Lords Sitting of 6 December 1971

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMIT TEES On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

IMMIGRATION CONTROL: ADMISSION OF HUSSEIN SHARIF
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 Hussein Sharif, an Asian of British citizenship, who on November 22 was found guilty at Kampala, Uganda, of selling food above the maximum price, and ordered to be deported to the United Kingdom, has been admitted to this country.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): Yes, my Lords.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not an extraordinary situation that a British citizen in Uganda who commits a crime can be admitted to this country, while the hundreds of British citizens who are lawful, and are in a state of destitution, are unable to get here? Is this not an encouragement to commit crimes?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, most holders of United Kingdom passports who are given notice to leave their countries of residence in East Africa are not deported. They are given priority in the waiting list for special vouchers, and make their own arrangements for travel when they receive a voucher.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, was not this individual deported almost immediately?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, as I have explained, very few people are deported following conviction in the courts. This is the first case from Uganda
586
this year, and there were only two last year.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is not the Minister in consultation with the Government of Uganda about this precedent?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, we remain in close touch with the Governments of Kenya and Uganda over the situation of United Kingdom passport holders as a whole, as I think the noble Lord knows.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Lothian will be making a Statement, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., on India and Pakistan. This will be followed by a Statement to be made by my noble friend the Leader of the House on the Boyle Report.
FIELD MONUMENTS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a:an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES BILL [H.L.]
2.39 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committe on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Eccles.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Liberty to charge for admission]:
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, after ("may") insert ("subject to section (Parliamentary control of admission charges) below").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 1. This is a

587
paving Amendment only, and I should like, with the permission of the Committee, to take with it Amendment No. 4, which deals with the Parliamentary control of admission charges; Amendment No. 5, which deals with the free days, and Amendment No. 6, which deals with the exempted persons and reduced charges.
I am glad to see that these Amendments have the support of noble Lords in all parts of the House. I should like to deal briefly with the reasons why they have been tabled. The present legal position is that out of the 18 institutions listed in the Appendix to the Government's White Paper no legislation is required for imposing admission charges in 14 of them. However, the Government have been advised, I understand, that legislation is required for four institutions, including the British Museum: and these are the four named in the Bill. But this is enabling legislation; there is no requirement on the trustees of these institutions to make charges. As the noble Viscount the Paymaster General said in Second Reading, the Bill does not specify the charges, because that is a matter of arrangement between the Government and the museums. The noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, Chairman of the Trustees of the British Museum, also on Second Reading, and speaking about the British Museum, said:
"If Parliament amends the Act in a way which clearly indicates that they want the trustees to charge, the trustees must take into account Parliament's wishes. They must then decide the question in accordance with their views about the balance of advantage to the Museum's visitors; scholars, students and the general public. I cannot anticipate their decision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22/11/71, col. 862.]
Those were the words of the Chairman of the Trustees. But even if the charges are made against the Trustees' wishes—and I remember well the moving speech of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, who is, of course, a Trustee of the National Gallery, regretting the charges—there is nothing to stop the Government, either now or in the future, from bringing pressure to bear on the Trustees to increase the charges or to vary them.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said last October, since the Trustees
588
"get all the money from the Government they always agree with the Government over the general picture, and this is exactly what is happening now." — [OFFICIAL REPORT. 18/10/71; col. 423.]
Parliament is being asked, therefore, to pass legislation the effects of which cannot be foreseen and over which Parliament has no control. These Amendments seek to ensure a measure of control. There is nothing in them which prevents charges from being made, or which prevents the Minister from making what arrangements he can with the trustees of these institutions. All we are seeking to do is to require the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, to lay a statement, or statements, on the Table of each House which will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, setting out the agreed charges and any concessions before the Act becomes effective. This would, I suggest, give Parliament a chance to look at the final scheme. The Government would also have to lay a further statement before Parliament if at any time it is proposed to vary the admission charges. I also suggest to the Committee that such an arrangement would afford some protection to trustees against any undue pressure, both now and in the years to come.
Lest it be thought that this proposal might infringe on the independence and responsibility of the trustees, may I remind the Committee that a very similar provision is included in the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954. That Act gives the Trustees of the National Gallery in particular power to lend pictures or other works of art for exhibition outside the United Kingdom. During its passage through Parliament, there was considerable concern that once this power to lend was allowed the Trustees might be persuaded, against their better judgment, by the then Government, or by a future Government, to lend certain of our national treasures abroad, perhaps for diplomatic reasons, without sufficient safeguards about travelling and climatic conditions, security and so on, a situation of which we have of course seen some examples in Continental countries in recent years.
The Conservative Government of the day, after consideration, decided, with the Trustees' agreement, that there should

589
be a measure of Parliamentary control written into the Act, and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who was Paymaster General at the time, moved an Amendment stipulating that no picture painted before the year 1700 was to be lent abroad unless the proposal had been laid before Parliament in a Statutory Instrument. This Amendment became subsection (2) of Section 4 of the present Act, and I am told that it has been a very satisfactory arrangement. I had something to do with it at the time, and I should like to mention that this provision was proposed at the express wish of the Trustees of the National Gallery, to ensure them the protection of a Parliamentary review against any possible pressure from a Minister, or from the Treasury. These Amendments before us to-day are also basically about Parliamentary control of the Executive—one of the most important of our democratic safeguards. I submit that this is a principle which should be supported, whether one agrees with admission charges or not. I beg to move.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: There are two opinions about the principle of charging for entry to galleries and museums. In fact, one may well say that there are three, because for a large part of the time I certainly find myself in a third category: that of the "Don't knows". But I have found very few people, whatever view they take about the main principle, who are not interested in and concerned about the way in which charges are going to be administered and about the whole question of season tickets, exceptions and all that one would, in most cases, regard as the minutia of administrative action, but which in this case, I suggest, are very far from minutiae. The particular axe that I have to grind is that I am in favour of the admission of school children, not just in school parties, up to the age of 16. We have heard considerable testimony at one time or another, including that from the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown. who spoke from personal experience, about the value which free entry into museums and galleries can have for children who are growing up, particularly for underprivileged children.
The other day I was in one of the great Northern cities, and, as is usually my way when I have time between a lunchtime meeting at a university and
590
catching my train, I went into the local art gallery. I was interested to see that to a large extent it was acting as what I suppose I can refer to only as "a snogging shop" for the adolescents of the city. They were perfectly well behaved; they were not getting in anyone's way; they obviously did not have anywhere much more agreeable to meet in that particular city on a wet afternoon. I believe very strongly that it is this particular ability to make use of museums and galleries for possibly what one might regard from a straight, artistic and aesthetic point of view as the wrong reason, which gets young people and children used to seeing works of art and to appreciating them. From time to time, perhaps, when their "date" is late, they will go round and will learn what it is all about. Of course, it does not happen only in that way. There are many children who like to go into museums and galleries just for the sake of going into museums and galleries, and they are not necessarily those in relation to whom their parents will always regard it a benefit to buy a season ticket for them, no matter how low the cost might be. I am absolutely convinced that from an educational point of view it would be a crime to put any barrier against children entering museums and galleries as freely as possible.
That is the particular axe that I have to grind. Other noble Lords have theirs; and, indeed, so far as I have been able to discover, anyone with an interest in the Arts has some point of this kind to urge. It is for this reason that I think we should be allowed to see and comment on the details of any scheme that is put forward before it finally goes into law. This Amendment is not in any way a wrecking Amendment: it is an Amendment to allow democracy to have its way; to allow Members of Parliament in both Houses to have a look at a detailed scheme about which there is considerable disquiet and even more interest. I sincerely hope that the noble Viscount the Minister who is in charge of the Bill will see his way to accepting the Amendment, which gives away nothing of the principle which he is standing for, rightly or wrongly, but allows us all, and possibly himself, to go forward with his scheme with a greater sympathy and knowing that he has a far greater measure of public opinion behind him.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: I want to make an appeal to my noble friend Lord Eccles to accept at any rate Amendment No. 5, which is one of those we are dealing with in this group. Some fifty years ago, when I was a poor student in London, I certainly could not afford to hear music. I discovered that the Albert Hall gave concerts on Sunday afternoons and that if you queued on Sunday afternoons then by the terms of the charter of the Albert Hall there were a number of free standing places from which you could hear the concerts there. It is almost not too much to say that my own love of music began through the free standing places that I had in the Albert Hall as a poor student some Sunday afternoons fifty years ago. A little later, when I was able to go abroad for the first time, I found that in Paris the Louvre was either free or at half price on Sunday; that in Venice the Academia, one of the most precious art galleries in the whole world, is free on Sunday mornings; and that the Palazzo Ducale, in Venice, is half price on Sundays—and even to-day, if one goes either to Paris or to Venice, one sees enormous queues waiting on the free days or on the half-price days for the privilege of enjoying works that they could not enjoy if it were not for the reduced prices. So I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, whatever he does about the other Amendments—and they are quite innocent ones, which simply ask for a little more Parliamentary control over the charges he is going to impose—will accept Amendment No. 5, which says that in any case, whatever charges the Government decide to impose, there will be days on which those charges will either be non-existent or at least half price.
2.55 p.m.
LORD SHIN WELL: I find myself wholeheartedly on the side of the noble Lords, Lord Strabolgi, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Maybray-King in support of this Amendment. Of course, we are not debating the principle involved; that is to say, whether charges should be imposed. That, I understand, was decided in the Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House. The issue is whether there should be a measure of Parliamentary control. Obviously, Parliament is concerned in the matter of administration as to whether there should
592
be exceptions, and, if there are to be exceptions, or if there are to be special impositions affecting children or the like, whether Parliament should have a say in the matter. It seems to me that as Parliament exercises a certain measure of financial control in matters concerning museums and art galleries, and particularly the National Gallery and other establishments of a similar character, there is every reason why there should be some further measure of Parliamentary control.
I want to follow what my noble friend Lord Maybray-King has said. I gained practically all the beginning of my education in the Kelvin Art Gallery in Glasgow. Like many others who left school at the age of 11½or 12 having received no education, or practically no education, I gravitated towards the Kelvin Art Gallery and gained a great deal of information on the subject of evolution, concerned with palaeontology, osteology and matters of that sort, and became almost an authority on that subject. I have forgotten most of it by now, having engaged in political life. One does not quarrel with these sort of matters, unless one is an expert; but over and above that, one was able to gain some knowledge of art. One did not understand the principles underlying art then. I do not pretend that I understand the principles underlying art even now, but I can admire a fine painting. I can recall some admirable paintings at the time, one in particular of Robert Cunninghame Graham. I think it was by Whistler. Naturally, I was interested in Robert Cunninghame Graham, who was a descendant of Scottish kings, or at any rate claimed, as the laird of Gartmore, that he was a descendant of Scottish kings, because he had written several books and I had read those books. They were books not necessarily for children or even for adolescents, but there was a certain connotation which interested young people; and I read those books and saw that painting. In later years I spoke from the same platform as Robert Cuninghame Graham. I recall incident, of various kinds, during unemployment demonstrations in Glasgow, and so on. He was interested in social matters of that Sort.

593
So one gains some kind of education: not the kind of academic education that noble Lords like Lord Robbins and others can claim, to their advantage and to the advantage of your Lordships' House and those in universities and like academic institutions. It is a great advantage to have had an academic education; but it is equally an advantage, and one derives considerable benefit from it, to have had an education which follows a lack of education of the normal character.
The noble Viscount the Paymaster General has gained a great victory, if such it can be called, in pushing through this measure to impose a charge for entrance to museums, art galleries and the like, and I would ask him to agree to a concession. After all, we are asking not for the establishment but for the maintenance of a principle, which has been accepted in general in connection with many other matters, that Parliament should have a measure of control; that from time to time, when schemes are formulated and presented by the Paymaster General himself or through the medium of trustees or by a combination of both, Parliament should have the right to say, "We do not like this scheme. There ought to be some amendment; some concession should be made."
3.0 p.m.
LORD SLATER: I wish to support what has been said in favour of the Amendments. I feel that I should apologise to noble Lords because I have visited only one of the establishments, the Royal Gallery, although I was a Member of another place for well over 20 years. I have never been even to the British Museum, and perhaps I should have taken advantage of the opportunities which were afforded to me, as they were to other people who spent time in the British Museum gaining information which enabled them to write books or assisted them in preparing their memoirs.
I was struck by the opinion expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who referred to the age of 16 for school children. In the area that I come from, in the North-East, and in the Highlands of Scotland there are families who may be able to visit the capital with their children on only one occasion. It may be that the parents have never been to London before, and when they come
594
as a family on this one occasion they are faced with tremendous expense in the form of fares and payment for accommodation. They would wish their children to be able to visit the museums and other places which children who live in the London area are privileged to do. No one has taken a greater interest in this matter than my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge. I remember when I was at the Post Office applying to her in connection with the exhibition in certain post offices of designs prepared by people who had the ability to express themselves on canvas. I do not think it is too much to ask that the Minister, even if he is not prepared to accept all the Amendments, should consider the question of children of 16 referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I recall when the noble Viscount occupied another position in Government. I do not consider that he is a hard master or a person who would seek to get something for nothing. I recall that when we sent letters to him containing requests to which he was unable to agree he would add a note in his own handwriting in the reply wishing us "better luck next time". I hope that on this occasion our luck will be such that the Minister will accede to the request which has been made to him.
LORD ROBBINS: Should I be out of order if I asked for an explanation? The speeches made so far have been in support of a cause which I have very near to my heart, as noble Lords who were present during the Second Reading debate on this Bill will recollect. My question is this. Would the acceptance of Amendment No. 5 oblige the Minister to commit the trustees of galleries and museums to allow a free day? In which case I should certainly find myself in the Division Lobby in support of the Amendment. At the moment I do not read it in that sense, and I should like some elucidation before making any further remarks.
LORD STRABOLGI: Perhaps I may be allowed to explain the Amendment. It can allow a free day but it does not specify a free day. It says:
"…shall specify any day or days or any part of such day or days on which the trustees or other governing body of any such institution may determine that charges for admission be not made or be reduced."
It gives the right not to have a free day, although I hope that in negotiation there

