that the cost of attaching a fair value to premises such as the Canvey Island methane terminal is fairly spread among all the Gas Boards which benefit from the import of purchased gas, rather than concentrated in the area of one Board, as it is at present. Subsection (3) provides for consultation with those concerned. Though I regret that such a long and complicated clause should come up so late in the progress of this Bill through Parliament, I think there should be no difficulties in it, and I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 23 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I think we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for paraphrasing this somewhat formidable-looking clause in language we can all understand. I think we might also convey gratitude to the Working Party, who must have had a formidable task in front of them and seem to have discharged it very well. I have no criticism at all of the new clause, and I think it will improve the law.
LORD KENNET: I am delighted to hear the noble Lord's kind words about the Working Party, which of course I endorse, and I shall take care to see that our thanks and goods wishes are conveyed to them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 24 and 25 agreed to.
Clause 26:
Provision of lighting by highway authorities
26.—(1) The Minister and every local highway authority shall have power to provide lighting for the purposes of any highway or proposed highway for which they are or will be the highway authority, and may for that purpose—

(a) contract with any persons for the supply of gas, electricity or other means of lighting; and

81

(b) construct and maintain such lamps, posts and other works as they consider necessary.

6.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT MERSEY VISCOUNT MERSEY had given Notice of two Amendments to Clause 26, the first being in subsection (1), after "authority, and" to insert "subject to the next two following subsections." The noble Viscount said: We had a short discussion in the Second Reading debate on this subject. I have endeavoured to put down Amendments to meet the case I was trying to make on that occasion. Perhaps I may very briefly say once again what I am trying to do, because it may not be perfectly clear from the words of this Amendment—which, of course, paves the way for the next one on the Paper. I am trying to make it obligatory in future—and I emphasise in future—for two contiguous local authorities to have the same form of highway street lighting on main roads.
At present, there are over 3,000 lighting authorities in this country, and although there are not 3,000 different sorts of lighting, I have been astounded to find how many there are, and those of your Lordships who drive at night must be well aware of this. To mention only a few, we have sodium lighting, fluorescent lighting, what they call tubular fluorescent lighting, mercury fluorescent lighting. There is tungsten lighting, and some authorities are still lighting their roads by gas. I dare say that there are other sorts as well. That is not the end of the matter: lighting also varies in colour; you can find orange lights, bright yellow lights, blue lights. I submit that all this variation is highly confusing to the ordinary driver.
It is obviously impracticable at this stage for us to request individual local authorities, with existing lighting schemes, some of them perfectly adequate, to alter their systems, at the behest of the Government. That would involve enormous expense. But ideally this is what we should aim at. I am somewhat surprised to find out that even now the Ministries concerned are not convinced which sort of lighting is the best, even if the question of cost does not arise. I think it is high time that that decision was made. What I am trying to do by these Amendments is to make sure that
82
new urban development, and more especially New Towns and expanding towns, have the same sort of lighting when they install it in future. If we could get that agreed I think it would be of very great benefit.
I have only one other point to make. The accident rate on the roads at night is just double what it is during the day No figures that I could give could, think, be more significant in showing how very important any improvement we can make would he. I think that during the Second Reading debate the Government were not opposed to the idea, but suggested that a Transport Bill might be a better place to try to insert a clause of this sort than the Bill we are considering. We have been promised a Transport Bill, but we have not seen it, and there is no guarantee that when it does appear it will be very easy to include in it anything on these lines. In the meantime, we have, as I say, this all-important question of the accident rate, and I think it would be the wish of everybody in this Committee, on both sides, to do everything possible to reduce the appalling rate of accidents we have in this country. For this reason I commend this Amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 45, after ("and") insert ("subject to the next two following subsections").—(Viscount Mersey.)
LORD SOMERS: I strongly support this Amendment. I have for a long time considered how important it is to have uniformity on the roads, both in lighting and in road signs and everything else, and I personally feel that this would probably be the most appropriate Bill in which to have this regulation, since it is the disparity among local authorities in their regulations which has produced the confusion. I remember my old friend the late Lord Hampton constantly emphasising the necessity for uniformity in street lighting. As to the question of which is the most suitable, I should say that the way to find that out would be for the motoring organisations to have a round robin among their members. I think that then they would find the most suitable. I personally know which I prefer, but it does not necessarily follow that it is the best. I think that probably a large cross-section of motorists in the country would give

83
some lead towards a solution of this problem.
6.22 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): I take it that we are discussing both these Amendments together, because clearly they concern precisely the same point and one merely leads on to the other. The Government are in sympathy with the purpose of this Amendment. The unevenness and patchiness of much of our street lighting, even on major roads, was one of the reasons why the Government decided that road lighting must be made the responsibility of highway authorities and not of local lighting authorities. This, of course, is the part of the Bill that we are now discussing. This by itself should bring about a great improvement, since each highway authority will be able to consider comprehensively the lighting of all the roads for which they are responsible, and the Minister will have undivided responsibility for the whole of the trunk system, which of course includes the motorways.
The design of lighting installations, however, involves technical considerations which make it difficult to propose a general statutory obligation about uniformity. It would not be desirable, for example, to provide that all new lighting systems should be of exactly the same type or produce the same colour of light. Here I have to answer to some extent the noble Lord, Lord Somers. I respect his point of view in this, but if you decided on a type of lighting which was suitable for one set of conditions I think it would be found that that lighting would not be quite suitable for another set of conditions. The colour and the type of lighting must, to some extent, depend upon the surroundings, the layout of the road and even the type of road surface itself. A system which would be quite suitable for a shopping centre, for example, would not be the most suitable for a residential area, a road crossing or an open space.
These factors are important in this connection, and we must not, I would think, at this stage at any rate, even upon representations by the Automobile Association, the R.A.C. or other bodies representing motorists, decide on a form of lighting for the whole of the country.
84
The last thing we must do, at any rate at this stage, is to discourage experimentation with new systems. But the changes, such as we must have, must be planned; they must not be haphazard merely because of local government boundaries. It is the number of lighting authorities, each with their different ideas, which in the past has produced some of the things to which both the noble Viscount and the noble Lord quite rightly object. But the Minister is convinced that, once the pattern of statutory responsibilities has been put right, the control of standards can be dealt with more effectively by administrative means than by broad statutory provision.
As I am sure the noble Viscount knows, there is a set of recommendations covering the performance of road lighting in the British Standard Code of Practice. This deals in greatdetail with the standard of illumination to be achieved, the height and spacing of columns, the equipment to be used and so on. We feel that the Amendment which is proposed by the noble Viscount would be undesirable as laying undue emphasis on uniformity as distinct from other desirable features of road lighting which are laid down in that Code of practice. I must stress here that the Code of Practice will be followed for all lighting installations on trunk roads. The Government also intend it to be a condition for making specific grants for lighting on principal roads—that is, the grants which are being introduced under the terms of this Bill—that each lighting installation shall conform with the recommendations of the Code. The Government will therefore be able to ensure, as I said just now, by administrative action that new installations on major traffic routes will be of a high standard and will not introduce changes in the type of lighting of a kind which are distracting to drivers and therefore potentially dangerous.
LORD SOMERS: Might I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? When he says that the Government were going to make new installations comply with a given standard, does he also mean that the Government will ensure that present installations which do not conform to that standard will be altered?
LORD CHAMPION: I believe the noble Viscount opposite said that it would not