595
will be some at those institutions who want a free day. I should explain that not all the institutions do, although I know that the National Gallery does.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: If I may intervene, the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has raised an important point. Amendment No. 5 is dependent upon the acceptance of Amendment No. 4; that is to say, unless the general power to determine the charges is handed over by the Government to individual museums we shall not he able to get a free day at one museum and not at another. Therefore we cannot take this Amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, wishes to speak without knowing whether we arc to get the previous Amendment. When we have had time to look at that I think it will become clearer whether or not the free day Amendment is one which will commend itself to the Committee.
3.10 p.m.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: I regard this as a sad and humiliating occasion. My noble friends Lord Slater, Lord Shinwell and Lord Maybray-King spoke with passion and concern about having a free day or at least some free time. How low have we sunk as a nation that at this time in our history (when we accept in terms of power politics the Government's decision to impose certain museum charges) that having lost that battle we should now be fighting a rearguard action by saying, again in terms of power politics, "Can we have some free time?" What my noble friend Lord Maybray-King said when he was referring to his visits to Rome, the Louvre and elsewhere was that on the free days there were great crowds present. Is that not part of our humiliation? Does not this totally undermine the Government's case that if anybody wants to go to the museums and galleries, he can afford to do so? What does happen? We know that in Paris, in Rome and in many other places the attendance on free days is higher than the attendance on days when people have to pay.
Once upon a time, I should have thought that in the Tory Party there was something called noblesse oblige. I ask noble Lords opposite: "Do you feel fine about this?" Practically everyone of us
596
in this Chamber realises that if we want to go to the museums and galleries then once this troglodyte Government have had their way and charges are imposed, we do not have to go in with the rest of the natives. We can go in on the paying days. The questions that arise are these. Who are going to go in on the days when people pay? Who are going to go in on the days which are free? On the paying days anyone who wants to go, who is interested and who can afford to, can do so. That is on the paying days. I repeat, who goes in on the free days? Obviously, people who want to go in, people young and old and middle-aged. Nobody will go in on a free day if he can afford to go in on a paying day. I hope that that is clear. That is why I say that I consider this to be a depressing and humiliating occasion.
We have great national galleries and museums. Most of them have been given to the nation by enlightened patrons. Most of the contents have also been given to the nation by such patrons. Some people are squabbling about Turner's will. I will take Henry Moore's interpretation before most people's; and he is speaking for himself and gives me authority to quote his views. He said, "Whatever the lawyers may quibble about, there is no doubt that Turner wanted his gifts to the nation to be free for anyone to see." That is true also of Henry Moore. We are antagonising our contemporary patrons whether they are our Hugh Leggatts (who have done so well in this fight for entrance to exhibitions) or our Henry Turners or our Francis Bacons. I could name the lot. The Government are antagonising practically all in the civilised world of the Arts.
If you are a great artist and if you can afford to give something to the nation, or if you are a great patron, what incentive have you to do so? Part of the incentive was that you, as one of those more fortunate either by wealth or by your gifts as an artist, could give something. You are not seeking to give to the rich who do not need it; above all, you are seeking to give a little more justice in the world so that no one should be kept out because it was embarrassing or because it was difficult to pay the fee. That is why I say that this is a sad and humiliating day, and I am sorry the present Government should have

597
brought us to the pitch that even from the Cross Benches we are now reduced to pleading with the great Tory, businessman's Government with "everybody standing on his own feet", including Rolls-Royce and the rest. We are reduced to pleading that since in terms of power politics they have agreed that there should be charges, we should now have a free day. More people will want to go on free days. And who are they? They are the people who care. And who are those who care? Some of them will be children. The last thing that I want is a means test for children. I do not want to make war on children. I want children even from the grant-aided schools, who have just been given a present of£2 million by Mrs. Thatcher, and children from Eton or other great public schools whose parents can afford to pay the£600 to£900 school fees, to go in free. The last thing I want is to provide a means test for children.
If the Paymaster General is going to say that he believes in the principle of museum charges and wants to make exemptions only for those people who genuinely cannot afford the charges, then he must look at his priorities, because some children come from homes that can afford to pay. I am in favour of all children going in free. I do not think that the answer is a crocodile of children in school groups. I am concerned that the children can go in individually. I do not care whether they come from hack street slums or from palaces. They ought to feel that our museums and galleries are part of their school.
My noble friend Lord Shinwell spoke about his upbringing in Glasgow. I grew up in Carnegie town, near Dunfermline, and on Saturday nights there were penny concerts. There was no great orchestra, no great musician, no great singer, who did not come to Dunfermline in those days. My father adored music and I can see now the light in his eyes when we went to the penny concert in Dunfermline. It was practically free.
Why I am so sad and depressed is that those days of my father's youth, Lord Shinwell's youth and Lord Slater's youth ought to be behind us. We are now saying in this Chamber: "Please do not take away from the children of to-day, from the people of any age of to-day, the amenities that we enjoyed in
598
our youth." I am not talking about myself. I am privileged. I go to concerts and so on, but I do not understand how the Tory Party, traditionally representing great wealth and landed estates and privilege could humiliate itself and us by saying that it is necessary for the national economy that we should have these kinds of charges. After all, the poor old Chancellor of the Exchequer is trying to deflate the economy. I am not saying that by abandoning these charges in toto we shall cure unemployment or anything like that; but against the background of the Government (who are turning in circles all the time) trying to find out ways of spending more money and not less, it makes these charges even more ridiculous.
In addition to the charges there is the fact that there is something really dreadful in people, whether they are old or young, wanting to go to galleries, finding it an embarrassment to pay and then crowding in on the free days. Of course, the whole background of this is to get fewer people to go to the galleries: if you want to get fewer people to go, cut out the poorest. I fully sympathise wish the Paymaster General in his desire to have better museums and galleries; but though buildings are important, and the contents still more important, people are the most important of all. So I hope that when the noble Viscount comes to reply he will not play over again the old record about having to sacrifice people and contents in order to get more space and more buildings. I think he has his priorities all wrong—and his sums wrong, too; because he talked about a marginal figure of£1 million or less.
I come to what I think is another very important aspect of this issue—that is, the relationship between the Government, between the political Minister of the day, and the trustees. Again I find it odd that leading trustees are not coming here to-day and are skulking in corners, because their personal convictions go in one direction and they fear that they will be politically blackmailed if they come out too openly against the Government and express their opposition to charges. I do not think that anyone can deny that, from the British Museum to the Victoria and Albert, from the National Gallery to the Tate, the overwhelming opinion of the scholars and

599
trustees—of all the people whom successive Governments have appointed because they were the best and the most concerned and the most informed people—is of dislike for this business of having to put up turnstiles and desks and make charges. They have sufficient national pride not to be influenced by what is happening in America or anywhere else. Let us do our own thing in our own way. Though there are some things we cannot do to-day, we have this great pleasure and graciousness that people of every kind and every class are able to go into our galleries and museums whenever they like.
But the Government of the day—and they must accept this—are interfering in a way that I would never have tolerated during the six years that I had the responsibility for the relationship between the trustees and the Government. I understood that it was the duty of the Government to decide how much they were prepared to spend and to decide the priorities. The duty of the Minister for the Arts was to get together with the museum and gallery trustees, the leaders of orchestras and theatres, and of the other Arts, and to find out the maximum support that the Government could give financially and then leave it to them to see what the Arts of Great Britain at any given moment of time could do. They ought not to reflect the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, however distinguished he may be, or of myself yesterday, however undistinguished I may have been, or of any other Minister of the day. This is all right for a totalitarian, an authoritarian country. But in Great Britain we have developed a very sophisticated and sensitive relationship between the trustees for the arts and the Government. Although the political Minister of the day appointed the trustees, the Minister could not dictate to the trustees (we must get this constitutional point straight) and the trustees could not dictate to the Minister.
In this business of appointments, of course, a Minister knows a limited number of people, and he or she has to come together with those interested in the Arts to appoint the best people. I do not want to be personal. but may I say to the Paymaster General that when the Trustees of the British Museum suggested that he
600
should be their Chairman, I at once agreed. I had full delegated power from the Prime Minister and I did not consult anyone at all. I agreed it "on the nod" straight away. Why?—because the noble Viscount had the confidence of his fellow Trustees; because he was a devoted Museum man and because I thought that he was the right person for the job. I tell your Lordships now that had I thought he was going to propose the vulgarity of these charges, I should have had second thoughts and should have got the Trustees together to find someone else. I am sorry if I have talked with, maybe, some violence, but each of us, in his own day and generation, has had responsibilities. I have certain responsibilities as a privileged member of my family and of my Party. I do not have to worry about a charge of a penny or a shilling to go into a museum, though I think that my heart will turn sick if I have to go through a turnstile, not for what is costs me but because of the insensitivity and vulgarity behind it. I hope that, even at this late hour, the Government of the day will have second thoughts.
3.27 p.m.
LORD ROBBINS: May I ask whether we are discussing Amendment No. 4 as well as No. 5?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The noble Lord who moved this Motion said that if the Committee were in agreement, he would like to discuss Nos. 4 and 5 as well as No. 1 and No. 6.
LORD ROBBINS: Then I shall be in order to make a few further observations on that Amendment. May I begin by saying that I feel in a position of very great difficulty, because I am in sympathy with all that has been said in favour of free days and with much which has been said about the general policy of charges. I hope that what I am going to say now will not lead my friends in different parts of the House to feel that I am letting the side down, but it seems to me that if we focus on the ipsissima verba of these Amendments we find that the principle which is under discussion is the principle of Parliamentary control of the imposition of charges and the permission of free days. On that point, I confess that I am in a position of considerable intellectual difficulty.

601
I see considerable objections to the Amendments from that point of view, not from the point of view of the liberties which they seek indirectly to sustain. But in so far as they bear on the point which the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, expatiated upon—namely, the relationship between trustees and the Minister responsible for the Arts, I see grounds for hesitation before supporting the further extension of Parliamentary control. The particular powers of trustees as they have grown up in our society with our administrative procedure are delicate and intangible. In the past they certainly have worked pretty well. Ministers have not sought to impose on trustees policies with which the trustees were in disagreement, and trustees have been mindful of the desirability of acquainting Ministers with what changes they had in mind, what aspirations they entertained, and the general policies with which they would be in sympathy.
Now we are confronted with a position in which, unhappily, that relationship has been—let me be candid—impaired. It is surely no secret that a substantial number—I have not taken a public opinion survey—of the trustees of the leading museums and galleries, for the reasons which I endeavoured to explain shortly when we had our debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, bitterly regret the decision of the Government to impose charges. As I said on that occasion, if we have acquiesced in this policy, it has not been because we were under any illusion that the majority of us were secretly in favour, but rather because we were conscious that we were the victims—I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, for whom I have a great affection will not feel that I am speaking in an unfriendly way—of force majeure. Some people may ask: "Why did you not resign?" To that I would reply that I think the thought must have flitted through the minds of many members of those bodies, and it certainly flitted through my mind but there was also vividly in our minds the fact that, in our judgment at any rate, some matters even more important than the matter of charges were at stake: and it is a well-known and irrefutable proposition that you can commit hara-kiri only once.
The proposal is that safeguards be erected by way of obliging trustees and Ministers to lay on the Table of Parlia-
602
ment details of charges which it is proposed to introduce. I see and appreciate the grounds on which this Amendment is put forward, and I honour those who have framed it, but I ask myself: does this really strengthen the position? If a Minister has made up his mind to impose some alteration in the charges now proposed, and he, in virtue of such an Amendment, is compelled to lay his proposals on the Table of the House, is it not more likely, rather than less, that the chances of getting a modification of these proposals are diminished? Will he not feel committed, in a sense in which he might not be committed in the friendly discussions between trustees and his office, to put the Whips on and make quite sure that his dictum has the full authority of Parliament? In my judgment—perhaps I am over-optimistic —in general, trustees have more chance of getting their way with Ministers if the disputes do not take place in public. If, by some unlucky accident, as has lamentably taken place recently, principles are introduced in regard to which they have not been consulted, and with which they are in disagreement, even though there still remains the possibility of having the kind of debate that we are having now, my conviction is that this kind of debate does not induce the Minister, whoever he may be, to alter his determination. The mere fact that he has to give forty days notice, or something of that sort, to the Houses of Parliament will not make him change his mind.
Therefore, to conclude, while I endorse wholeheartedly the eloquent pleas which have come from various parts of the Committee for the Minister to consider yet again the principle which he is imposing on the museums, and to consider again the modest plea that some of us have made for a free day, if it is a question of dividing the House on this extension of Parliamentary control I shall feel compelled to abstain.
3.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I wish to intervene for only a moment or two, because I have not one-thousandth part of the knowledge of these matters possessed by my noble friend Lord Robbins, who has just spoken, or the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, who not only has an immense knowledge on this subject but speaks with

603
such deep eloquence and great charm that we are always interested in what she says and attach the greatest weight thereto. I am only going to raise a very humdrum point, following a point that my noble friend made in his speech. I think that these Amendments, taken together, are really asking my noble friend the Minister to accept something which is beyond what is reasonable, because, as I understand it—I may be wrong—they would mean that the trustees would, by their decisions, influence what sum in the aggregate would be raised by the charges. As I understand it, considerable importance is attached to the minimum which it is hoped will be raised by this contribution. If that is so, then the situation is one which it would be difficult for my noble friend to persuade his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or, for that matter, Parliament, to accept. I know that, having once mentioned the Chancellor of the Exchequer, noble Lords will pay no more attention to what I say, because the attributes which one earns in a few years' service at the Treasury —cheeseparing, miserly, bloodsucking and mean—remain with one.
LORD ROBBINS: The noble Lord may not be aware that he will go down in history as having achieved an absolutely discontinuous increase in the grants to the National Gallery.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I am too modest. I once had an ode written to me and a dinner given to me, and was compared at that time with Mæcenas, though the figures that we were talking about then may seem a little derisory to-day. When I went to the Treasury I had a heart; two and a half years later I was not sure whether I had that organ; and when somebody asked me the other day whether I would ever have my heart transplanted, I said: "I don't think I have ever had that organ to be transplanted since I left the Treasury."
The single point I want to make is: would it be reasonable, in the light of the aims of this Bill, to ask my noble friend to accept the consequences if these Amendments were taken together? If I am wrong, I shall be glad to have it explained to me. Listening to my noble friend when he opened this debate, I
604
formed the impression that in fact my noble friend had reached an understanding with his colleagues which was likely to prove extremely favourable to the future of the museums. As I understand it, with the acceptance of the principle of charges went very considerable assurances that the sums which would be allocated to the future support of museums would be considerably larger than they are to-day; and I believe that should be our main object to-day. I have great sympathy with the position of our museums. I believe it is a fact, as has been brought out by so many noble Lords, that every year that goes by more and more people are visiting the museums with greater pleasure and saisfaction, and that is one of the excellent results following the expansion of education which has taken place in recent years. But if that is so, then I entirely agree with what my noble friend said at the beginning, that if that is the fortunate position then we must make sure that these museums are in all respects worth visiting. I regard that as the main object of the exercise, and although I am not enchanted with the principle of charges it fits in with the general principles of the Government. I would regard it as a modest price to pay for assurances of greater funds in the future for the expansion and development of our museums.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I speak as an individual who is also a Trustee of the Natural History Museum, and I believe that all these Amendments are entirely misconceived, bearing in mind the way in which those of us who are trustees work in our relationship with the Minister. I personally like the system which was started in the 1750s for the British Museum. I think the way of running our museums by appointing trustees chosen by the Prime Minister or the Royal Society or others for reasons which I flatter myself are admirable, is the right way to run those museums. But I think it depends very much on the relationship between the body of the trustees and the Minister who has very tight budgetary control over the way in which those institutes are managed and over the principles on which we run them, which inevitably go with budgetary control.
When the Bill dividing the two branches of the British Museum was

605
passed, I think in 1963, setting up the Natural History Museum as a second body, I moved an Amendment—I was not then a Trustee—to oblige two Trustees to report every three years to Parliament. That Amendment was opposed by the then Trustees of the British Museum, but I moved it quite deliberately because I felt that the Trustees ought to have some protection against the Minister and that a three. yearly report in which they could say that they were being damned badly treated, if indeed they thought this, was the right way of bringing pressure to bear on the Minister. The matter could then be debated in Parliament, and probably would be so debated, if they reported to that effect. But, frankly, speaking as a Trustee—and perhaps it is significant that only two of us who have spoken this afternoon are in that position and I think we are both in agreement—I should prefer our relationships to remain direct with the Minister, without the control by Parliament in between those three-yearly periods which these Amendments involve.
I feel that my relationship, as an individual trustee, with the Minister implies that within limits I have to he prepared to work on the lines which he lays down. If I do not like that, I resign. That is my proper course: to resign, write the sort of letter to The Times which usually goes with such a resignation and hope that it may cause such a stink that the Minister may change his mind and that, even though I myself am not there, my fellow trustees who have not resigned may have a better way of working the museums. For that reason, I strongly hope that these Amendments will not be pressed. I think they are misconceived. It would be most unfortunate if the machinery which we have built up over 200 years for running our museums were changed. I therefore hope that if the Amendments are pressed your Lordships will reject them.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: When my noble friend the Paymaster General comes to reply, he will unquestionably make a powerful case on his own behalf, but I am not at all sure that when that time comes the impression that is made most powerfully on all parts of your Lordships' House will not have been made by the two trustees who have just spoken, my noble friend, Lord
606
Cranbrook and the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. Here we have trustees, who are the people to whom we should pay more attention than to anybody else during the Amendments. Yet it is possible that the clouds of Second Reading steam, generated earlier in the debate, may not have cleared away sufficiently so it is important to see exactly what the Amendments are all about. Therefore, if your Lordships will forgive me, I will return for a few moments to the place where the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, left off and point out that all that is being asked for is that Parliament should have the ability to say "No": no more than that. It is not an entirely unreasonable request, though it may be undesirable from the point of view of the trustees. This, I think, should be very much borne in mind.
Sometimes when considering the purport of a Bill it is a salutary exercise to consider whether it could have been better drafted in some other way. I recall, and no doubt others will too, that my noble friend Lord Conesford had some effect on the Second Reading of the British Standard Time Bill when he said that it might have been drafted to the effect that—
"Winter shall hereafter be deemed to be the summer".
Nothing quite so diverting as that can be done with this Bill, but the attempt was made on Second Reading, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Platt—and I hope I am not pre-empting anything he may be thinking of saying now when he pointed out that the Bill could have been drafted so as to give power to the Minister to fix and collect entry charges from the museums concerned. That is what in fact the Bill ultimately does, and the question is whether it is right that the Minister should be judge, jury, collector and everything else in his own case. This is what your Lordships are asked to think about.
Many of your Lordships are trustees of private trusts—not public trusts, but, say, marriage settlement or will trusts—and there is nothing in law to prevent your buying undated Government stocks with your trust capital. Probably you would think that this was not a very good idea and that it was not the best you could do with the trust. You might say,

607
"No, I don't want to." If the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to you and said, "You must.", you would say "No"—at least I guess that you would. If he then said, "That's all very well. I cannot force you; but if you don't do it I will see to it that the Inland Revenue and the Estate Duty office are as un-co-operative as they possibly can be and you will end up worse off than if you had paid the bill like a good boy when I asked you to." That is a rough but pretty reasonable analogy, I submit. If you were in that position I think you would be pleased if you knew that you had a happy opportunity of making a complaint through a Member either of this House or of another place, so that some objection could be made to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer from doing any such thing. It would not happen; the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not do it—but that is not the point. That is really all that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and his friend are asking for in this case.
Is that what your Lordships want? Do you want control in a negative form over the imposition of charges or not? It is not a question, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, and others, of whether these charges are right or wrong. I opposed them long ago. I am not taking this stand now; I think it is irrelevant. The charges are going to be imposed. The question is, "Do you or do you not want to have some say in whether they should be controlled by the Government or not?" That is what these Amendments are about. The details can be argued later, and I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will be happy if the principle can be accepted and the remainder left to debate.
LORD CAMOYS: I have spent some 15 years on the Advisory Council of the Victoria and Albert Museum, so I may claim to know a little about it. I talked to the staff this morning and we are all against imposing any charges. We feel that we can raise the money in some other way.
3.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: The Committee will see that I am in some difficulty because my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery thinks that these Amendments raise only one simple matter; namely,
608
that Parliament should have a chance to approve the scale of charges. The noble Lords who intervened at the beginning of our debate, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, Lord Maybray-King, Lord Shinwell, Lord Slater, and, to some extent, Lord Robbins, were asking for a modification in the system of charges which we have already adumbrated and, in particular, either no charge for un-accompanied children or a free day. These are matters which are well worth discussing. I have already told your Lordships on another occasion that the reason why we have kept the number of exemptions as low as possible is in order to keep the basic charge down. After we have had experience of two or three years of charging of course it would be right to look at the tariff to see whether amendments should be made. The trouble is that these amendments for children or for free days could not be made under the Amendments that have been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, without immense and absolutely unacceptable difficulties. Therefore I must ask your Lordships to allow me to speak to the Amendments as they are on the Marshalled List. The Amendments would introduce a radical change in the well-established relations between the Government and those national museums and galleries which have trustees or a governing body, though not all of them.
I am not against a radical change if it makes sense. But I shall have to explain to the Committee that those now proposed would lead to chaos. I will come in a moment to the two principles to be found in the Amendments; namely, the proposal that the Government should surrender to the trustees of a museum their right to determine the scale of charges. That is firmly stated in the first of the new clauses. Secondly, there is the proposal that scales of charges so determined should be laid before Parliament for approval.
The Committee will first wish to examine the practical effects of the Amendments. This would be to introduce a network of charges so uneven, so chaotic and so troublesome to vary in the smallest particular that this Bill, and the policy behind it, would become worthless. This must happen because each museum which had a governing

609
body would, under these Amendments, be given the power to determine its own scale of charges, exemptions and free days. I am advised that this is exactly what the first Amendment says. These museums do not all think alike. At some the charges might be so low, and the exemptions so numerous, that the costs of administration would swallow up all the receipts. At the other extreme a museum itself—think what they already charge for special exhibitions!—might, in order to keep the crowds away, raise the charges to levels which no one in this Committee would approve. And all the time the Government would be charging their own scale at the Victoria and Albert, the Science Museum and the Royal Scottish Museum.
The public would ask why, since all the museums are dependent on the Government for their money, the Government did not see that the rates and the exemptions were all the same. What would happen, for example, if students were treated differently at different national museums? And if some museums wanted to risk a free day and others did not, as we know would be the case, what then would be the pressures on those who were trying to avoid the dangers of overcrowding? We cannot know in advance how chaotic this patchwork of charges will be, or how much the public will suffer. But what is certain—a point made by my noble friend Lord Amory—is that the Government's plan for financing the museums would be destroyed. We could never be sure whether the sum would be collected in charges which we consider the visitors can afford to pay, without serious hardship, towards the development and expansion of the museum service.
I must say again that the purpose in introducing charges is to improve the museum service: more buildings, better amenities, more staff and more acquisitions. These Amendments, if carried, would put an end to the prospect of raising in an orderly manner any predetermined sum. I should have to advise your Lordships to resist them on these practical grounds alone.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I should like to ask my noble friend a question purely for clarification; it is not in the least argumentative. I have probably misunderstood the Bill;
610
although it is simple, perhaps it is too complicated for me. I do not see what it is in the Bill that empowers the Government to ensure that the museums all charge the same entrance fees now.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: The Government can always use their influence to insist that all the charges are the same. The object of these Amendments is to give, for example, those museums who want to have a free day the right to claim one. We cannot do this and still preserve the general financial scheme for the museums which we have in mind.
I should like to turn now to the two principles around which the Amendments are constructed. The noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, raised the question of the duties and powers of trustees, and their relationship with the Government. My colleagues and I have been giving a great deal of thought to this matter. We think that the present situation is unsatisfactory. It is also very complicated because we have a hotchpotch of structures with which we have to deal. Your Lordships will know that the national museums and galleries operate under widely different legal arrangements. At one end of the scale you have six museums managed by trustees who have statutory powers. In the middle there is a group of five museums set up by Treasury Minute. Their powers have been varied from time to time by the issue of new instruments. At the other end are the departmental museums which are managed by a director advised by, but not subject to, a body of distinguished persons. Lastly, there are two museums run by chartered bodies, of which the National Museum of Wales is an important and outstanding example.
Your Lordships might think that such a variety of legal instruments would have produced an equivalent variety in the museums' relations with the Government; but this is not so. Finance and Treasury control have seen to that. There is almost complete uniformity in the range of decisions which have to be referred to the Department of Education and Science, to the Scottish Office or to the Welsh Office. I will not trouble your Lordships with the one major exception; it is not relevant, and I hope soon to put it right.
When I was at the British Museum I chafed at times under the system, but in

611
the end one always had to accept that the money came from the Government. Within the framework of the grant the Trustees can do a great many things; and they do a great many things of the utmost value. But certainly they cannot do everything which they would like. Their relations with the Government would be impossible if everything they did not want to do had to be imposed upon them by Statute. Equally, one would not expect everything they can do to be set out in their governing instruments. The way this works may be clearer if I give the Committee a few examples. There is nothing in the legal instruments to prevent the Trustees from closing the Museum for a month or for one day a week. There is no legal requirement to charge for the various services which they offer to the public, nor for special exhibitions; and they accept that the rate of charges is fixed with the Government. Nor is there anywhere an instruction which stops them from putting some of their building work out to private contract and not having it all done by the Department of the Environment.
In these and many other matters the deciding factor is the conditions under which the trustees get their money. Now one can argue about most of these examples whether or not the Government should have the last word, but there cannot be any argument that entrance charges which are to be treated as appropriations in aid must be a condition of the grant. The system under which Government-financed institutions work creaks and groans sometimes, but it goes forward and much is accomplished because of the good sense and great experience of the trustees and their staffs. This really is the point at issue. Entrance charges are not taxes, although three noble Lords opposite recently spoke as if they were; and if they believed what they were saying these Amendments could not possibly have been put down. The charges are in fact contributions towards the cost of maintaining the museums. Similar charges are made at publicly maintained buildings, and they arc all treated as appropriations in aid; that is to say they are a source of revenue not suitable to be determined except on the conditions laid down by the Government.
612
Therefore it follows that, while the attitude of the trustees towards charges was of course a very important consideration, it could not be decisive. So far as the governing bodies expressed a corporate view, they deplored the introduction of charges. Their objections were the stronger, of course, because it was not possible to tell them in advance that the Government's decision was part of the plan to finance their own expansion. If we could have done this they might have been more sympathetic, but I think it very likely that many of them would have maintained their objections on principle; and I should have understood that. After all, if we had asked the local education authorities whether they approved of an increase in charges for school meals it is almost certain they would have said, No. If we were now to ask the universities or the colleges of further education whether they approve of the tuition fees it is extremely likely that we should hear a great many objections.
It is a fact of life that Government-financed institutions would like to receive all the money they ask for and without any strings attached. But my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having many claims to consider, must try to make the funds at his disposal go as far as possible, and for this reason he must remain in control of appropriations in aid which yield a small addition to his revenue. After what we have heard I think your Lordships will be interested to know that no body of trustees has told me that they think they ought to determine the scale of charges or the conditions attached to them. This is a proposition —
LORD PLATT: May I intervene, just to ask a question? If that really is the case, how can the words in Clause 1 be justified: that the governing body
"may make such charges for admission to any museum or gallery as they may determine"?
What on earth do those words mean?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: It is of course the museums themselves that will issue the scale of charges, but they do this on the conditions which the Government attach to their grant. All the other financial matters with which the museums deal are in exactly the same situation, as anyone who has been a trustee knows very well. Once the museums were made

613
aware that it was the Government's policy to charge, they have collaborated, in a way for which I am very grateful, in the preparation of the many details. I have here what the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, says in making his Annual Report on the National Galleries of Scotland. He says:
"We have already assured you"—
that is the Secretary of State for Scotland—
"that if it is the will of Parliament that admission fees should be imposed on visitors to the National Galleries of Scotland we will do our best to implement the measure, but that as a body of trustees we will share objections and misgivings, which have been widely expressed."
This is the general attitude of museums: that charges are part of the conditions of their grant. Do your Lordships really think that if there were no charges at the Tower of London or Hampton Court the Department of the Environment would be able to spend what it does spend in maintaining the gardens, and all the rest of it? It is all part of the financing of the institution.
The second change in existing practice which the Amendments would bring about is to require that the scales of charges should be approved by Parliament. Here, I am sure, the Committee were very interested in the views of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. It is a very unusual proposal. It is not done in similar cases. Parliament does not have to approve the entrance charges for palaces, historic buildings and ancient monuments. Parliament does not have to approve the fees that are charged for further education. I am not aware that anyone has ever made a proposal of this kind before. Certainly the Labour Government did nothing of the kind. They cheerfully increased the charges at historic buildings without reporting to Parliament. And they were quite right. The scales of charges are many and various and often require to be amended. Your Lordships may think that the amount of Parliamentary time that would be needed to approve them could be more usefully devoted to larger matters. I imagine that this would be the view of the great majority of the overworked Members of another place. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, that once we get so official a procedure the room for going to and fro in argument between
614
the Minister and the trustees is much reduced.
The main Amendment before us is defective. It provides that if the Trustees of a museum sought to introduce one single item or condition to which Parliament objected no charges of any kind could be made for 40 days. That would add to the chaos to which I have already referred. But I would not ask your Lordships to resist these Amendments solely on account of their drafting and there are indeed other passages which would need altering. The two principles which they embody are seriously wrong. They go directly against our well-understood practice that the financing of the national museums and galleries is a matter of policy which any Government must keep in their own hands.
May I conclude these remarks by trying once again to make vivid to your Lordships the Government's purpose in introducing charges. If one approaches Trafalgar Square from Whitehall, on the far side, next to the National Gallery on the left is that great empty site which before the war was occupied by Hamptons. It was badly bombed, used for a time as a single storey building, and then sold to the Canadian Government and cleared. But, by good fortune, in 1959 the Canadian Government resold it to Her Majesty's Government, and well I remember how delighted I was. Twelve years have passed, but no move has been made even to plan the new building which the National Portrait Gallery so badly needs and which will release its present gallery for adaptation and use by the National Gallery. A long period of inaction reflects no credit on any of us. But now I have authorised the National Portrait Gallery to go ahead with planning their new building and I have promised them the money—something no one else has ever done. It will not cost less than£4 million, and when it is completed it will require substantial grants.
LORD ROBBINS: While expressing delight at the announcement that the noble Viscount has just made, may I say that I hope he will be prepared to redress some injustice to the Trustees of the National Gallery, the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery and the Ministry of which at one time he was the