85
be practical immediately to wipe out all existing lighting installations. Some indeed are quite costly, and to wipe them out and replace them immediately would be a costly undertaking, which I would not care to say from this Box the Government would be prepared to undertake immediately. But of course, when the time comes for these things to be replaced, naturally and understandably the Minister will ensure in regard to their replacement that the code of recommendations about which I have been talking will be carried out.
The second part of Amendment No. 26 deals with the case where there are two or more highway authorities for any highway. My objection to this might appear to be trifling and niggling, but I am assured that it is not. I am told that to decide how many highway authorities there are for any highway it is first necessary to define the beginning and the end of a "highway". In most cases this simply would not be possible. The Minister will in any case be able to resolve any problems which arise where a lighting scheme on a principal or trunk road crosses a local authority boundary. Statutory provision to cover this situation would therefore be unnecessary so far as the more important roads are concerned, as well as being difficult to frame. I am advised that this is the case.
We have every sympathy with the point of view which has been expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, and the noble Lord, Lord Somers. We have looked at this matter carefully and the Minister, having taken all the best advice available to him, feels that rather than to put this into the Bill as a statutorial requirement it would be better to deal with the point by administrative means and under the general powers given in the Bill. Having regard to what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw this Amendment, with which, as I say, we have every sympathy, but do not feel that this would solve our problem.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Champion, one question? I am sure my noble friend who moved the Amendment will feel that he has received a reasonably encouraging reply, but some of us are worried because, although the new lighting systems will conform to the recom-
86
memded code of practice, we might still be left for a number of years with the situation that there is a very sharp contrast between one stretch of road and another. This kind of road is particularly prone to accidents at night. Therefore, could the noble Lord carry his answer a little further and say whether it is the firm intention of the Minister, by the administrative measures the noble Lord mentioned, to get rid of sudden contrasts between one part of a road and another as quickly as possible?
LORD CHAMPION: On the point whether the Minister is prepared to take action of this sort, I cannot pretend to be briefed. I did say that we could not immediately do away with existing lighting systems, but knowing as I do the desire of the Minister and her Ministry to remove all danger points, I am quite sure that the Minister will give every consideration to the point which the noble Lord has made. I agree with him that there is nothing worse than to change suddenly from one system to another or to travel from one stretch of highway where there is excellent lighting to another which plunges one into a sudden pool of darkness and then into a light patch once again. This sort of thing is distracting and bad for the motorist, and I am sure causes great danger. As to the specific point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, I will consult the Minister and write to him before the Report stage. Then, if he feels my answer is not satisfactory, he can come back to the point at that later stage.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: I must thank the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench for his full reply. It shows what a very difficult administrative task this is. Between now and the Report stage, could the noble Lord see if it is possible to bring about uniformity in this matter in relation to New Towns? It seems to me that they would be one area in which we could make a good beginning on this matter. I feel that it would be a step forward if provision could be made in the Bill to deal with New Towns. Having regard to the assurances the noble Lord has given, and in view of his answer to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn
6.34 p.m.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY moved to add to the clause:
"( ) Where the council of a non-county borough or of an urban district are by virtue of section 4 of the said Act of 1959 the highway authority for a county road within their area and lighting is provided for the purposes of such county road by the highway authority, the council of the county comprising the borough or district, shall—

(a) make, by quarterly instalments, such annual payments towards the cost of the maintenance of the said lighting and of any reasonable improvement connected with the maintenance of the said lighting as may be determined in accordance with the provisions of section 237 of the said Act of 1959; and

(b) contribute towards the expenses of any improvement of the said lighting, not being an improvement connected with the maintenance of the said lighting, in any such case and to such extent (if any) as, failing agreement between the councils, may be determined by the Minister, who shall have regard to the extent to which the improvement is required for the purposes of through traffic and local traffic respectively, and to the extent to which it is of the nature of a town improvement.

( ) The provisions of subsections (3), (4) and (5) of section 237 of the said Act of 1959 shall apply to the payments and contributions referred to in subsection ( ) of this section."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment raises a rather technical point which is giving some concern to the Urban District Councils Association for whom I speak. I shall seek to be as brief as possible, but I am afraid that I shall have to give a little background to your Lordships in order to make the point.
Section 45 of the Highways Act 1959, re-enacting the previous legislation, enables the council of a non-county borough or urban district with a population exceeding 20,000 to claim to maintain any county road in their area. They are therefore referred to as "claiming" authorities. Section 4 of the same Act makes a claiming authority the highway authority for the particular county road. Section 237 of that Act provides that contributions shall be made by county councils to the cost of the maintenance and improvement of claimed county roads. These contributions fall under two heads. Paragraph (a) requires payments to be made towards the cost of the maintenance of the road and of any reasonable improvement connected with the maintenance of the road. This expenditure is normally dealt with on the basis
88
of previously approved annual estimates, so that the claiming authority knows where it is in regard to payments. Secondly, the section provides for contributions towards the expense of any improvement of the road, not being an improvement connected with the maintenance of the road. The contribution in this case is arrived at after negotiations between county council and district council.
Clause 26 of the Bill which we are discussing to-day gives power to highway authorities to provide street lighting. Previously, street lighting has been provided by district councils, under Section 161 of the Public Health Act 1875. This power is not being repealed, so that there will be existing side by side the two codes for street lighting, under the new Bill and under the Public Health Act. As the new lighting powers are being given to the highway authority, the local authority association representatives in the negotiations had taken it that expenditure on street lighting would attract the normal contributions under Section 237—that is to say, that the contribution towards the maintenance of the lighting would be fixed beforehand. They were therefore surprised to learn of an opinion expressed by the Ministry of Transport that because Clause 26(5) makes the provision of lighting an "improvement", within Part V of the 1959 Act, then expenditure on lighting will have to be dealt with, so far as a contribution is concerned, under the second limb of Section 237; that is to say, as an improvement.
We thus arrive at the ridiculous situation that the provision of current for street lighting will be treated as an "improvement". I suppose it might be said that if the lights are out and the current is then switched on, that is an improvement in the lighting, but it rather stretches the meaning of the word "improvement". I will confirm the point by quoting an extract from a letter received from the Ministry of Transport in which they say:
"We have given a good deal of thought to how Section 237 of the Highways Act 1959 will apply to lighting. We agree with you that as the Bill is at present drafted the matter is not free from doubt."
This is the point which has been worrying the Urban District Councils'