615
distinguished head. In the years which followed the acquisition of the Hamptons site much time was spent in replanning the whole of the North block of Trafalgar Square. The noble Viscount will recollect that when the Hamptons site was acquired it was at first intended that it should be occupied by an extension of the National Gallery, and it was only after complicated negotiations that a transfer was made in regard to the claim of the National Gallery to the site at the back of the National Gallery and the Hamptons site, in such a way that the National Portrait Gallery should have the Hamptons site.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: All credit to the Trustees of the National Gallery; but they did not succeed in getting anything started. They may have pressed the Government—I am sure they did: first a Conservative Government, and then for six years a Labour Government, but they got nothing done. It is rather odd, is it not, that now I am doing it the Trustees of the National Gallery do not appreciate what I am doing? Never mind. Anyhow, the point at issue is this: is it really fair, when we have to finance great building programmes in so many directions that sums of the order that we require for the Hamptons site—and this is only one of many new projects—should be provided to this one branch of the Arts without any contribution from the users? That is what the Bill is about; and the Amendments, if carried, would make it much more difficult to secure the finance for projects like building on this site and elsewhere. When the dust of this controversy has settled and when the new buildings are completed (I hope in time to cope with the crowds that are coming) I am confident that the policy behind this Bill will be seen to have been in the public interest.
I do not know whether the Opposition intend to divide the Committee. If they do, they would be asking your Lordships to upset established relations between the Government and those of the national museums who have trustees or a governing body, and they would be laying niggling burdens on a hard-pressed Parliament.
VISCOUNT NORWICH: May I ask the noble Viscount for clarification on one small point? I think this is the second
616
time he has mentioned additional burdens being imposed on Parliament. Surely, if these charges are simply laid before Parliament for 40 days and if Parliament has no objection there is no additional burden on Parliament?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: If that is the case, there is no point in laying the charges because if no one is going to look at them and no one is going to object, they must always have been right.
VISCOUNT NORWICH: But surely Parliament should have the opportunity to object?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I am not sure whether the noble Viscount was here at the beginning of our debate, but from the speeches we heard from the other side it seemed to be eagerly expected that there would be opportunities for making amendments when these scales of charges were laid. All I can say to the noble Viscount is that if we adopted this principle with all the scales of charges, or even with only 10 per cent. of them, which are now made by Order, Parliament would have additional work, which is certainly not the best way to use its time.
I must come to an end. I simply say that these Amendments are mistaken in principle, they are defective in drafting and they would produce chaos. I must therefore recommend the Committee to resist them.
4.18 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion on this Amendment, and also the noble Viscount, the Minister, for deploying his case. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Lee, and also to the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, for bringing us back to the arguments on the main Amendment. May I say how grateful I am to the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, for reminding us that this involves a Negative Resolution. I thought at one time that the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, did not really appreciate this. I am surprised that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, did not refer to the precedent that I explained in the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Bill. He was a Member of the House at the time and we both took part in the lengthy Committee stages of that Bill. It seems to me that that is an answer to what the noble Lord,

617
Lord Robbins, implied might be possible interference with the Trustees. Here was something the Trustees wanted and Parliament was asked merely to approve loans that, against their wishes, the Trustees might be pressurised into making. In this instance all we are asking is that Parliament should have a chance to review the scale of charges.
As the noble Lord, Lord Platt, has pointed out, there is nothing in this Bill that does anything but remove impediments. It seems to me that he trusees themselves have a right to impose any charge they like. It is possible, though, that the Government might come to them and ask them to increase the charges. The noble Viscount has said that the charges are a condition of the grant. I am not saying this about him personally but there may be a holder of his office in some future Government who may bring great pressure to bear on the trustees to increase the charges considerably, and Parliament would have absolutely no control over this action. All we are asking is that when the noble
Viscount has made his arrangements he should then lay the statement on the Table. All that will happen is that it will lie on the Table for 40 days, which is not really so chaotic as the noble Viscount seemed to imply, and during that period it will be subject to a Negative Resolution. If there is no such Resolution, the Statement will then become effective.
Nothing that has been said this afternoon persuades me that these Amendments should not be accepted. It is possible—I do not know—that there may be small drafting defects. I was not greatly impressed with the points the noble Viscount made about this, but lawyers can always find defects in drafting. The main thing is the principle, and it is the principle on which I must ask your Lordships to come to a decision.
4.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 71.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Faringdon, L.

Platt, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fiske, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Amherst, E.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Arwyn, L.

Gardiner, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Auckland, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

St. Davids, V.

Aylestone, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

St. Just, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Hayter, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Henderson, L.

Serota, Bs.

Bernstein, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Beswick, L.

Hoy, L.

Shepherd, L.

Blyton, L.

Hurcombe, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Silkin, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Janner, L.

Slater, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Kennet, L.

Soper, L.

Byers, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Camoys, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Summerskill, Bs.

Clwyd, L.

McLeavy, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Maybray-King, L.

White, Bs.

Cork and Orrery, E. [Teller.)

Moyle, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Norwich, V.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Falkland, V.

Phillips, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Conesford, L.

Eccles, V.

Albemarle, E.

Cowley, E.

Effingham, E.

Amory, V.

Craigavon, V.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Belstead, L.

Crathorne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Daventry, V.

Goschen, V.

Bledisloe, V.

de Clifford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Boothby, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Brock, L.

Derwent, L.

Hawke, L.

Carrington, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hood, V.

Colgrain, L.

Dudley, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Monck, V.

St. Helens, L.

Ilford, L.

Morrison, L.

Sandford, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Mowbray and Stourton, L.[Teller.]

Sherfield, L.

Jessel, L.

Somers, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Northchurch, Bs.

Strang, L.

Lothian, M.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Teviot, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Oakshott, L.

Teynham, L.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Perth, E.

Thomas, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Mancroft, L.

Reigate, L.

Vivian, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Wakefield of Kendal, L

Milverton, L

St. Aldwyn, E.

Windlesham, L.

Molson, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT ECCLES: In order that the House may hear the Statements which are awaited, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Viscount Eccles.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: House resumed by the Lord Chancellor.

INDIA/PAKISTAN HOSTILITIES
4.28 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERS-ECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"The outbreak of hostilities between India and Pakistan is a matter of deep concern to Her Majesty's Government and to all Members of the House. We have watched with growing apprehension over the past months the deterioration in relations between the two countries, stemming from the situation in East Pakistan. Despite our efforts and those of other Powers, India and Pakistan have been driven to the calamity of war. Our immediate concern must now be to try to stop the fighting and to contribute to a sane and civilised solution, that takes account of the wishes of the peoples affected.
"When we heard the first reports of attacks and fighting on the borders of India and West Pakistan on December 3 my right honourable friend the Prime Minister appealed to Presi-
620
dent Yahya Khan and Mrs. Gandhi to do all within their power to prevent the spread of conflict. We are also in touch with other Governments.
"Reports on the military situation are confused. It is clear that extensive fighting is taking place within East Pakistan and on the borders of West Pakistan and India, and that the navies and air forces of both countries are engaged. To the extent that it is possible in modern warfare, it appears that the civilian population has not been the object of attack from the air.
"The House will know that the Security Council met on December 4 and again yesterday to consider the situation. It was clear from the start that any resolution calling for a ceasefire and the withdrawal of forces would attract a Russian veto. For their part, Her Majesty's Government have taken the view that there is nothing to be gained by prematurely attempting to introduce abortive resolutions which are bound to be vetoed by one country or another. We are doing all we can to look for ways of overcoming these difficulties and of finding a solution to the desperately complicated issues which gave rise to the outbreak of war. These efforts have not so far been successful, but we shall continue them. The United Nations must have a role to play, not only in the search for ways to stop the fighting, but also in the immense task of reconstruction that will follow.
"There have been no reports of injury to United Kingdom nationals or damage to United Kingdom property in either India or Pakistan. On November 23 the High Commissioner at Islamabad advised United Kingdom nationals in the border districts of Pakistan to consider moving to safer areas while this was possible. Since the outbreak

621
of the fighting he has taken account of the air raids, the restrictions on movements and the suspension of civil air flights and has advised United Kingdom nationals to stay where they are. No evacuation from Pakistan or India is contemplated at present. I am, however, keeping the situation under review and will take any action necessary.
"War can only be a tragedy for all the people of the sub-continent. I can assure the House that we shall do all within our power to persuade those concerned of this view and of the need to tackle the task of reconciliation."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Marquess for repeating this Statement. The situation seems to he a culmination of many years of fear and suspicion between these countries, and I think it would be wrong for any of us in any way to seek to apportion blame to either side. Certainly I would hope that Her Majesty's Government will make no statement, or do anything, which might in any way diminish what may be an important role for a British Government in mediation between two Commonwealth countries.
We on this side of the House support Her Majesty's Government in their approach at the Security Council, and in particular in not putting forward any resolution of our own at this present moment. I hope the Government will agree that the best course of action now for Her Majesty's Government is quiet work behind the scenes, seeking to bring the various groups within the Security Council together so that they can agree to some resolution that could bring a cease-fire and, in the end, a political settlement in the sub-continent.
I wonder whether the noble Marquess can say anything about a possible arms embargo, and whether any steps could be taken to obtain international support to such an end. I hope that the Government (they may not wish to say so at this moment) are considering ways and means of mounting a considerable aid programme to help not only the many millions who are already in distress but the many more who will be affected as a consequence of the fighting. I presume,
622
too, that Her Majesty's Government are in close contact with the Governments of the Commonwealth, and that throughout this very dangerous and tragic time the Government will always keep Parliament informed upon what is happening.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, we share the deep concern which has been expressed by the noble Marquess and also by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, at the way in which the situation has developed between Pakistan and India. We agree with the Government that the main need now is not for heroic resolutions but for quiet work to try to stop the fighting. May I ask two questions? Are the Government satisfied that we are getting accurate and up-to-date information, and, if not, is there any way of improving the means of communication between India, Pakistan and this country? Secondly, there is a report in the headlines at the moment that five British journalists have been arrested in India. I wonder whether the Minister has anything he can tell us about that.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I ask one question? Does this terrible situation interfere seriously with the relief work which is going on through Oxfam and other organisations? —because such relief work will be needed more than ever at the present time.
THE MARQUESS or LOTHIAN: My Lords, may I answer those noble Lords who have spoken so far? I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Byers, for the way they have received this Statement. I can assure them that I entirely agree that, as I think the Statement says, quiet diplomacy in the United Nations behind the scenes is likely, if anything, to produce the best results; and this is what we are obviously continuing to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked me two or three questions. One concerned the supply of arms and the possibility of an embargo. I can tell him that this is under consideration at the moment by my right honourable friend in the context of what we are trying to do at the United Nations. I entirely accept his remarks about the need for aid, particularly if and when we get a settlement. We are keeping in touch with the Commonwealth Governments on these matters, especially

623
those who are most concerned in the area. Of course Parliament will also be kept informed as to any developments.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, asked me a question which it is a little difficult to answer, as to whether we were satisfied at the amount of information that we are getting. I would not say that one was entirely satisfied, but the position is extremely difficult at the moment. We are looking into it to see whether we can get quicker and more accurate reports. The noble Lord also asked me a question about the five journalists. I understand that the position is (this is what we heard this morning) that these Live journalists have been arrested and have been charged, so we understand, under the Official Secrets Act of India. The High Commission is engaged in efforts in trying to secure their release on bail, but I am afraid that I cannot tell the noble Lord any more at this moment. Naturally our efforts in this regard will continue.
My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye raised a most important point. I think it is impossible to tell him precisely how the fighting is affecting the question of aid to refugees. This obviously depends on where the action is taking place. I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that this is something that we are watching very carefully, and that we shall give any assistance that we can.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, it distresses me if, in anything I say, I find myself having to disagree in any way with a statement that has been made by my colleague, for whom I have the greatest affection and respect. But I find it hard to accept the point of view that we are completely neutral as between India and Pakistan, keeping in mind that there was a democratically elected Government in East Pakistan that was set aside by a military junta. I am sure that everyone in your Lordships' House is agreed that what we want to do is to see an end to the fighting and to give the maximum aid. But I think the world in general has done very little compared with the scale of the need. What I cannot agree to is that there is no difference at all between the attitude of India and that of Pakistan. India had 10 million or 11 million refugees. They had to go back to East Pakistan—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE:—and they could not go back in present circumstances.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I respect the sincerity and depth of the noble Baroness's feelings on this matter, but I think it would be more in accordance with our normal proceedings if she could now ask my noble friend a question.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think I should have said to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on behalf of the Government, that I agree with him that to apportion blame for this particular outbreak of fighting would not be the wisest course at the present time. At the same time, we have always said that a political solution is what is needed in East and West Pakistan, and of course this is something for which we shall strive. But I think the House will agree that we must, first of all, attempt to get the fighting stopped.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, does the Minister recollect that on a number of occasions I have urged Her Majesty's Government to take action and have warned them that it might be too late? Tragically, that now appears to be the case. While recognising that many of us have strong views about the issues which have led to the war, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that many of us also now take the view that the overriding need is to bring the hostilities to an end at the earliest possible moment? In addition. may I ask the Minister this question, which I ask very seriously? In view of the deadlock which has occurred in the Security Council, and which is likely to occur in the General Assembly, will Her Majesty's Government consider two suggestions which might help towards ending this situation? The first is to put the embargo on arms supplies all round, balancing the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe with the U.S.A. and China, to which reference has already been made. Secondly, and more positively, will the Government consider the appointment of a Commission of good offices, composed of representatives of uncommitted nations—one can think of Canada or, in Europe, Sweden or Yugoslavia, or one of the Islam nations of

625
North Africa—to seek a cease-fire combined with a political solution in East Bengal, enabling the refugees to return? Will the Minister consider those two suggestions, which are put forward very seriously in the hope that they may contribute to the ending of the war?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Certainly, my Lords; I recognise the sincerity that lies behind the noble Lord's two suggestions. Of course I undertake to consider them in the spirit in which he has placed them before your Lordships' House, and to pass his suggestion on to my right honourable friend. But I think the House will agree that perhaps the time for that has not quite come. We must still continue our efforts in the United Nations. I am not yet convinced that that is not the way to find a solution.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is it possible to be realistic about this tragic affair? Is the noble Marquess aware that no-one doubts that the Government will use all their power to bring this affair to an end? But is the noble Marquess also aware of the attitude of the Soviet Union, supporting India; of China, supporting Pakistan; and of the United States not knowing where it is, and being in a complete muddle? In that situation, what hope is there of any of the uncommitted nations using influence, if they have any, to bring this affair to an end? Is it not obvious that what should have been done by the Security Council was to act before it began? It now appears to be a bit too late. Nevertheless, is the noble Marquess aware that everybody in this House as well as everybody outside, both in this country and elsewhere, will support the Foreign Secretary and the British Government in the Security Council adopting a realistic attitude and facing the facts, in order to convince the Security Council. China, Russia and the United States—the great Powers—that it is to their advantage, as well as to the advantage of India, Pakistan and the whole world, to bring peace?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think we all share the views expressed in the latter part of his intervention. I am not myself certain that it would have made any difference if the Security Council had been involved earlier, but this is a matter of judgment
626
and argument. But certainly I take the noble Lord's point about what we must do now.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, may I, as one who was in the middle of one of these disputes some years ago, suggest with great sympathy to the noble Lord who spoke last that there is quite unbelievable tenacity about this historic dispute which goes on in that sub-Continent? In that connection, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he would care to comment at all on the possibility of the matter going to the General Assembly, if the deadlock in the Security Council persists?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, this is certainly a distinct possibility. I should not like to say how probable it is, but if the deadlock persists in the Security Council it may be that the matter will be referred to the General Assembly.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is very sad that, contrary to the hopes of so many of us 25 years ago, events have developed in such a way that it is to-day unrealistic to hope that the Commonwealth collectively can arbitrate in a dispute like this? Looking hack to 25 years ago, many of us hoped that when a tragic situation of this kind arose the Commonwealth collectively might be able to do something helpful about it. Does my noble friend agree that it would be a marvellous thing if we could only get back to some situation like that?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, my Lords. I think my noble friend was quite right when he said in his opening remarks that we had gone beyond that stage. It is unfortunate, but I think what lie said is true.