89
Association. I should like to make two observations about this matter. As I have said, to treat the provision of current for lighting as an improvement does not make sense. Secondly, claiming authorities may be penalised as to contribution for maintenance of lighting because, instead of being fixed by previously approved estimates, these matters will be subject to negotiation between the county council and the claiming authority.
I hope that I have made the point clear. My Association is worried about this matter, and I feel that it should be looked at again. The first consideration is that we should not send out from this House a Bill which does not make sense, and l feel that on the point I have just made it will not make sense if it is left unamended. The second matter is that any anxieties in this regard should be rightly relieved. This Amendment is intended to do this. It makes the position clear and therefore I hope that the Minister, if he cannot accept this Amendment, will at least be able to say that he will take another look at the matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 16, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Grimston of Westbury.)
LORD PARGITER: There is a point of view about this Amendment which might go a little deeper. I am not so sure that the claimed county road principle ought to remain at all. After all, this was done at a particular time in order to suit highway authorities and to get some measure of agreement on the transfer of highway powers, and so on. It might be much better and tidier, certainly from the point of view of this type of road, if authority were vested in the county council as the highway authority for the whole of the road, because now we get a section of the road which is county, another section which is claimed county road, and beyond that another section which is county road. That certainly does not make for really efficient management. Then there has to be this negotiating period—I know, as I have been through it, both from the borough side and from the county side—where we had the arguments as to what ought to be done in the way of maintenance and what ought to be done in the way of improvements, all of which tends to gum up the works. If the highway authorities
90
would look at this logically and say, "If it is a county road, it is a county road anyway, for its entire length through the county", it would he more advantageous than trying to do something which deals with only a small part of the total problem.
LORD SOMERS: I quite agree with what the noble Lord said. But would he not agree that that still does not remove the difficulty, that when you cross the county border you must still have some sort of uniformity, and different counties may have different ideas?
LORD PARGITER: I am not dealing with the question of illumination or standards of illumination, but only with the general question of highway control and maintenance as a whole.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: May I just say that this is rather outside the point which I am raising with this particular Amendment?
LORD PARGITER: I appreciate that.
LORD CHAMPION: I was going to say precisely that. The point about what the Bill does not contain which it ought to contain is a good Second Reading point. But I can well understand why the noble Lord should have used this occasion to make this remark, because I agree with him that this business is something of a hotch-potch of motorways, trunk roads, classifications, three classes of roads—claimed roads, unclaimed roads, district roads—and unpaved footways; and the whole business is confusing to everybody who has to look at it. I have had to look at it during the past few days, so I know just how difficult it all is. But this is not, I think, a Bill in which to put it right. I think we have to look at this and to consider such amendments as would be necessary to the Highways Act in order to get over this hotch-potch, and we are not proposing to do that in this comparatively small section of the Bill before us.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, for explaining very carefully what is a very difficult technical point, and I am sure that everyone who has studied it will agree that it is a difficult technical point. Here I am going to stick very closely to my brief, because of the technicalities that are involved.

91
The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that "claiming" authorities obtain from county councils full reimbursement of their expenditure on the operation and maintenance of lighting provided under the Bill on claimed county roads. For the purpose of the financial arrangements between "claiming" authorities and county councils, the operation and maintenance of lighting systems are treated differently under the Bill from the maintenance of highways generally. This is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, was making. Under subsection (1)(b) of Section 237 of the Highways Act 1959, county councils must contribute to the improvement of claimed county roads, and under subsection (1)(a) must reimburse the "claiming" authorities in full for their reasonable expenditure on maintaining them.
Under the Bill (Clause 26(5)) the provision of lighting by a highway authority is defined as an improvement, and county councils will therefore have to contribute to the cost of providing lighting systems on claimed county roads—a fact which makes the second part of the Amendment unnecessary. I am advised, however, that the operation and maintenance of lighting by a highway authority would probably also be defined as an improvement for the purposes of the Highways Act. The result is that county councils will beobliged only to contribute to the cost of maintaining lighting systems on claimed county roads, instead of having to reimburse the whole cost. I take it that this is the gravamen of the complaint of the Urban District Councils Association in this connection.
This distinction follows the way in which the lighting powers which highway authorities already have are drafted in the Highways Act. Sections 65 to 70 of the Act give highway authorities power to provide, operate and maintain lighting for roundabouts, obstructions, subways, et cetera. These sections are included in Part V of the Highways Act, and "improvement" is defined in the Act as work carried out under Part V. We are advised—this is the Ministry—that maintenance carried out under these sections would be an improvement for the purposes of the Act. The Bill follows this by including the power to provide,
92
operate and maintain lighting in one clause, Clause 26, the whole of which is to be treated as included in Part V of the Highways Act.
The Government have looked with some care at the Amendment of the noble Lord hut the Minister feels that the disadvantages proposed in the Amendment are much greater than those in the clause as it is at present drafted, and this for the following reasons. It would give claiming authorities an unfair advantage over non-claiming authorities, since they would be able to claim full reimbursement for the cost of operating and maintaining both new and existing footway lighting on claimed county roads, as well as a contribution towards the installation of new footway lighting, whereas non-claiming authorities will be left with full financial responsibility for all existing footway lighting and for any future footway lighting which they may choose to install.
I know of the noble Lord's association with the Urban District Councils Association, and he will see immediately that we shall be in some difficulty as between claiming and non-claiming authorities because of the fact that, in the one case, footway lighting would be paid for by the local authorities where this footway lighting was on the highway, and, in the other case, because they were not claiming authorities they would have to bear the full cost of the footway lighting. There is something in this point, and I would commend it to the noble Lord so that he might think about it.
The second point which I have to make is that it would create a new anomaly to treat lighting provided under the Bill on a different basis from lighting provided under the Highways Act. On the other hand, to amend the lighting powers in the Highways Act to bring them into line with what is proposed in the Amendment would be too extensive a drafting exercise to undertake at this stage. The arrangements for lighting under the Highways Act which are the same as for some other highway work—for example, the maintenance of traffic signs—appear to have worked without difficulty in the past. As the noble Lord knows, if something has worked without difficulty in the past, we tend if possible not to interfere with it.

93
The Bill as drafted gives the maximum flexibility, and so allows sensible agreements to be reached between county councils and claiming authorities in the light of local circumstances. Of course, there is provision for claiming authorities to appeal to the Minister in the event of a disagreement. The noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, said he did not really like this aspect of it, and that these negotiations might lead to difficulties as between the urban district councils and the county councils. But, in the main, the negotiations between these bodies have worked fairly well in the past.
I understand that the County Councils Association do not oppose the Amendment, but, especially as it is not immediately obvious in principle why one county should reimburse 100 per cent. of the cost of maintaining another authority's lighting, it may well be the case that some individual counties might object to this principle, even though they have to do it for roads. It is not possible to settle the financial arrangements for lighting claimed county roads under the Bill on an entirely satisfactory basis. To follow, as we are in this Bill, the pattern of the lighting powers contained in the Highways Act is to extend an old anomaly. If we were to adopt the noble Lord's Amendment we should be creating a new anomaly, and our difficulty in this connection is to know which is the worse—to create a new anomaly or to extend an old one. We rather felt, and certainly the Minister feels up to this point, that it is better to stick to the clause as it is drafted rather than to cure an old anomaly by creating a new one, and one which might bear hardly on the non-claiming district councils. Having regard to this explanation, I rather hope (although it is very involved, I must admit) that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: I thank the noble Lord very much for his reply. As he has said, the matter is very involved, and to be perfectly frank I should like to read in Hansard what he has said in order really to grasp all the points that he has made. I must say that I still find it difficult to think that the supply of electric current should be treated as an improvement. It still does not seem to me to make any sense. There are other maters as well, but I do not
94
wish to detain your Lordships' Committee now. I will have a careful look at what the noble Lord has said, and I hope that perhaps he, too, will have another look at the matter as there is another stage of the Bill. After I have looked at it again I may very likely wish to raise the matter again; but if he will let me know that he, too, will have a further look at it, as I think he will because he has nodded—
LORD CHAMPION: I wondered whether the noble Lord had finished. It seemed to me that he was appealing to me to have another look at it. He has said that he is going to study very carefully what I have said in this connection. I shall do him an equal courtesy by studying everything that he has said; and if, as a result of this and further consultations with the Minister, I feel that something ought to go down on Report stage, I will put it down. If I feel that I cannot do that, I shall advise the noble Lora in sufficient time to enable him to put an Amendment down if he feels so strongly about it.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to.
Clause 29:
Transfer of road lighting systems
(2) There shall not be transferred to a highway authority by virtue of this section any right or liability of a lighting authority in respect of work done, services rendered, goods(including gas and electricity) supplied or money due for payment before the said date, and there shall not be transferred to the Minister by virtue of this section any liability of a lighting authority in respect of loans or loan charges.
6.54 p.m.
LORD ILFORD LORD ILFORD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "date". The noble Lord said: Clause 29 transfers to the highway authority the system of road lighting on any highway for which they are the highway authority. At present, the road lighting system is not in every instance provided by the highway authority but is in certain cases provided

95
by certain county districts, the non-county boroughs and the urban district councils, through whose districts the highways pass. In some cases the county council is the highway authority, and under the new arrangement the county council will become the lighting authority as well. In the case of the trunk roads, the Minister of Transport is the highway authority, and under the provisions of this clause he will become the lighting authority when the Bill becomes law.
The existing apparatus for street lighting—lamp-posts, and all the various articles that go with them—will be transferred from the county districts to the highway authorities. Following the practice which I think is universally adopted where property is transferred from one local authority to another local authority, all the liabilities, including the loan charges incurred in respect of the equipment for street lighting, are transferred with the property to the highway authority. In those cases where the lighting system is transferred to the county council, this practice is followed, where the county council becomes the lighting authority.
Now I come to what seems to me to be a very startling departure from this well-established and, I should have thought, equitable practice: and this is the point of my Amendment. Where the Minister of Transport becomes the road lighting authority and the property in connection with road lighting is transferred to him, the outstanding loan charges in respect of the street lighting equipment remain with the district council and are not transferred to the Minister of Transport, although the property is being taken from the district council and passes into the hands of the Minister as the highway authority. This means that the district authorities remain responsible for the loan charges, the interest and the repayment of capital incurred in respect of the equipment which is being transferred to the Minister. That seems to me to be an arrangement which is so inequitable that I cannot understand how it has found its way into a Government Bill.
When the gas and electricity industries were transferred from local government to new authorities, the loan charges followed the property that was transferred and became the obligation of the
96
new authorities; and the same was done in the case of the hospital service. I know of only one precedent. When the trunk roads were transferred to the Minister of Transport under the Trunk Roads Act 1936, the loan charges were left with the local authorities. As to that, I say that it was a bad precedent; and when this Bill was in another place I think it was recognised that it was a bad precedent, and the Government said they did not want to act on the authority of it as a precedent but would act upon principle. I find it difficult to understand that. What sort of principle is it which says that if the transfer of property is to another local authority the loan charges will go with it, but if the transfer of property is to the Ministry of Transport the loan charges remain with the district councils? I hope your Lordships will say that this is an arrangement which does not find favour with this Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 22, leave out from ("date") to end of line 24.—(Lord Ilford.)
7.1 p.m.
LORD PARGITER: I should like briefly to support what the noble Lord has just said. I think he stated his case well. The 1936 Act has been used as a precedent and quoted in this connection; but this was a transfer of roads and had nothing to do with lighting. Now the Ministry are looking at lighting almost de novo in this matter in taking the power to be a lighting authority. It seems to me to be unreasonable that they set one pattern for the local authorities and a different one for themselves. I know that Ministries are liable to do this sort of thing, but at least they might quote a good reason for doing it. It is not enough to quote the Act of 1936 as against all the other precedents that have taken place since the transfers referred to—gas, electricity and hospitals. It might be argued that gas and electricity are revenue-producing and therefore there is something to transfer in the way of liabilities as well as assets; but the same argument could not be used with respect to the hospitals. They are hardly revenue-producing, nor are they ever likely to be. Therefore it seems to me that it might have been better to take more recent precedents than that of the 1936 Act, which in any case was

97
a major operation in itself—the transfer of trunk roads to the Ministry.
This present matter has been discussed between the associations and the Department. They have had this particular reply about the precedent of the highway authorities; but it seems that it is a tidied operation to transfer the lot rather than to have this sort of division between one local authority and another, and between the Ministry and the local authorities generally. The cost of this cannot be enormous. From the point of goodwill the Government might have thought it desirable to accept the liability for the loan charges on the lighting to be transferred to them.
I might mention also that a cause for complaint is that the Parliamentary Secretary did undertake to look at these points, to discuss them with the Minister to see what could be done and whether it would be possible to accept any of the suggestions put forward. I should have thought that, in courtesy, the Association would have received some reply from the Department. But, in spite of the undertaking given to see whether some suggestions could be adopted, no reply has been received by the authorities. It seems to me that if a Minister looks at something he must then give a reply to the people who raised the matter. For this reason alone, and in order that all the Departments might learn that the associations are not to be treated in this cavalier fashion, I think this Amendment might be accepted.
LORD BURDEN: I should like to say a few words in support of the Amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Ilford and Lord Pargiter. Both associations, the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations are agreed on the principle of this Amendment and ask for its support. Both Lord Ilford and Lord Pargiter have had long experience in local government, and it would be tedious to go over the many instances where assets are taken over and liabilities remain with the other authority. I know that there is one ewe lamb that is thrown at us, the Act of 1936, which somehow slipped through; but we have a wealth of other precedents as against that one instance. But there it is! The Minister no doubt has a reply, and we shall have to accept that reply; because, obviously, we cannot
98
divide the Committee on this Amendment. But it is a point on which both authorities and those who may constitute those authorities feel keenly that they are not being treated quite fairly in this matter. I support the Amendment.
LORD CHAMPION: I must start by saying how sorry I am that my noble friend should feel he had to criticise my Ministerial colleague. I have not had a great deal of time to find out exactly what are the facts in this connection, but I understand that in another place (I think it was in Committee) the Parliamentary Secretary undertook to consider this matter and that subsequently a reply was given by my honourable friend in one of the later stages in the Bill. Whether this is exactly what happened, and at exactly what stage it happened, I do not know. All I can say is I am sure that my honourable friend would not wish to be discourteous to the associations who are normally so helpful to the Minister.
LORD PARGITER: I am happy to accept what my noble friend has said. This did not take place in Committee proceedings. This was a matter of representations made by the associations at a meeting with the Parliamentary Secretary.
LORD CHAMPION: As I have said, I have not had time to go into this matter. But I will look at it, despite the fact that my noble friend is not pressing it too hardly upon me.
As noble Lords have pointed out, this clause differentiates sharply between what happens between local authorities and what happens between local authorities and the Ministry. They have criticised these provisions on the grounds that one authority acquiring property from another should automatically take over the responsibility for any loan charges relating to it, and that the Minister is acting inequitably in not accepting this principle. It has been said elsewhere (though the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, did not quite say this) this amounts almost to expropriation.
LORD ILFORD: I never indulge in exaggerated language.
LORD CHAMPION: The noble Lord did not do so. I acquitted him of any charge of that sort. I said merely that it