M.P.s AND MINISTERS' PAY AND ALLOWANCES
4.48 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am sure the last thing your Lordships would wish is that I should stand for too long between your Lordships and my noble friend the Paymaster General. But I should like with permission, to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend

627
the Lord President of the Council on the Boyle Report. Mr. Whitelaw's Statement was as follows:
"On December 4 last I announced to the House the Government's intention with all-Party agreement to refer the question of Members' and Ministers' pay to the independent Review Body under the chairmanship of Lord Boyle.
"Accordingly that body was asked by the Government to consider what changes were desirable in the emoluments, allowances and expenses of Ministers of the Crown and Members of the House of Commons, including Mr. Speaker and other holders of remunerated offices in both Houses of Parliament, and in the relevant pension arrangements.
"The Review Body's Report has now been received and is being published to-day. In paragraph 121 of their Report the Review Body state:
'We have been conscious of the declared intention of the present Government to implement our proposals unless there are clear and compelling reasons for not doing so. We have regarded this as placing on us an added responsibility to keep our recommendations for increases and improvements to the absolute minimum which we consider to be necessary. It is in our view of the highest importance that these rcommendations both as they affect salaries and allowances should now be implemented as a whole and in full."
Parenthetically, may I remind noble Lords that there are copies in the Printed Paper Office?
"The Government intends to respond to this strong expression of the Review Body by accepting the proposals of the Report, subject to further discussion with the Parties, and with the House authorities, regarding the detailed implementation of the proposed new allowances for Members.
"The Resolutions on Members' pay and allowances will be introduced to take effect from January 1, 1972. The legislation necessary to give effect to the changes in the salaries of Ministers and other office holders will be introduced shortly so as to permit of increases from April 1, 1972. That dealing with the new pension arrangements will be introduced as soon as possible."
That, my Lords, concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl. This is always a very delicate issue to discuss, and I should like in a moment to say something about allowances in the House of Lords. But perhaps I might first comment briefly after only a quick look at the Report. I am sure that no-one in this House would grudge Members of another place a proper reward, and from what I have seen I would not say that what is proposed for Members of Parliament is anything which could be called in any way excessive. But looking at the office holders, I am a little surprised. It appears that there will be special allowances for Members of Parliament and, as I understand, for Ministers in another place; but once again I think that the Lords in Waiting have not been treated generously. I doubt whether, even now, they are up to what the Lawrence Report recommended. though I have not been able to check on that.
Perhaps I may put one or two questions, speaking as one of the office holders mentioned—the lowest paid, except for my noble friend Lord Beswick, of all the office holders, and therefore not entitled to any of the House of Lords allowances. Indeed, I think it would have paid my noble friend Lord Beswick not to take his salary. I would ask the noble Earl to bear it in mind that there are a number of noble Lords who come here very faithfully and who, with the rising cost of living, are finding it increasingly difficult to come here at all. I feel very strongly about this matter, and I know that the noble Earl, with whom I have discussed it on a number of occasions, is personally sympathetic. May I ask him whether he will make a redoubled effort to overcome the indifference of Ministers to your Lordships' problems; and may I also ask whether any announcement is expected in the near future? If he cannot answer that question. will he at least indicate in some way, if this is possible—by a nod, or something like that—that he is really making a very big effort? I would stress that noble Lords do a great deal of unpaid work in your Lordships' House, and I do not think the present rate of allowances is enough to remunerate them—or, rather I should say, not to remunerate them but even to ensure that they are not out of pocket through being here.

629
May I also raise a point about pensions? Again I have not had a chance to study this Report, but the noble Earl will be aware that it includes proposals for improvements in pensions of Members of Parliament. I welcome those, but here again there are in your Lordships' House a number of former Members of Parliament who are still on the old rate. Ought they not to be brought up to the current rates, as has been done for the Civil Service?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to endorse what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said, but in doing so I should like, on behalf of my noble friends and myself, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, and his colleagues for the admirable and informative Report which they have produced. I would make only one point to the noble Earl the Leader of the House. There is a great deal of public ignorance about the salaries of Members of Parliament, about Ministers' salaries and about office holders' salaries. I am just wondering whether it would not be wiser to have a review at more frequent intervals than once every seven years. In the last seven years the cost of living has gone up 44 per cent., and this means that there will necessarily be—and I stress the word "necessarily"—a substantial increase for all those concerned. To the public, however, it will look as though the increase is excessive, which it certainly is not.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, perhaps I may comment briefly on the remarks which the two noble Lords have made, and thank them meanwhile for their general disposition towards the Statement which I repeated; and in so doing I would reciprocate what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said about the emoluments and allowances of Members of another place. This is a delicate matter, and it is ground on which I do not myself propose to be drawn, other than to say that I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has said about the informative nature of this Report. I think it would be a great mistake, not only for us inside your Lordships' House but above all for the general public, to prejudge this until they have digested the very careful and informative Report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, and his colleagues. I think we are all indebted to
630
the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, and his colleagues for a very thorough Report indeed.
My Lords, as for the particular points on which the two noble Lords asked me questions, may I briefly reply as follows? In the first place, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mentioned the emoluments of Lords in Waiting. Under the Boyle Committee's recommendations, those will rise from£3,000 a year to£4,500 a year, which will be£500 more than the emoluments of other Government Whips in another place.
LORD SHACKLETON: But no allowances.
EARL JELLICOE: But those in the other place have the allowances. All I should like to say is that I am very well aware of the very special requirements which are imposed upon Lords in Waiting in your Lordships' House. I had the honour to give evidence to the Boyle Committee, and I certainly represented that aspect to them; but I think that here and in other respects we must abide by the recommendations of the Boyle Committee.
So far as pension arrangements are concerned, here again the matter is fairly complicated. It is gone into in some detail in paragraphs 114 to 116 of the Committee's Report, and the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition may wish to glance at those paragraphs. At this stage I should like merely to draw his attention to the fact that Ministers in this place will in future, if these recommendations are given effect to, be included in the special pensions arrangements which are foreshadowed in the Boyle Committee's Report.
On the frequency of reviews, I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has said, and he will see that in the final paragraph of the Boyle Committee's Report they suggest that, in future, reviews should be at intervals of not more than four years. I think this is the effect of their recommendation; and, of course, like the other recommendations in the Report, it has been accepted in principle by Her Majesty's Government.
The question of Peers' expenses and allowances was not a matter which fell within the terms of reference of the Boyle Committee. The basis of the

631
allowance was, of course, discussed by the Lawrence Committee; since then the point at issue has been the question of the rate. All I would say is that I am very conscious of the services rendered by noble Lords to Parliament. I am also very conscious of the sacrifices which those services call for from a great many noble Lords. I believe that it would be a great mistake for me to be drawn too far at this stage, and I hope that noble Lords will not wish to pursue this particular point now. I assure them that this matter is very much in my mind at the present time, and I have much in mind the representations which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has just made to me across the Floor of your Lordships' House.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I do not rise to say anything about the office which I hold and which my noble friend embarrassingly mentioned. I had not myself asked for anything, and do not particularly want anything. But I do rise to speak about a body of men and women who have not been met at all in this Report. Practically every Minister or Member has had representations made with regard to emoluments, expenses or allowances excepting those who served in the other place prior to 1964. They are not dealt with at all, and it seems to me that here is what I can only call a conspicuous piece of selfishness on the part of those who made representations. It is said in paragraph 53 that Members who retired before 1964 are not covered by the Member's pension scheme. Those who were still serving at that time and had prior service were accorded service credit to a maximum of 10 years. I should have thought that those who served up to 1964 would have been credited in the same way as those who had one day's or two days' service after 1964. All that they now have by way of pension is from what the Report delicately calls a quasi-benevolent fund. I think that the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal might well give some thought to this. Certain Members of another place who retired before 1964 serve in this House and some do not; but they are part of the Parliamentary fabric and I should think that the noble Earl might see fit to make some representations.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I declare a personal interest and say that it is a fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, pointed out, that those who served in the House of Commons—some, including myself, for over 30 years before the War—get no pension at all and no consideration of any sort or kind. Some of them are pretty hard up. I approached my noble friend Lord Boyle on this subject. He said that it was not strictly within his terms of reference, although he had some sympathy. The question I want to ask the noble Earl is whether the Government, when they consider this Report and before finally deciding on action, will give consideration to those who gave many many years of service in another place before 1964 (some of whom are pretty hard up at the present time), who for reasons quite exceptional, possibly elevation to this House, had to leave that House before 1964 and who get no pension of any kind, however long they have served.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, my noble friends on the Front Bench have called attention to two groups who appear to have been omitted from this Report; namely, the pre-1964 Members of the House of Commons and those Members of this House (and, probably some outside it) who already receive a pension. Would the noble Earl consider a third category which seems to have fallen between two stools: namely, those who served both before 1964 and after 1964, who are qualified but not yet old enough to receive a pension but who, so as far as I can see from a brief reading of the Report, will not qualify for the new arrangements because they apply only to those who are Members of the House of Commons now? Will the noble Earl make representations about that?
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, would the noble Earl consider another category? I make no plea myself, because I do not happen to be hard up like the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. Is the noble Earl aware that I served for far longer than 30 years? I went to the House of Commons in 1922 and actually served 42½ years. Yet I receive the same pension as anybody with 10 years' service who qualified at the age of 65. May I ask whether the noble Earl is aware that those of us who served when expenses were£400 a year and who suffered

633
privations over a long period of years think it about time that some of the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, were made retrospective?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, despite the privations that the noble Lord has suffered, he looks remarkably well. Nevertheless, I should like to say straight away that I have been impressed by the strength and sincerity of the arguments advanced by the last four speakers. I will see that their representations are brought not only to my own attention but to that of my right honourable friends who are intimately concerned with the matter. More than that I cannot undertake; but that I do undertake.

MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES BILL [H.L.]
5.5 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 22, leave out ("by order") and insert ("by statutory instrument which shall be laid before Parliament after being made and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2. This Amendment refers to Clause 1(2) which allows the Secretary of State for Scotland to order, vary or revoke various provisions concerning any enactments, contracts, trust deeds or other instruments. I am not clear from the wording in the Bill whether there is any appeal against such an order. The wording merely says: "he may by order vary or revoke such provisions". I should like to ask the Minister whether a Statutory Instrument could be laid before Parliament which would be subject to annulment if the Secretary of State wishes to make an order of this kind. I am particularly concerned about this because the Nathan Report (mentioned by the noble Viscount on Second Reading) when referring to procedure in Scotland says in paragraph 347:
"After a scheme has been confirmed by the Secretary of State, the governing body of the trust may petition the Court of Session for an amendment of the scheme or for the substitution of a new scheme, and in amending the scheme or framing a new scheme the Court have the like powers as are conferred on the Secretary of State by the Act.
634
Alternatively the governing body or certain other interested persons or bodies may petition the Secretary of State to have the scheme laid before Parliament. In the latter case either House may pray Her Majesty to withhold approval of the scheme or part of it. It will be noted that this procedure gives jurisdiction to the Court of Session to decide questions of law and procedure and to Parliament to decide questions of policy …"
As the question of admission charges would appear to be a question of policy, I wonder whether this comes into the ambit of the second alternative proposed by the Nathan Committee. I shall be interested in what the noble Viscount has to say on this. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: The Committee will realise that I am not an expert on Scottish law, but I will do my best to respond to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. The procedure in England is that where an Act of Parliament has to be varied in order to make a scheme for a charitable trust the Secretary of State must do this by Statutory Instrument. Turning to Scotland, there is one Act of a local nature passed in 1855 which has to be varied in respect of the Royal Scottish Museum. That is one of the museums which we call "Departmental" and which is run by the Secretary of State. But my right honourable friend the Secretary of State wishes to act in this case by Statutory Instrument because he has to vary a local Act of 1855. If the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment we are quite prepared to bring forward an Amendment to provide that where the Secretary of State has to vary an Act of Parliament for the purposes of this Bill he will do it by Statutory Instrument.
Turning to the other variations of the trusts which will be required in Scotland in order to bring in the system of charges, they do not involve an Act of Parliament; and we think that they are best made by order. I will try to describe the procedure in Scotland, which I have had to look up within the last two days. When a body of trustees in Scotland wish to have a new scheme made to vary some provision in their trust it can be done by the trustees going to the Scottish courts. It is a lengthy procedure, but no doubt it is done in that way. I imagine that that was the state of affairs as described in the Nathan Report, dated, I think, 1950. Since then, and I believe during

635
the time of the last Government, the Secretary of State has taken special powers to make orders when he is varying charitable trusts pertaining to educational endowments. In other words, he has the same power, when it is an educational endowment, to make an order without going to the courts. But his powers do not extend to charitable trusts formed in relation to works of art, whereas the powers of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, being embodied in our 1960 Charities Act, do so extend; in fact they are much wider. In the next Amendment we shall come to the question, which the noble Lord wishes to raise, whether the provisions of the English 1960 Act should apply to Scotland.
We do not think it is worth while, for the sake of, I think it is, two cases, both concerned with paintings—the Torrie Collection and the collection of Turner drawings—to change the procedure; we take the view that this can be done by order. Noble Lords will appreciate that the applicant for the change in the trust will be the National Gallery of Scotland, because they are the Trustees. It is they who will come to the Secretary of State and say, "We cannot do what you want us to do—that is, to introduce a system of charges—if a very small proportion of our collections are subject to trusts, one of 1845 and the other of 1900, which stipulate that these particular objects should be shown free of charge". Therefore, in order that the policy which has been laid down shall work, they will apply to the Secretary of State and he will make the order. Since that is, not exactly but roughly, the equivalent of what my right honourable friend Mrs. Thatcher will do in relation to any such trust pertaining to the national museums in England, it seems to me that it is sufficient to leave the Bill as it stands. But we will introduce an Amendment to provide that the Secretary of State shall proceed by Statutory Instrument in cases where he has to alter an Act of a local nature. Therefore, if the noble Lord will now agree to withdraw his Amendment, I will put down an Amendment which embodies the change I have mentioned to bring the Scottish practice as near in line as we can under this Bill.
LORD GARDINER: I wonder whether the Minister can help us any further with regard to the cases where it is not necessary to alter an enactment. If he has already said anything to cover this on the previous Amendment, I apologise. Owing to the fact that I have been sitting judicially this afternoon, I regret that I did not hear the earlier speeches. On the face of it, this is a strong thing to do, is it not? A man is charitable, generous and patriotic; he owns a valuable collection of pictures which he gives, in his lifetime, to a gallery, or leaves it to the gallery on his death. He can of course attach such conditions as he likes, including, as I understand is the case in respect of some of the Scottish ones in particular, a condition that the pictures are shown to the public free of charge. The gallery, on its part, is in no way obliged to accept the gift. If it thinks the conditions are too onerous it can decline the gift. If it accepts the gift it is, I apprehend, both illegal and dishonourable for the gallery to take the pictures and then break the conditions in the man's lifetime; and it is probably legal, but also dishonourable, to wait until his death and then break the conditions.
The clause as it is now drafted means, as I understand it, that, in the case of any such contract or declaration of trust, a Minister, without Parliamentary approval, can simply make an order validating the breach of contract or breach of trust. It is of course true that under the Charities Acts both the Commissioners, and also, in some cases, Ministers can make orders varying trusts. I am not an authority on the Charities Acts, but the noble Viscount referred on Second Reading to the Charities Act 1960 as being his authority. That was not one made during the lifetime of the last Government, as he has just said. I have looked at that Act, and while it is true that orders can be made, there are rights of appeal to the courts; and while regulations can be made by Ministers, those regulations, so far as I have followed the Act, have to be made by Statutory Instruments which are subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. It is, I suggest, a strong thing for a Minister, without any reference to Parliament at all, to be able to make an order of this kind. If I may say so, in this century,