99
had been said elsewhere. I am sure that the noble Lord would not use exaggerated language in any claim that he made.
LORD ILFORD: I did say earlier that it was most inequitable.
LORD CHAMPION: That is not expropriation. There is a slightly different emphasis on the use of the words.
The criticism we think misrepresents the position and is quite unjustified. In principle, the case for the transfer of outstanding loan charges in respect of lighting systems, even between local authorities, is a weak one for the following reasons. First, lighting systems are not revenue-earning assets. In acquiring them, highway authorities will simply be relieving lighting authorities of their burden of maintaining and operating them. So there is going to be a relief to those authorities. Even though retaining responsibility for loan charges, therefore, lighting authorities will still gain financially, while the local population continues to enjoy the benefits of the lighting.
Secondly, the transfer of loan charges discriminates unfairly against those authorities which have financed their lighting systems out of revenue rather than by raising loans. But to pay compensation for lighting systems which are not subject to outstanding loan charges will involve complicated problems of valuation which would be a gross misuse of the time of valuation staff who are in very short supply. For these reasons the Ministry originally proposed that loan charges in respect of lighting systems should not be transferred, even between local authorities. The local authorities concerned, however, represented to the Ministry that it was the normal practice, when assets were transferred between local authorities, for any outstanding loan charges to be transferred with them; and they all, including the County Councils Association, representing the highway authorities who will now be taking over the responsibilities, wished to apply this practice to lighting systems. So the original intention was departed from at the wish of the local authorities' Association concerned in this, and the Ministry agreed to the representations of the authorities concerned.
Despite this, despite the wishes of these authorities, there is no reason at all why
100
the Minister should conform to local authority practice in this matter, since central Government practice is quite different. A number of precedents have been quoted in this connection. I believe the best precedent is the one which has been mentioned as being in Section 228 of the Highways Act 1959; which dates from the Trunk Roads Act 1936. That Act expressly debars the Minister from taking over liabilities of this kind when a road becomes a trunk road. It is not suggested that the treatment of loan charges for trunk road lighting should necessarily be settled by precedents, but since this clear precedent accords with the merits of the case we see no reason to depart from it. It is therefore a superficial "inconsistency" in the Bill between the obligations which it lays respectively on the Minister and on local highway authorities. It is not for me to justify the action of the County Councils Association in agreeing to this, but I am bound to distinguish and make a difference, and to point to the difference, between what they wish to do and what the Minister thinks is right.
When the Minister hands over a lighting system to a local authority, as may happen when a road is "de-trunked", there will be no question of transferring any loan charges, since the Minister does not incur any. Where a county council takes over responsibility for road lighting it may be argued that lighting authorities which have been conscientious in lighting their roads in the past should not continue to be responsible for their loan charges as well as contribute through the county precept to the lighting of districts where the lighting authority has been less conscientious in the past. This does not apply in the case of trunk roads, since the local authority will not have to contribute to the cost of lighting them in future. Although this does not affect the principle involved, it is relevant that the Minister will already have paid 50 per cent. towards the capital cost of nearly all trunk road lighting which she has taken over. The loan charges incurred by local authorities on this lighting relate therefore only to half of the cost.
We have heard a number of precedents quoted and everyone claims, "My precedent is better than yours." I tend to think that the precedent in the Highways Act is better than the others. Certainly I would say to my noble friend that, so

101
far as hospitals are concerned, the compromise, or the decision arrived at, when the Government took over the hospitals and assumed responsibility for the loan charges was part of a general settlement in which local authorities became responsible for other services—ambulances, midwifery, and so on—and it cannot be said that the circumstances concerned in the creation of a National Health Service are comparable to the present circumstances.
I am sorry to have taken so long, but this is a point which I know has caused a considerable amount of controversy and feeling among local authorities. But despite the fact that this was raised in the other place and then looked at very carefully—and has again been looked at between the passage of the Bill in that House and its arrival in your Lordships'House—we still feel that we ought not to create a precedent in this Bill. In the circumstances I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
7.16 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: It is encouraging to noble Lords on this side of the Committee when the noble Lord, Lord Champion, says that the present Government cannot possibly do better than what a Conservative Government did in 1936—
LORD CHAMPION: And in 1959.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR:—and feels that it would be a great mistake to depart from that practice. I thought the 1959 Act was a consolidating one, but perhaps I am wrong.
LORD CHAMPION: That is right.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I do not like to say this to such a considerate and charming debater as the noble Lord Lord Champion, but I must say that I found his argument entirely unconvincing. It seems to me that the local authorities have here an overwhelming case. Indeed, I would say that the sooner it is established that when there is a transfer of assets as between one local authority and another, or as between a local authority and the central Government, the liabilities in respect of loan charges go with the assets—the sooner that principle is established—the better.
102
The noble Lord, Lord Champion, said that if we were to accept this Amendment it would lead us into complications such as the making of valuations in respect of all the other local authorities which have financed their lighting systems out of revenue; but there is nothing about that in this Amendment, which is a perfectly simple one. So far as I am aware there is nobody on the local authority side who wishes to make a claim on behalf of those local authorities which financed their lighting systems out of revenue. The simple fact remains that if this Amendment is not accepted, those local authorities progressive enough to get on with their lighting system will still have to pay the loan charges, whereas the less progressive local authorities who did nothing about it will now find that everything is provided by the central Government. That does not seem to me to be good for local government; and here it is the good of local government which so much concerns me. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, spoke of cases of "de-trunking"—
LORD CONESFORD: Oh, no!
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I had hoped that my noble friend Lord Conesford would not have been present when I was soaudacious as to repeat that word. I did not invent it; I was repeating it. I will certainly try to avoid offending the ears of my noble friend Lord Conesford by mentioning it again. But if this strange thing does happen, I imagine that what will occur under the Bill as it stands is that a district council will retain responsibility for the loan charges when the lighting system on a trunk road is transferred next year under this Bill to the Minister, and then, when the subsequent unmentionable operation takes place in respect of that road, the Minister will not have taken any action about the loan charges; they will remain with the district council, not the lighting authority. The local lighting authority will take over the road which has been treated in the unmentionable way, but will not be responsible for the loan charges. That seems to me as great an anomaly as any which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, sought to establish. I know that these are not revenue-earning assets, but the precedent of hospitals is a

103
much closer one, in time at any rate, than the precedent of 1936.
It would be inconceivable that the local authorities would have agreed to the National Health Service transfer if the loan charges, which in that case would have been large, were not transferred. Here they are relatively small. That seems to be a poor argument for maintaining that there should be no transfer. But we are not really discussing any substantial amount of money. We are establishing a principle. And I think that it ought to be established that, on a transfer of assets, the loan charges should be transferred to the recipient of the assets.
When local authorities were already agreed so far as transfers between local authorities were concerned, it would be wrong for Parliament to let this Bill go through with a clear inconsistency between the case where there is a transfer of assets to a local authority and that where there is a transfer to the central Government. The noble Lord, Lord Burden, said that it was not a matter to divide about, but I frankly hope that we shall divide and establish the principle.
LORD CHAMPION: The noble Lord said that he had not heard of anything that might indicate that someone else was asking for compensation in the circumstances I mentioned, but the Rural District Councils Association do ask for compensation for works which had been financed out of revenue, so there is at least one body which establishes the point I made just now. I admit that I used the word "de-trunking", but with considerable trepidation. I looked towards the seat of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and as he was not there, I used it. It was put in my mouth by the Ministry and I must admit that it came out.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has stressed the importance which the Opposition attaches to this Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, and it has been supported by some of my noble friends on this side. In these circumstances, I should like to have an opportunity to take this back and look at it between now and Report stage. Naturally I cannot promise that I will put down an
104
Amendment, or that if I do it will be in this form, but after I have had a chance of looking at it there will be two stages on which the House can establish the principle if it wishes to do so. So I would ask the noble Lord if he will consider—and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, if he will advise his noble friend—that it might be to the advantage of the House that we should follow what is so often the practice of taking another chance of looking at this before a final decision is taken by the House itself.
LORD ILFORD: The noble Lord invited me to withdraw my Amendment and I thought that I was going to be able to do so, but he did not give me much encouragement. He went a little further in his second speech and gave me some prospect that this matter will be examined again. In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment, but I reserve the right to put it down again at a later stage if the noble Lord's further examination of the point leads him to take the attitude he is taking to-day.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
7.25 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved, after Clause 30, to insert the following new clause:
Placing of staff etc. of councils at disposal of Minister
.—(1) It shall be lawful for a council to enter into an agreement with the Minister for the placing at the disposal of the Minister for the purposes of his functions relating to highways, on such terms as may be provided by the agreement, of the service, of persons employed by the council and of any premises, equipment and other facilities under the control of the council.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that for superannuation purposes service rendered by a person whose services are placed at the disposal of the Minister in pursuance of this section is service rendered to the council by whom that person is employed."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Marshalled List. The purpose of this Amendment is to pave the way for the establishment by the Minister of Transport of road construction units in partnership with the county councils. The

105
Minister of Transport announced earlier this year that she was entering into discussion with the County Councils Association with a view to establishing a new system for the design and supervision of construction of major trunk road and motorway schemes, which are the responsibility of the Minister as highway authority for trunk roads. At the moment this work is carried out either by consulting engineers, or by county councils acting as the Minister's agents under Section 10 of the Highways Act 1959. Under the Minister's proposals, a few large-scale units would be set up to cover between them the whole of England. They would represent a re-grouping of the resources of the county councils and of the Ministry; they would be responsible to the Minister who would meet the full cost of their operation.
Discussions on the establishment of the units are nearing completion. While the precise details have not yet been finally determined, it seems clear that if the resources of the county councils are to be put to the best use it will be necessary for the county councils to be enabled to enter into agreements with the Minister to make available to her groups of staff, accommodation, or other facilities to form a constituent part of the units. The Minister, as highway authority for trunk roads and motorways, already has power under Section 10 of the Highways Act 1959 to employ county councils as her agents for the construction of such roads or to delegate to them her functions in respect of improvement or maintenance.
The County Councils Association are aware of the intentions to seek powers on the lines proposed and support the purpose of the clause. The other local authority associations have been consulted and have no objections to raise. The clause has been drafted for convenience in terms of all councils and is not limited to the county councils. It is nevertheless the Minister's intention in so far as road construction units are concerned to enter into agreements only with the county councils, and if necessary an assurance to this effect may be given. This is very much an enabling clause. It is an addition to the Bill which eventually, when these units are established, will be useful to the Minister's staff for dealing with this task of creating the highways which the country ought to have.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 30, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Champion.)
LORD BURDEN: I am glad that the Minister has described his proposal to us regarding the formation of road construction units, and therefore I need not go over that ground. I should like to say that the proposal is both novel and unique. I think that the Ministry and the County Councils Association are to be congratulated on this imaginative and, I venture to think, practical scheme for road construction.
I only want to raise a point in regard to staff. If I may quote a passage in regard to staff from the agreed memorandum, this will make the point clear. It says:
"All participating county councils will allocate to the unit an agreed number of engineering staff of various grades, initially those already engaged on major trunk road and motorway work which falls within the scope of the unit; staff so allocated will form a constitutent part of the unit."
And then I come to the part I want to emphasise:
"These staff will continue to be based on their county offices, and the county council will retain responsibility for their pay, conditions of service, career prospects, et cetera."
It is quite clear that the officers concerned will not be parties to the agreement or understanding, or whatever it may be called, which has been entered into between the County Councils Association and the Ministry, but I am sure that the Ministry would agree that their terms and conditions of employment should not be worsened as a consequence of their entry into the proposed agreement. 1 should like an assurance that, should any difficulty arise in the application of service conditions, the Ministry will confer with the officers' trade union—that will be, in mast instances, NALGO—in order that the difficulty or difficulties may be resolved. I should like to conclude by again congratulating the County Councils Association and the Ministry on this move, which I believe will greatly facilitate and make for smooth working in road construction.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: May I give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that I do not intend to give him any trouble at all this time. I hope that I shall do something to restore