637
whatever Party is in power, there has been an increasing tendency for an increase in the powers of the Executive at the expense of Parliament. The question I should particularly like to ask is: what real objection is there to a Minister making an order by Statutory Instrument and subjecting it to the Negative Resolution procedure?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I have some sympathy with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has said. I have always held the view that unless we respect the wishes of donors we may not get so much given to museums. But now I am on the other side of the table and I have, as best I can, to explain what is the position. I think I am right in saying that the change in the law, made quite recently in Scotland relative to educational endowments, took away the obligation to lay a Statutory Instrument. That is to say, if some testator or body of people established a school for one purpose, and it turns out that there are not any children of that kind left, you go to the Secretary of State and you get a variation, and it is done, I understand, in roughly the same way as the Charity Commissioners do in England. When the Charity Commissioners act under the 1960 Act, no Statutory Instrument is laid before Parliament. The problem raised by the Amendment is whether we should oblige the Secretary of State to proceed by Statutory Order in respect of all kinds of variations that are to be made on account of introducing charges, or only when those variations require a change in an existing Act, even of a local nature. We have considered this problem in the short time available to us and thought it right to meet the point in the Amendment for cases when the Secretary of State has to vary an Act, because this requirement is still laid on the Secretary of State for Education and Science. On the other hand, we thought it was reasonable to assimilate trusts in relation to works of art to the procedure which is now the procedure in Scotland in relation to educational endowments. This is really a matter of Scots law for the Scots themselves but it seems perfectly reasonable to me, if the noble Lord will agree to withdraw this Amendment, that we should take it back and discuss it with the Law Officers advising my right honourable friend the Secretary of State
638
for Scotland on the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. I think it would be unwise for me to wade in further on a subject of which I know very little.
LORD AIREDALE: The Minister told us earlier that in the case of the National Gallery of Scotland it would be the Trustees of the Gallery who would come forward and make the application. May I ask whether in fact the Trustees have any discretion in this matter at all or whether we shall have another situation exactly similar to that in subsection (1), in which the Trustees will simply be told by Her Majesty's Government, "You had better come forward and make this application—or else"?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: That is not really the way in which the relations between the Scottish Office and the Trustees of the National Gallery of Scotland are carried on. As the noble Earl, Lord Crawford and Balcarres, has said, once the decision of Parliament is made, they must carry it out as best they can. This is an extraordinarily complex matter. It appears that if someone leaves a picture to a gallery, with the provision that it is to be seen free, it means that only that picture should be seen free. We had a case of that kind, when His late Majesty King George V left some uniforms to the National Maritime Museum on condition that they be seen free. If they are put in a case in the hall alongside the turnstiles, the museum can comply with that provision. But the lawyers tell me that it is difficult to say what this word "free" means in some of these old documents. I think that it would be the commonsense view of any body of trustees, which had a large collection which they wished to display to the public, that the whole system of access by the public to that museum which was now to be arranged should not be held up because of only one or two objects out of the whole collection. It is for that reason that I think it is expected that the Trustees of the National Gallery of Scotland will apply for this variation. This is a serious thing, which one does not like to do. But it is done almost every day, because the present is not the same as the past, and the conditions which testators would have approved of in the past they would probably not approve of now. We have

639
to have some system of bringing these things up-to-date.
LORD AIREDALE: It is very curious that lawyers have such difficulty in knowing what the word "free" means when everybody else knows exactly what it means.
LORD STOW HILL: May I make a small technical point and apologise for it? Perhaps I misunderstood what the noble Viscount said. In inviting my noble friend to ask leave to withdraw his Amendment on the basis that the Government would consider an Amendment with regard to subsection (1), which would require the Minister to proceed by statutory order if and in so far as the imposition of charges would involve the contravention or alteration of an enactment, I thought he said that it would not be necessary to make that provision with regard to subsection (2). He drew a distinction between the trustees of works of art and of educational trusts, and I thought he was saying that in order to proceed under subsection (2) it would not be necessary to contravene an enactment and, therefore. that the proposed Amendment would not have to apply to subsection (2). I daresay I have got the noble Viscount wrong, but I notice that the language of the subsection says:
In so far as the provisions of any enactment. contract, trust deed or other instrument are, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, inconsistent with the making of charges for admission…"
That would seem to suggest that at any rate in some cases in connection with Scotland it would be necessary for the Amendment to apply to both subsections.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: The subsection refers only to Scotland and I was unaware that the Amendment had any effect whatever on subsection (1). It is because there is this one single enactment in Scotland that needs to be varied that we are suggesting that line 22 should read that the Secretary of State may vary by Statutory Instrument or, in some cases, by order.
LORD STOW HILL: I am very much obliged and entirely understand.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am very grateful to the Minister for his explanation and also to my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, to my noble friend
640
Lord Stow Hill and to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for their remarks. I am heartened by what the Minister has said and of course I will withdraw my Amendment. He gave only a qualified promise and we shall wish to study the rest of his remarks. On Second Reading the noble Viscount mentioned the Erskine Collection in Edinburgh and gave the impression that that had been transferred to the National Gallery of Scotland. I am informed that this is not so; that it is still the property of the University of Edinburgh but is on permanent loan. It was a stipulation of the original will, when these paintings were bequeathed, that they should be shown free; and, not only that, but also that all the other paintings with them should be exhibited free as well. So this Bill will seek to alter that. As we can return to the problems of the Eskine Collection and of other collections in Edinburgh on a subsequent Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert—
("(3) For the purposes of any order made under the preceding subsection, the Charities Act 1960 shall apply to Scotland.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is put down for information. On Second Reading the noble Viscount said that Clause 1(1) is necessary because the Charities Act 1960 does not apply to Scotland. The Amendment seeks to make it apply for the purposes of this order. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: This Amendment really does land us into very deep water. I am advised that we cannot apply the relevant sections of the English Charities Act to Scotland. It seems to me that the procedures which we follow in England have some attractions, because notice has to be given that a scheme is going to be made, how the public can make inquiries about it and where they may see a draft of the scheme. The Charity Commissioners go through all that process before the Secretary of State for Education and Science or the Secretary of State for Wales makes an order.
This all starts from a definition of "charity". Obviously, if you do not

641
know what "charity" is, you cannot put this procedure into operation. I am advised that there is no definition of "charity" in Scotland. They manage their affairs extremely well, as we know—better than we do in most cases—but this is a mystery to me. But they have several types of procedure which I have mentioned before. In Scotland you can go straight to the courts if you want to get a variation. There is power under the educational endowments for the Secretary of State to do it by order. But you could not, so I am advised, transfer to Scotland a large lump of our Act: I am told that there some of the words do not mean the same thing, and so on. Anything of that nature would require long consideration if at any time the Secretary of State thought it wise to bring in a new Charities Act for Scotland. Of course, I have not the slightest idea whether such a thing would commend itself to my right honourable friend. However, I have to tell the Committee that the advice I have, which is of an extremely firm nature, is that it simply would not legally be possible to make the whole of our Act apply to Scotland.
Therefore, when a trust has to be varied in relation to some collection that has been given to a Scottish museum, we have to find a procedure that satisfies us that it is adequate and just. We were talking about that matter on the previous Amendment. I am inclined to think that we shall have a procedure which will meet with approval if we make the small change that we proposed in the previous Amendment and leave the Secretary of State to make his orders, according to the procedures which he now adopts when he is carrying out his changes for educational endowments.
LORD GARDINER: Am I not right in thinking that under the English law of charity, and, for all I know, in relation to educational trusts in Scotland, if you apply to the court you have to establish a case? It is not good enough just to say that the circumstances are now somewhat different and it is convenient if you can get rid of an obligation which hitherto you have had to accept. In particular, in the case of the British Museum, where we know that no charges have been made since its foundation—and this has gone on through two world wars, in good times
642
and in bad times—it would be a little difficult, I should have thought, to satisfy the court that, because the Government wanted to put pressure on Trustees to make charges which the Trustees did not want to make, this was a good reason why somebody who had left a collection of pictures to a gallery on the express terms, accepted by the Trustees, that they would be shown free, should have this term varied.
I think the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, is saying that, apart from a case where it is necessary to vary an enactment, what will happen is that, whatever the Trustees want, the Minister will say to them: "As you know, your money comes from me, and just as I insisted on your making charges, now I must deal with clearing up the contract you have made that you will show them free." Nobody will know about this. He will not have to go to any court, and he will not have to lay anything before Parliament. The whole thing would be done, and the declaration for trust varied, without anybody knowing it. What is the objection to his saying what he has done and putting it before Parliament for decision by Negative Resolution procedure?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: If the Secretary of State is thought to have behaved improperly, he can be taken to the courts now. The application will be made by the Trustees of the National Gallery of Scotland. If they thought that the Secretary of State had not even bothered to read the papers, or could prove some form of improper behaviour, they could now, under the ordinary law of Scotland, bring him into court. But since it is going to be part and parcel of the way in which access to the collections as a whole is to be conducted in future, so long as the Secretary of State pursues the sort of procedure that we have in England, that will be all right. Whether he will do that, and how far he will go into it, I am afraid I do not know.
This Amendment was put down on Friday when I was out of London, and I have had only Monday morning in which to look at it. I do not think this is a particularly serious matter, because we are advised that there are only these three cases. In the one case, that of the Torrie pictures, the noble Lord is perfectly right: there has been a long standing dispute between the university and

643
the National Gallery as to who owns these pictures. We do not really know. I believe that there is a notice under each one now, to the effect that although the picture is hanging in the National Gallery, it really belongs to the university. But there is some difference of opinion here. Then there is the collection of Turner drawings. Here I think everybody will know, after all that has gone on about this Bill, that it will not be a matter of mystery that the National Gallery is applying for a variation of the bequest. I am sorry, but I cannot give the exact procedure by which the Secretary of State makes his orders. I know, however, that he makes them in this manner, without any Statutory Instrument, for all variations in the educational endowments. That is not something new.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for what he said. I am sure we shall wish to study it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.37 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Power of Court to annul or amend institution's determination to make charges for admission.
(".—(1) Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Act, if the trustees or other governing body of any of the institutions to which this Act relates determine to make charges for admission to any such institution whether or not they so determine in pursuance of or in consequence of any order made by the Secretary of State under the provisions contained in subsection (2) of section 1 of this Act or of any exercise by the Commissioners of any of the powers conferred upon them by the Charities Act 1960 or otherwise, the High Court in the case of any such institution situate in England or Wales and the Court of Session in the case of any such institution situate in Scotland shall have power upon application being made to the Court in that behalf in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) below to annul or amend any such determination in such respects as shall seem just to the Court, if the grounds set out in subsection (3) below are established.
(2) Any such application as is mentioned in the preceding subsection shall be made by any person or persons having an interest whether legal or equitable under the terms of any contract, trust deed or other instrument
644
affecting property which is exhibited or which it is intended to exhibit for public view in any institution to which this Act relates and not by any other person or persons.
(3) The grounds referred to in subsection (1) above are that to make charges in pursuance of any such determination would be contrary to the wishes express or implied or to any direction express or implied of any settlor or testator of such property in any such contract, trust deed or other instrument under the terms of which such property was settled or bequeathed to an unreasonable extent and it shall be presumed that the making of such charges was to an unreasonable extent contrary to such wishes or direction unless it is shown that there were special reasons which made it necessary or expedient to make such charges.")
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 7, which deals with the insertion of provision for the power of the court to annul or amend an institution's determination to make charges for admission. This of course is a similar field to that covered by the Amendments that we have been discussing earlier. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. said that he thought that the Charities Act was working satisfactorily. In some instances. I would disagree with that. For example, the case I have in mind is the recent sale under the terms of the Charities Act, of the Dominican from the Dulwich Art Gallery. This was part of a collection of a man called Bourgeois, donated in 1810 in the Dulwich Art Gallery. He had originally wished to leave it to the British Museum, but he heard that they had powers of sale—which they had at that time—and he changed his mind. The painting remained at the Dulwich Art Gallery until earlier this year. Then the trustees decided that they wanted to raise some money, and they applied to the Secretary of State for Education and Science to sell the painting. The Secretary of State, without, to my knowledge, consulting anybody (and I am glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, is here, because he is a member of the Standing Committee on Museums and Galleries), not even the Standing Committee on Museums and Galleries, gave her permission for the sale to go ahead. Of course there was a happy ending, because Scotland stepped in, not for the first time, and bought the painting for Edinburgh, where I am glad to say it remains. If it had not been for Scotland's action, of course, the painting might have been sold abroad.
Here, it seems to me, is a case where the trustees want something and the Secretary of State agrees without asking anybody, and members of the public and interested parties—even bodies such as the National Art Collections Fund—seem to have no redress. Therefore this Amendment seeks to give the right to appeal to the High Court in England and Wales and in the Court of Session in Scotland. This is a rather broader Amendment than the other two because it gives the right to any of the museums and galleries in the United Kingdom, and not just those in Scotland.
The second subsection details the persons who can make this appeal, and the third sets out the grounds on which it can be made. I am very concerned that under the present wording of the Bill the Secretary of State may have the power to override the expressed wishes of the testators, as the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, has said, even with the concurrence of the trustees; and some future Paymaster General or Secretary of State may come to the trustees and say, "Unless you override the terms of this trust we won't give you any money." As the noble Viscount has made clear throughout, the trustees' actions are dependent on the Government's providing money, and I think this is causing considerable concern. So I would submit to the Committee that there is a case for some appeal provision to be written into the Bill. I beg leave to move the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I think that if the Committee will look at this clause it will be seen that we really cannot go as far as this Amendment goes, in giving to courts power which should properly remain with Parliament. The new clause says that, where a scheme of charges has been made which requires some variation in one of the trusts covering some part of the collections, if somebody should object (and I will come in a moment to possible objectors) the matter shall go to the High Court; and the High Court is given power to annul or amend the scheme. But, of course, the charges are not being made in respect of the one picture or ten pictures, or whatever may be the number in the collection or trust which is being varied. The scheme of charges is for the whole
646
museum, and to give the High Court the power to alter, or even annul, the whole scheme of charges is really to transfer a question of policy from the Government to the Court. It might be perfectly reasonable to ask the Court whether the case made for varying the trust was, in their opinion, right or not. There is an appeal to the Court now, under Section 18(11) of the Charities Act on that point. But to allow persons to go to the Court and say, "We want you to tell us whether there are to be charges or not"; or, what is in a way even worse, "We think the charges are too high because the testator would not have minded lop but the charge is 20p", and then to give the Court the power it would have under this Amendment to change the scale of charges is something which I think noble Lords would not want to put into a Bill.
Subsection (2) of the Amendment says that:
"Any such application as is mentioned in the preceding subsection shall be made by any person or persons having an interest whether legal or equitable under the terms of any contract, trust deed or other instrument affecting property which is exhibited or which it is intended to exhibit to the public view…"
and so on. Now I am informed that there would not be anybody in this country who could apply, because there are no contracts which affect property in this way and it would always be the case that the only people who could make application would be the trustees; and they would be the gallery concerned, and would not make it unless they wanted it to be made. I do not know if I am right, but it looks as though there is a suggestion that somebody might make an application—it might be some relation of the family, or a person having an interest, legal, equitable or something of that kind. But the Court, I am advised, would not recognise any such person. It would recognise only the people who were entrusted with the property. If I make a trust of a cigarette box and present it to a museum, I cannot afterwards say that I have the power to wish to vary that trust. I have given the box away, and there would not be anybody who could apply under Section 2 in England. I do not know exactly what happens in Scotland: I have not been able to find out. I also think it would be extremely