107
my earlier relations with him by promising full support for this new clause.
LORD CHAMPION: I am grateful for that, and for the fact that we have now restored friendly relations. I hope the noble Lord will not lead his troops too often into the Division Lobby, in which case we shall remain friends for ever.
My noble friend Lord Burden has raised some points about the staff. Inevitably and understandably, this is an arrangement which to some extent affects the staff relations with the county council. What I can give to the noble Lord is a complete assurance that nothing will be done that might be thought to affect the staff themselves injuriously without full consultation with the staff concerned.
LORD BURDEN: With the staff concerned?
LORD CHAMPION: This means with those representing them. I am sure that this is the assurance which the noble Lord requires from me—and I give it without hesitation: that the Minister will enter into such consultations as appear to both sides to be desirable in order to ensure that this is accepted by the staffs, the county council and everyone else.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 31 and 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Further provisions as to dog licences]:
On Question: Whether Clause 33 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD AIREDALE: I should like to ask the Government whether Clause 33, which makes further provision as to dog licences, has been designed to put an end to a mischief which the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, raised (I do not mean that the noble Lord raised the mischief) when he drew attention to it during Questions some time ago. The position is that a dog licence expires at midnight on the last day of a calendar month, but a dog licence is not renewable in advance. This means that any person wishing to renew a dog licence has three courses open to him, each of which has some disadvantage attaching to it. He can take out a
108
new dog licence before the old one expires, but in that event he will have two current dog licences in respect of the same dog, both of which licences he will have paid for. If he does not like doing that, he may be able to find a post office open at midnight on the last day of the month. But is he expected to rise from his bed on a wet night in order to go there? If he does not, he commits a criminal offence between that time and the time when he manages to get to a post office to renew or take out a licence. I hope that we may have an assurance that the Minister will be able to make an order under this clause which will put an end to this ridiculous, Gilbertian situation.
Finally, may I attempt to deflect any imminent ministerial wit by saying myself that, of course, with a name like mine, I am interested in the law relating to dogs.
LORD SORENSEN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this question on his own behalf and on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, who is not here this evening. I want to assure him right away that the dreadful possibility of either facing prosecution, on the one hand, or needless spending of money on the other, or maybe having to emerge at midnight in his pyjamas to try to find a post office, where immediately, at one minute after midnight, he can secure a new licence, will now be obviated. The terms of Clause 33 say
"The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may by order amend the provisions of the Dog Licences Act 1959 with respect to the time for payment of duty under that Act."
Then it goes on with a reference to "the age of any dog or hound", both being members of the canine species, which is irrelevant. By that is meant that the burden to which I have referred is now likely to be lifted altogether, for the provision in Clause 33(1), part of which I have just read, makes it clear, I hope, that it confers power on the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by order to amend the provisions of the Dog Licences Act with respect to the time of payment of duty and the period for which that licence is to be in force. Surely that meets the situation. If the noble Lord and other noble Lords accept this, then we can rejoice that the noble Lord, in his minor campaign for justice, equity and

109
common sense, has reached a victorious conclusion.
Clause 33 agreed to.
7.38 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved, after Clause 33, to insert the following new clause:
Payments by local authorities to offset effect of selective employment tax. 1962 c. 38
". It shall be lawful for a local authority within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 to make to any person such payments as the authority consider appropriate for the purpose of offsetting, either wholly or in part, payments by way of the selective employment tax made by that person in respect of persons employed for the purposes of any contract entered into by the authority before 4th May 1966."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this new clause is self-evident. It is to enable local authorities to reimburse selective employment tax payments made by contractors in respect of contracts which were in operation at the time when the tax was imposed, the contract having already been signed. Government Departments have already been authorized to pay S.E.T., like all other employers in the country, and when my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer authorised Government Departments to make extra payments to contractors, we at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government sent out a circular to local authorities asking them to do the same. Since that time, however, some doubt has arisen about whether they are legally empowered to do this under the existing law. It is in order to clear up this doubt that we are introducing a specific enabling clause in this Bill which will enable them to do what everybody else in the country can already do—namely, to pay for S.E.T. I need not point out that this is a vanishing problem. It is only to enable them to pay the tax to contractors already under contract to them at a certain price at the time the tax was imposed. It does not concern contracts initiated since that time.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I appreciate that this new clause is moved by the Government for the removal of doubts. The one thing about which there is no doubt at all is that the selective employment tax has put up the cost of essential building.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 34 and 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Orders and regulations]:
LORD KENNET: This is consequential upon the first new clause which we inserted and provides for the Negative Resolution procedure to be extended to the Orders contemplated under subsections (1) and (2) of that new clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 15, after ("section") insert ("(Power to alter distribution of certain payments made by nationalised hoards in lieu or by way of rates.),").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended agreed to.
Clauses 37 to 40 agreed to.
Schedule 1:
Rate Support Grants
10.—(1) A supplementary payment shall be payable if the area of the authority or a part of it lies within the metropolitan district, and the amount of the payment shall be a prescribed percentage of the basic payment, being such percentage as appears to the Minister appropriate having regard to the higher level of prices, costs and remuneration in and around the area.
(2) Different percentages may be prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph in relation to authorities whose areas lie wholly within the metropolitan district and authorities whose areas lie partly within the district and partly outside it.
(3) In this paragraph "metropolitan district" means Greater London together with the remainder of the Metropolitan Police District.
7.43 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in paragraph 10(2), to leave out "wholly". The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, but, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to refer to the whole group of Amendments standing in my name since they all cover the same point on the London weighting payment and one does not seem to make much point without the others.
Paragraph 10 in the Schedule provides for a supplementary payment to be made to any county authority, any part of whose area lies within the Metropolitan Police District. The object of my Amendments is to enable any of the Home Counties adjoining Greater London to qualify for such a payment, whether or not any part of their area lies within the