647
difficult to judge what was an unreasonable extent of varying a trust. Altogether I would simply rest my observations on this particular Amendment on the fact that we could not hand over to the courts the power either to vary the rates of charges or to annul the whole scheme. Therefore, although I appreciate what the noble Lord wants to do, which is to have every possible safeguard so that there is no abuse of a trust in relation to works of art, I must advise the Committee that this is not the way to do it.
5.48 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: I am sorry to detain your Lordships on this Amendment. but I cannot help thinking that perhaps upon further examination the noble Viscount may think that there is more merit in it than he obviously thinks at the moment. The purpose of the Amendment is one which I think would be generally accepted by the House. Supposing that a settlor, a testator or somebody who wishes to settle property—say, a collection of valuable pictures—on trust settles it upon trustees upon terms that the trustees will cause the pictures to be exhibited without any charge being made to the public or to other persons for looking at those pictures. Let us assume that is the situation. I thought, especially from the Committee's response to my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, that your Lordships were very sympathetic as a whole to the idea, which I certainly would propound myself, that where a settlor has clearly expressed a wish of that sort it should, unless it is inevitable that it cannot be regarded, be taken into account and observed. There is, I think, something rather repugnant in the idea that if somebody settles upon trustees, upon trust, a collection of valuable pictures, which are perhaps in a gallery or some other place, to be exhibited free of charge to anybody who wishes to look at them and enjoy them, the settlor's wishes can be wholly disregarded. I really do not think there is as much difficulty about this Amendment as the noble Viscount says.
What does the Amendment propose? I was told by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi of a settlor who settled a collection of pictures, and it was his clear wish
648
that no charge should be made for looking at those pictures. In that case, supposing those who run the gallery decide to make a charge to the public for looking at pictures, including those pictures, any person who comes within the category of persons described in subsection (2) may make an application to the High Court, in the case of an English trust, or to the Court of Session in the case of a Scottish trust. He has to show that he comes within the scope of subsection (2), and in order to establish that he has to show that he has either a legal or an equitable interest in those pictures, in that settled property, under the terms (if I may speak compendiously) of an instrument; namely, a deed of trust, affecting those pictures. He may be one of the trustees for the time being; the trust may have been executed a hundred years ago, and successive trustees may have been appointed. If he is one of those trustees, he fans within the description of a person who has a legal interest in those pictures under the terms of that trust affecting those pictures. I do not think there is much difficulty about that.
He may be a beneficiary under the trust; a gallery may be a beneficiary. Somebody could have an equitable interest as a beneficiary administering, or taking part with others in administering, the affairs of the gallery. He would have an equitable interest under the terms of the trust affecting those pictures. If he establishes that he comes within the category of persons described in subsection (2), he can apply to the appropriate court, but he will get no relief unless he can establish the grounds set out in subsection (3). The relief that he asks for is that the determination to impose charges should be altered, or disallowed. In order to obtain that relief, what he has to show is that the determination to impose charges contravenes the wishes of the original settlor to an unreasonable extent. The settlor in an assumed case says, "I wish my pictures to be enjoyed by the public for ever free of charge." The assumed determination entirely disregards that and imposes a substantial charge. He will not obtain any relief from the court unless he shows that that order is unreasonable; that the determination to impose charges conflicts with the settlor's wishes to an unreasonable extent.

649
If the noble Viscount will look at the remaining wording of the Amendment, he will see that the onus is thrown upon those who wish to impose the charges of establishing to the satisfaction of the court that it is next to inevitable that the charges should be imposed. The relevant words are:
"… it shall be presumed that the making of such charges was to an unreasonable extent contrary to such wishes or direction unless it is shown"—
that is, where the onus is shifted—
"that there were special reasons which made it necessary or expedient to make such charges".
There may well be special reasons. It may be the case that it is quite impossible to maintain the gallery without making those charges. It may be the case that the pictures in question are a small and unimportant part of the display in the gallery. On the other hand, you may have a case where it cannot be shown that it is essential to make the charges, or essential to make the charges in respect of every day of the week. It may be sufficient to make the charges for four or five days in the week; or the actual charges may be lower than those proposed. If you have a gallery in which the pictures in question form the substantial and major part of the collection, there is a prima facie reason for much reluctance in going against the wishes of the testator. If the gallery in substance is centred upon his collection, and it has been his wish that no charges should be made, and it cannot be shown that it is necessary in order to maintain the finances of the gallery to make a charge in respect of every day in the week on which the pictures are exhibited, the court may well think that it will be quite sufficient if the charges are made on four out of seven days of the week, and alter the determination accordingly. I hope that the noble Viscount will give some further thought to this matter. This is an Amendment which is modest in scope. It is not one which is designed to overturn in most cases the whole order; it is simply designed to apply to the case where it can be shown that those responsible for the determination are flouting to an unnecessary and unreasonable extent the clearly expressed desire of the person who collected the pictures and settled them under the terms of a trust. I hope that
650
the noble Lord will say that he will be able to give the matter further consideration.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I am not a lawyer, but the lawyers who advised me this morning said exactly the opposite to what the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has now said. As a layman, I must stick to the basic objection. There is already an appeal to the courts against an order which the Secretary of State may make for making a new scheme. The appeal may be made if it is thought that the order is unreasonable, or perhaps the behaviour of the Secretary of State improper, or something of that kind. In the 1960 Act provision is already made for an appeal to the courts. But the matter under consideration is quite different. This is saying to the courts that, in respect of one variation of a trust, the High Court, Her Majesty's Judges, shall have the power to amend the whole scheme of charges for the gallery.
In most cases, as I said before, it will appear that the words in the testator's will mean, "I charge you to show this object free to the public". But that does not cover everything in the museum. Why should the courts be able to lay down a policy and change rates of entrance fees? I think the noble Lord must consider whether this is a proper job for the courts. Unless I am badly advised, I believe that what the noble Lord said about the phrase "legal or equitable" is dubious. It is a phrase which does not exist in Scotland, so we could not apply this part of the Bill to Scotland. I understand that the trustees are the people who have the legal interest in a trust. They will make the application, so they will not take it to the court. The people who have the equitable interest are loosely described as the "beneficiaries". I believe it is true—and I looked up this matter as quickly as I could this morning—that if you take a case like the London Library, where there are subscribers, the subscribers might be considered to have a beneficial interest in the Library, and they might possibly come into this. I am advised that no court would recognise anybody who visited a museum as having a beneficial interest under a particular trust. Therefore, it looks as though I was right in what I said before: that there will he no applicants under this. In other words,

651
putting the matter in common language, this will not work.
I appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, not to ask us to give over to the courts the determination of the whole scheme of charges because one part of the collection—small or considerable, I am not arguing about the size—is subject to a trust which the trustees themselves have asked to have varied in order that the charges scheme may work. I do not think that is reasonable, and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: I wonder whether the noble Viscount would answer this point? He said that there would normally be no beneficiaries that could be defined. But supposing someone had left either a collection of books, instruments, or any form of collection, specifically with the idea that the collection would be available to the people who were being trained in or interested in that subject? I take as an example a distinguished surgeon in Newcastle who had built up what I believe was one of the finest collections of surgical books in the world. He left this collection, or gave it, to the University Library in Newcastle. He gave it on the clear understanding that this collection was kept together as one collection, obviously to be used for the benefit of those people who were interested in surgery—in other words, students and so on. Surely, if one were, for some reason or another, to charge, or to deny access to, those people who ought to benefit from this gift, they would be the beneficiaries who could claim that their rights had been interfered with. Am I not right?
6.1 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: In the scheme of charging we have done exactly what the noble Lord wants. Anyone who can show that he is a student of the particular collection of books will not be charged. An obvious case is the Art Library at the Victoria and Albert Museum, which is a very fine art library, and one would not be able to have access to that Art Library unless one went through the Museum. We have already said, for the exact reason which the noble Lord referred to—because we are certain this is right for purely educational purposes of
652
that kind, for pursuing a particular interest—that a man should not be charged, and it is already one of the exemptions.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: And would this apply also if, say, a set of instruments had been left for exhibition in a museum, or if a particular set of paintings had been left for exhibition in a gallery, and these had been specially brought together with the idea that they were an educational set?
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I wonder whether the noble Lord realises what he is trying to encourage and how a bequest of that kind can be an absolute disaster in a library and a bane to a librarian. A good collection of medical books or any other books is one entity, and if a small part of that is left by somebody with instructions that all the books are kept together, the whole library, from the point of view of the man who wants to go and browse there, can well be ruined in this regard, because books will be separated into this one collection when they ought to be cheek by jowl with others of the same nature in another part of the library. If in fact this Amendment is going to try to perpetuate a disastrous bequest of that kind, which can do so much harm to a library and so much harm to a museum, I can only say that I am sure that the noble Lord if he went into a library would not wish to see that happen.
LORD STRABOLGI: Of course we have noted carefully what the noble Viscount has said. I must say I was impressed by the intervention of my noble friend Lord Stow Hill, who I may say has given me much useful and helpful advice over the drafting of this Amendment which was quite beyond my powers. The noble Lord pleaded for more compromise. That is really what we need. The noble Viscount asked, "Why should the court have the right to lay down policy?". No one is asking the court to do that. On the other hand, there may be some compromise that could be arrived at. In the case of the Erskine pictures the noble Viscount really cannot do much about these because they are not the property of the National Gallery of Scotland over which he has jurisdiction; they are the property of the University of Edinburgh.

653
The University has absolute right to withdraw them at any time. I have reason to believe that the University might be prepared to allow them to remain there on condition that there was one free day a week, for example, which would not be unacceptable to the National Gallery of Scotland. That is the kind of compromise that could be arrived at, possibly by an independent appeal to the court. I think we shall probably wish to consider this matter between now and Report stage. I am grateful to the Minister for all the trouble he has taken to explain both this Amendment and the previous Amendments, which were very complicated and technical. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Short title]:
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 23, after ("Galleries") insert ("Admission Charges").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to extend and alter the Title of the Bill to make it more accurate and to describe more closely what it attempts to do. If it is acceptable to your Lordships, the Bill will then become the Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges) Bill. It seems to me that the term of the present Short Title, Museums and Galleries Bill, does not in any way described what this Bill is trying to do, which is to remove impediments to the making of charges and so on. I feel, and have felt for some years, very strongly that Titles of Bills should describe their contents wherever possible. I have the strongest objection to the modern fashion for euphemisms in this field.
We had a useful precedent in connection with the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. This started life in the time of the last Government as the Consumer Protection Bill. We had long discussions on this matter during the passage of the so-called Consumer Protection Bill through this House, and mainly due to the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, when the Bill came back from the other place, where the Government had refused to alter the Title, they eventually agreed to its alteration. It has been a matter of great congratulation to
654
the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, ever since, because, as he was able to prove, that Bill was not only for the protection of consumers; it was for the protection of manufacturers, traders, advertisers, and so on. Every previous Bill of that kind had always been called a Trade Descriptions Bill and that measure merely followed that tradition. Similarly, I should have thought that in the future, in view of indexing and so on, it will cause great confusion if this Bill is entitled simply the Museums and Galleries Act. Looking through an index one would have no idea what it related to. It might be about anything to do with museums and galleries and works of art. This Amendment is what I hope is a constructive attempt to give the Bill a more accurate Title. I beg to move.
LORD AIREDALE: I am very glad to support this Amendment. There are many aspects of museums and galleries which are much more interesting than merely admission charges. Any student or research worker researching for the legislation affecting museums and galleries would be grateful for the words "Admission Charges" in brackets, because he would then be able to say to himself straight away, "Well, I am not interested in that and I shall not have to look that one up."
VISCOUNT ECCLES: Christmas is coming, and the Government are very glad to accept the Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am grateful to the noble Viscount and am particularly glad that the Committee stage is ending on this happy note.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendment.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (BUSI NESS COMPENSATION) BILL [H.L.]
6.10 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The only interest I have to declare is that I have spent much of my working life in retail distribution, but I should add

655
that the organisations which I served generally owned the properties which they occupied; they seldom took leases, and indeed they let the properties which were surplus to their requirements. They were therefore landlords rather than tenants, and it was when acting for the landlord that I became aware of the problems of the tenant. I would also say that I hold no office in any organisation which would benefit from this Bill, nor have I any financial interest which would be improved by the Bill.
For the benefit of noble Lords who may not have had an opportunity of studying the Bill, I would explain that it refers to business and professional tenancies rather than to residential tenancies. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1944, Section 30, there are laid down seven grounds upon which a landlord can oppose the renewal of a tenancy. Section 37 states that in three cases, and in three cases only, there shall be a right to compensation, and it specifies the compensation. I would like to deal with these three cases and with the compensation. The first case is where the property has been let in parts and the landlord has opposed a renewal of any of the tenancies on the grounds that he can let the property as a whole at a substantially increased rent. I would point out that the word "substantially" is not mine; it is the word in the Statute. Therefore we can assume that in that case the landlord will have substantially increased income from the property as a result of the termination of the tenancies.
The second case is where the landlord opposes the renewal of a tenancy because he wishes to redevelop the properties. In that case he is obviously going to make better use of the site with a view to getting an increased income from the property. The third case is where the landlord opposes the renewal of a tenancy because he wishes to occupy the property himself. In that case he must have been the landlord for at least five years. But it will be obvious to everybody that this is a particularly dangerous proposition because it means that a competitor can see that a useful business is being carried on in a certain place; he can, without the knowledge of the tenant, negotiate the purchase of the property and then, after he has been the landlord for five
656
years, when the lease comes up for renewal he can oppose it and he can take over the business for the meagre compensation that is mentioned in the 1954 Act.
I come now to the compensation. Where the landlord has opposed the tenancy on any of those three grounds the compensation is twice the rateable value if the tenancy has existed for 14 years or more. In all other cases it is only the rateable value. To make matters worse, we live in the post-war period in an inflationary economy, and the rateable value is pretty well always out of date. It takes about two years to prepare a valuation list, and that work is commenced on returns which have already been made; so the valuation list is generally two years out of date when it is introduced. If, as at the present time, we have a valuation every 10 years, then the least the valuation list is out of date is two years, the maximum is 12 years, and the average is seven years. If, as I understand is probable, we go back to the quinquennial valuation, then the valuation list is two years out of date when it is introduced, at the end of the five years it is seven years out of date and on the average it is four and a half years out of date. In an inflationary economy that can drastically reduce the compensation which the tenant receives. It has been my experience that on the average the rateable value is equal to about five or six weeks' profit in a business which is—and I would put it no higher than this—satisfactorily managed. If that be so, then the maximum compensation of twice the rateable value is less than three months' profit. The principal purpose of this Bill is to increase that to six months.
Let us look now at the losses which the tenant has to bear if his tenancy is terminated. There three kinds of losses that he has to bear: first the loss occasioned by disturbance. He has to move his stock to a new place, if he can find one; he has to dismantle his fittings, transport them and reinstall them in the new place, and in the meantime he is probably not able to carry on his business. Therefore under this heading alone he could have a loss which could be hundreds of pounds. The second loss which the tenant has to face is the loss of the future benefit of the money that