111
Metropolitan Police District. A supplementary payment is made to help to offset the higher level of prices, costs and remuneration which the pressures of the London metropolis set up. This higher level does not suddenly stop at the boundaries of the Metropolitan Police District. It extends outwards from the centre across and beyond this boundary into all the adjoining Home Counties, but tends to fall the further out from the centre one goes. It is rather like the ripples from a stone thrown into a pond, which gradually decline in their ever-increasing circles.
That the higher level does extend into all the surrounding Home Counties could readily be justified, but the Bill already recognises this in referring to the higher level in and around the area. It seems to me to be quite illogical, and totally unfair, that as the higher expenditure spreads out from London, the aid afforded by a supplementary payment to meet it is suddenly cut off at the boundary of the Metropolitan Police District where that adjoins Buckinghamshire and Kent, but is available throughout the counties of Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey, just because those counties not only adjoin but have some small part of their area within the District. I do not know why Kent is not protesting but I am sure the ratepayers of that county will be grateful for any crumbs falling in their direction. Aid is available throughout these three counties because the subsidy is based on a percentage of the whole expenditure of the three county councils, whether it is spent in the part of the county within the Metropolitan Police District or in the part of the county without that district.
I do not wish to weary your Lord-shops with what might appear to be a rather parochial problem, but I must submit that my experience lies in Buckinghamshire, where I am a county alderman, and I should like to see Buckinghamshire qualify for London weighting under the new grant system in this Bill. The problem is most acute in Buckinghamshire, where the population now stands at well over half a million, and it has been expanding at probably a faster rate than any other county in the country and, incidentally, it is housing people from what used to be the old L.C.C. area.
The financial difficulties in the rapid expansion of a county like Buckinghamshire having a common boundary within the London area are shown by wages and costs of all kinds, where the scales laid down by the N.J.C. for local authorities—that is the manual workers—recognise the requirements to pay higher wages within the borough of Slough, and London zone rates are paid. This applies to all manual workers in that area of the county and represents an increase of over 6 per cent. in the wages of various types of education employees such as caretakers, groundsmen, cleaners, gardeners and the like, and over 5 per cent. so far as ambulance drivers are concerned. On the boarding out of children the costs are considerably higher and because of the proximity to the London area, due to the scales of allowances being paid there, it has been necessary to put up the allowances to bring them into line. So far as salaries are concerned, the proximity of London has resulted in salaries being higher to attract staff to an area where the cost of housing and living is very high.
So far as building costs are concerned, although the London rate does not apply to Slough and the surrounding area of Buckinghamshire its effect is much the same, and labour normally constitutes something like half the cost of a contract. About half the tenders received in the South are from London firms who do not quote lower prices outside their own London area. In addition there are many other fields in which expenditure in the South of Buckinghamshire is considerably higher than in regions further away from London, owing to the nearness of that city and competition with it. The cost of land is very high in what is now largely a dormitory for London, and the result of this is that we have incurred heavy expense with resulting high debt charges in order to purchase land bought at these high prices. If the Government would accept the Amendment, aid would not be completely cut off at any point on the perimeter of the Metropolitan Police District, but marginal relief could be afforded to all the surrounding counties. I ask Her Majesty's Government to look most carefully into this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 37, leave out ("wholly").—(Earl Howe.)
LORD KENNET: The noble Earl, Lord Howe, who moved this Amendment most persuasively, spoke of ripples going all the way out from the centre of London, and this, I think, is the position. It is a most vivid metaphor, and one that I fully accept.
The problem which the Government have faced, and with which I think possibly the county councils of Buckinghamshire, Kent and other counties could sympathise, is how far out among the ripples we are to draw the line. The ripples go out until they cross with other ripples coming from Birmingham or Bristol, or the next big city in that particular area. Wherever one stops there will be an authority immediately outside the line which will feel aggrieved, and with some reason. It is impossible to carve up authorities into small zones which may get this or that grant applied to only one part of their area, and it is this fact that has given rise to the solution contained in the Bill, which I should be the first to admit is imperfect, as are all solutions to human, political and financial problems.
The provision in this Bill, which is similar to the provision in the 1958 Local Government Act for general grant, is for a supplementary payment, consisting of a percentage of the basic payment, to authorities which lie wholly or partly within the Metropolitan District, defined as Greater London together with the remainder of the Metropolitan Police District, and thus, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed out so eloquently, embracing parts of Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey. These Amendments will require the supplementary payment to be made to authorities in Greater London and to any administrative county adjoining Greater London. But if we include some counties simply because they adjoin the area which is at present laid down, what is the argument against including other counties beyond that, because they in turn are joined to the counties which would be in receipt of the supplementary grant?
114
I should point out to the House that these Amendments, in identical terms, were introduced into the House of Commons at Report stage and were later withdrawn, and other Amendments, in slightly different terms but having precisely the same effect, were introduced into the House of Commons Committee, and were withdrawn. So it is not as if this issue had not been threshed out elsewhere. I think the basic argument beyond that which I have just given—the problem of contiguity t where do you stop it?—is this. Although costs in general may be, and indeed are, higher in the areas immediately adjoining Greater London than they are in most provincial areas, yet they may well not be, and I think are not, higher than the costs in, for example, Birmingham and Manchester, not to mention, to come nearer to London, Berkshire and East and West Sussex, where also costs are affected by proximity to London hut which would not benefit from the Amendments. If these Amendments were adopted I think a sense of real injustice might arise in the counties which would then become contiguous to the privileged area. No evidence which he finds satisfactory has yet been offered to my right honourable friend to enable him to assess with certainty the extent of the higher costs either in the counties in question on the periphery of London or in those provincial areas further afield to which I have just referred.
The higher expenditure there may be due to any of a number of factors—such as a higher standard of services, on which the Ministry would wish to congratulate the authorities concerned, and high house rates, which may be due to a higher standard of housing. But these are quite different from a higher level of costs, which is what the Amendment is about. It is a question of where to draw the line, and for all its imperfections the Government do believe the line is drawn at the right place in the Bill.
It may be of interest to your Lordships if I give the Committee some figures. I can circulate the full table later or send it to the noble Lord it is a complicated table. But it does place Buckinghamshire's problem in what I think is the

115
true light. The national average rate payment per domestic heraditament in 1966–67 was £40.35—call it £40. I have here a list of the rapidly expanding counties in order of their rate of expansion; that is, in order of their rate of increase of population. On this list Buckinghamshire comes third. The first is Berkshire; the second is Bedfordshire. Let us take the first four of these counties. The most rapidly expanding is Berkshire, where the average rate payment per domestic heraditament is £50. Your Lordships will remember the national average is £40. The second most rapidly expanding is Bedfordshire, where the average rate payment is £44. The third most rapidly expanding is the noble Lord's county of Buckinghamshire, where the average rate payment is £55. It is in point of fact the second highest; it virtually ties for the highest place in average rate payment in this whole list of the top dozen expanding counties.
The fourth is Essex, where the average rate payment is £40—a big drop; it is exactly on the national average, way above which Buckinghamshire soars. You see the Government's problem. It would not be just simply to take contiguity into account as well as geographical overlap; one should ideally go further and take the average rate paymentin to consideration in deciding this. But there comes a limit. I do not think that one can hold that Buckinghamshire, comparing counties throughout the country, is in an especially disastrous situation economically; it is a prosperous county and the Government naturally wish it well. In view of the fact that these Amendments have been twice introduced and withdrawn in the House of Commons, and of the further reasons I have been able to give, I wonder whether the noble Lord also would care to withdraw them.
EARL HOWE: While thanking the noble Lord for his reply and courtesy, I would point out that I referred purely to the Home Counties. I did not suggest Birmingham. They have not protested and have not asked for any supplementary payment.
LORD KENNET: They would, though.
EARL HOWE: They have not done anything about it. Buckinghamshire feels strongly about this. So far as I am concerned, the noble Lord cannot expect me to be satisfied, and I am sure the ratepayers of Buckinghamshire will be disappointed when they hear this news. But, in view of the statements he has made and this question of drawing the line, which I admit must be a difficult one, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedules 2 and 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Minor amendments of enactments relating to rating and valuation preparatory to consolidation]:
LORD KENNET: This is a drafting Amendment to remove from the Schedule a provision which has become unnecessary because a similar provision has been included in a Statutory Instrument which came into effect on October 22—that is, after the Bill went through the House of Commons. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 34, leave out paragraph 18.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 5 and 6 agreed to.
The Title:
LORD CHAMPION: This and the following Amendment to the Long Title are consequential upon the inclusion previously of two clauses by the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Line 3, leave out second ("and").—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Line 4, after ("highways") insert ("and the powers of local authorities to place staff and facilities at the disposal of Ministers concerned

117
with highways and to make payments offsetting the effect of the selective employment tax").—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.
House adjourned at one minute before eight o'clock