657
he has had to invest in the property. It has always been the practice to expect the retailer to put in the shop front, but in recent times he has usually been expected to do more. For example, in new developments the trader often rents only a shell. He is expected to put in not only the shop front but also to give the floor, the walls and the ceiling their finishes. Sometimes the electricity, water and gas arc merely brought to the premises and the tenant has to do his own plumbing and his own wiring. Therefore he can have a substantial amount invested in the property. The law takes the view that if he is obliged by the lease to do this he will presumably have a lower rent, and Section 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 provides that where he has these obligations as part of the lease he cannot claim that they are improvements. He can get no compensation because they are improvements, but if his tenancy is terminated he loses the future benefit of this expenditure. Furthermore, if he is fortunate in being able to find a suitable place to which he can go he may then have to bear the whole of this expenditure over again to make the premises suitable for his occupation.
The third kind of loss which the tenant has to bear is the loss of goodwill. If a tenant, by giving satisfactory service, has attracted trade and built up a business he has goodwill as a market value, and if his tenancy is terminated he loses that goodwill, either in whole or in part. The market value of goodwill varies from one to three years of annual profit. A typical amount received for the sale of goodwill on the open market is 18 months' profit, whereas the maximum compensation at present is, I estimate, something less than three months' profit. Generally, one of two things happens. When the tenancy is terminated the trader is forced to retire prematurely, and in that case he loses the whole value of the goodwill that he could get on the open market, because the tenancy has been terminated. Alternatively, if he is fortunate in getting another place which suits him and where he can carry on his business he will lose some of his goodwill because of the relocation. He may keep some of his trade, but to a very large extent he will have to start again to build up his trade in the new location.
658
There are many cases of hardship as a result of the 1954 Act. I will cite just two quite recent cases. The first concerned a business established in 1948 on a 21 year lease, so that the tenancy expired in 1969. The average profits of the business in the three years up to 1969 were just over£3,000 a year. The landlord opposed a renewal of the lease on the ground that he wanted to redevelop. The rateable value was£322. Tile maximum compensation paid was twice that amount, in other words£641, for a business which on the open market would have been worth£4,000. In that particular case, although the tenant has had to vacate the property for redevelopment, for more than two years the property has been lying undeveloped, much the same as it was when the tenant left it, except that it has been let to a greengrocer, presumably temporarily.
I give as another example the case of a tenant occupying premises used for footwear sales. He has occupied the property for 19 years. His average profit in the last three years is£2,555 per year. His landlord is the outfitter next door. The outfitter has introduced footwear, and he has given notice that he will require the property next door for his own use when the lease expires in March, 1972. Obviously, he intends to carry on his newly created footwear business there. He is therefore able to take over the business next door, which has a profit of£2,555 a year, for compensation of twice the rateable value, which is only£876 in compensation. Those are two of many kinds of cases of hardship that can be quoted, and it is quite clear that something ought to be done if we are to avoid continuing injustice against the professional and business tenant. This Bill proposes that the injustice should be, at least in part, removed.
Clause 1(2)(a) of the Bill provides that where the tenancy has been terminated and the tenant has been in occupation for fourteen years or more he shall get not twice but four times the rateable value. I would estimate that to be equal to about six months' profits as against a market value of goodwill alone of eighteen months' profit. Paragraph (b) of the same subsection provides that where a tenant has been in occupation for

659
seven to fourteen years he shall get three times the rateable value; and paragraph (c) provides that where he has been in occupation for less than seven years he shall get twice the rateable value. Subsection (3) is merely a repetition of the present law. It is necessary because the Bill seeks to reconstruct one of the sections of the 1954 Act which provides that if a tenant succeeds to a business he shall be regarded as having occupied the premises during the whole of the period in which his predecessor has carried on the business on the premises. That is the present law and it is intended that that should continue.
By Clause 2 the provisions of the Bill shall not apply to cases where the landlord has given notice under the present law before this Bill comes into force. Clause 3 is purely formal.
In conclusion, I would thank my own Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick; the Government Chief Whip. the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for consultations and the facilities which they have given me to introduce this Bill which I commend to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Jacques.)
6.27 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I should like to commend the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill for having brought forward a matter of very serious complaint from the point of view of the tenants of business and professional premises. This kind of difficulty is very well known to those of us who practise in the law, and the particularly serious results that flow from the law as it stands at present to the tenant who is occupying premises of this nature can in very many instances bring great distress to him and to his family. The position is absurd. A man has built up a business over a number of years, and he is then placed in a situation where he can be turned out; and when he is turned out of his premises the amount paid to him by way of compensation is quite risible. To imagine that twice the rateable value on premises can possibly compensate a man who has been carrying on business and building up goodwill for forty years is
660
just out of the question; if anybody examines the situation objectively he can come to only one conclusion—that it is just a pittance handed out to someone who has spent a fair portion of his life in developing his business or his profession.
Of course this applies to professional people as well, because if they are turned out of the place in which they are actually in practice there is considerable difficulty, particularly to-day, in getting alternative premises at anything like the rentals they had before. But, apart altogether from that, in most cases the actual office which the professional man is using has to move to another area. Obviously the removal itself creates a considerable amount of expense, and there is also involved the difficulty of clients and others knowing where the new practice is to be. In the circumstances, I would go rather further in the provisions of this Bill. Certainly I think they are very reasonable indeed as they stand.
Your Lordships will know that there is a tendency to-day (and there has been for some years) to regard dispossession of tenants of dwelling houses, for example, as something which causes grave distress, and therefore to contemplate the removal of the possibility of people being turned out. I do not think that anything like the same attention has been drawn to business premises, and nothing like the same consideration has been given to a man in respect of his loss of livelihood.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer. I think that we should give a Second Reading to this Bill, but perhaps the noble Lord who introduced the Bill will reconsider the amounts that he is suggesting and will increase them. I hope that we shall not have anyone opposing the Bill. I have very much pleasure indeed in supporting this Bill.
6.32 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, this being a Private Member's Bill my duty is to advise the House rather than to put the Government Whips on, and that I shall try to do as dispassionately as I can. I am afraid that I have to make a slightly dull speech, because it is a highly technical and difficult subject. Indeed, the purport

661
of what I want to say is that it is far more technical and far more difficult than either of the two speakers who have so far spoken have given your Lordships to understand. Therefore, it must be for me to provide a little more background information than the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has given in his admirably concise speech.
I should like to assure the House that in my office we have been particularly anxious to understand the implications of the Bill, and we have studied it in some depth with other Government Departments. Since I have been Lord Chancellor I have been approached by several bodies concerned with business compensation, and I can assure the House that I have not reached the conclusions that I have either lightly or frivolously. None the less, I must put it before the House that there is certainly one problem to be seriously considered, and it may be that there are two. Therefore I can wholeheartedly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, on having raised a debate on the subject, although I must point out that the Bill will not solve either of these real difficulties, and cannot be made to solve them. So I shall have to advise the House against the Bill.
I begin by making clear the area which we are talking about. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, began by saying, as is correct, that we are not talking about residential accommodation at all. We are not talking about people's homes; we are talking about business premises. That means of course that we are talking about a very wide range of properties indeed. We are talking about factories, however large; about commercial offices, headquarters of companies; professional chambers; surgeries and consulting rooms; solicitors' offices; club premises, and a whole lot of other widely differing things. I cannot but point out—because I think it has coloured his whole approach to the matter—that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has virtually confined his examples and his arguments to retail distribution points, which is only one of the very large number and range of premises concerned. Although the noble Lord, Lord Janner, spoke about professional offices in relation to his profession as a solicitor—I will say a word or two about that in a moment—I do not agree that the
662
same considerations apply to them. I must point out to the House that the only profession whose technical press has commented on this Bill, that I am aware of, is the Solicitors Journal, which has come out strongly against the view propounded by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and I shall explain why in a moment.
In order to enable me to do this, I must give the House a short history of the subject. Until 1927, as between landlord and tenant, the tenant's rights were governed largely by contract. That is to say, he got what the lease gave him, and nothing more. In some ways this was a hardship, as I shall go on to point out; sometimes, however, especially on a long lease, a business tenant ought to be expected to write off the value of the lease as time went on in the course of the ordinary processes of accountancy, which is what he did. It was in fact my father, when he was Attorney General in 1927, who first gave the tenant the right to a new lease or compensation. This is a fact of which, I may say in passing, my father was always—and I think quite justly—proud for the rest of his life. Until 1954—not 1934, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said by a slip of the tongue—the actual basis of the compensation under my father's Bill was based upon what was called "adherent goodwill". This was a highly technical conception that, if the landlord took over premises of which the tenant had increased the value by virtue of the goodwill which adhered to the premises, he ought to pay for that element. The profession of the law in those days, and right up to 1954, had great sport in dividing goodwill of business premises into what they called "dog goodwill", which attached to the owner of the business wherever he went—as for instance when a barrister might move his chambers from Lincoln's Inn to Middle Temple—the "cat goodwill", which attached to the premises, and the "rat goodwill" which just disappeared anyway. However, those refinements were not in the Act, which spoke of "adherent goodwill".
In those days the tenant was entitled either to compensation for adherent goodwill or to a new lease on new terms. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Janner, that there was no inherent right—as one phrase in his noble friend's speech

663
would tend to indicate—in relation to business premises that the new lease would be at the same rental, or anything like it; it would take account of current market values. This system was found to be unworkable in practice. The result was that in 1950 the Jenkins Committee reported. It reported in substance on two matters which are relevant to this discussion. In the first place over the great range of tenancies, in almost every case where there was a reasonably good tenant —and of course the great majority of tenants are reasonably good—the tenant should get a new lease and could demand a new lease from his landlord without the landlord having an option to give him compensation, unless there was of course equivalent alternative accommodation available. But in one class of case the Jenkins Committee recommended that the landlord should have the opportunity of forcing compensation on his tenant instead of a new lease. The Jenkins Committee then split and said, as to one part, that the tenant should get, as hitherto, roughly speaking, what the landlord gained by way of adherent goodwill in taking the premises over; and, as to another part—the minority—that the landlord should have to pay what the tenant had lost under the various heads by way of disturbance.
When the Government of that day and Parliament came to consider the Jenkins Committee's Report, although in the main they accepted its conclusions, they came to the conclusion that both the suggestions of the minority and of the majority were, in practice, wholly unworkable. Instead of that, the Government of the day, by that time represented by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe (as he then was), as Home Secretary and Lord Simonds as Lord Chancellor, proposed what might be called a bed of Procrustes—a purely arbitrary system of compensation. The compensation which they provided for that class of case, to which I shall come in a moment and which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques has adequately summarised, was based on one year's rateable value for under 14 years' continuous occupation, and twice the rateable value for over 14 years' occupation. It did not pretend to be compensation, in the full sense of the word, for what the tenant
664
was losing; it did not have anything to do with what the landlord was gaining. It was put, I think, by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe; but the Ministers in both Houses respectively expressed, in different language, what was intended: that the tenant should have something towards what he lost by disturbance, not necessarily the whole amount: it might be more; it might he exactly the same amount, or it might be less. He was given an arbitrary sum, because Parliament and the Government of the day found the problems of working out what he ought to get in these circumstances absolutely insoluble. It is fair to say that every Minister in both Houses at that time challenged anybody to think of a better plan, but in fact nobody did. Nobody even suggested one.
Pausing there for a moment to view the law as it is now, I would point out that there are, broadly speaking, three cases. First of all, when a business tenancy comes to an end, if the tenant has been a bad tenant—that is to say, if he does not pay his rent or breaks his covenant—he gets nothing by way of compensation and he is not entitled to a new lease; secondly, if he has been a reasonably good tenant—and, as I said, most tenants are—then in the ordinary case he is entitled to a new lease but not to compensation, and he has to pay the rent in the new market conditions based on what the premises are worth. In the three cases to which this Bill applies—Section 37 cases—the landlord may pay compensation and the tenant is not entitled to a new lease. As the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, reminded us, those three cases are: first, where the premises are let in parts, and the landlord could recover a better rent if they were let as a whole; secondly, where the landlord wants the premises for his own occupation; and, thirdly, where he wants them for redevelopment. Successive Governments have justified this range of compensation in the last case, because they have said that it is just that, as a matter of public economic policy, redevelopment should be encouraged. Those are the three situations at the moment.
At this stage, one has to concede that a new factor has entered into the case. In principle, the rateable value represents one year's rack rent of the premises: that is the way it is ascertained. Some

665
people complain of the accuracy, or want of it, with which the rate system ascertains it, but in principle it is the rack rent of the premises for a year. It is on that basis that the actual poundage of the rate for which the assessment is primarily made is calculated in the first place. Unfortunately, in 1968, for reasons that I need not go into, the then Labour Government postponed the rateable reassessment to 1973. It was a decision which may or may not have been justified at the time. It had nothing whatever to do with the compensation recoverable under the Landlord and Tenant Act. It was a decision which was bitterly attacked by the Conservative Opposition at the time—but we need not resurrect old spectres of past controversies. These are historical facts which we can record without passion.
A side effect, though doubtless an undesired, unplanned and uncovenanted side effect, of postponing the revaluation from 1968 to 1973—the January after this coming one—was of course that the compensation payable under Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 became manifestly smaller than the framers of the Act had intended. All one can say about that is that in 1973 the balance will be readjusted. Presumably, it will then be exactly what the framers of the 1954 Act intended it to be, because at that time, from a year onwards, the rateable values will come back to what they were designed to be, instead of being ten years out of date. Of course this Bill is rather optimistically phrased, as you see if you look at its terms, to start on August 1, 1972. Therefore, it will not be much good, even if it keeps up to date, to remedy what is admittedly a defect of the present situation. It is therefore virtually useless for that purpose. If the Bill had been introduced in 1968, and had been expressed to be temporary until a new and up-to-date rateable revaluation could be introduced, I think I might very well have supported the principle behind it, because it would have done another kind of rough justice to remedy that admitted defect of the status quo. But for that purpose now, almost at the beginning of 1972, I should have said it was virtually useless.
On the other hand, it is impossible to deal with the radical difficulties of an arbitrary sum by way of compensation
666
unless you go back to the Jenkins Committee and assess compensation on some other basis that bears some genuine relationship either to the landlord's alleged gain or to the tenant's loss; and that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, does not propose to do. In fact nobody, I think, would seriously wish to do it because the difficulties are insuperable. Instead of that, his broad principle is to take the number you first thought of and double it, which is just as arbitrary and as wholly devoid of any scientific justification as the original arbitrary sum; indeed, it would lead to a very great number of anomalies the other way. The trouble is that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has, I think, allowed his interest and experience in retail distribution to colour his whole view of the problem, which really has to do with a much wider range of premises than can be explained.
Take, for instance, my Lords, the case of a large factory with the whole value of the lease written off over, let us say, occupation for fifty years, with the tenant proceeding to acquire other premises, perhaps in a development area outside the original place. The goodwill is not attached to the factory. No doubt the tenant has costs of disturbance when his lease comes to an end, but he has already written them off in his accounts. He has not suffered any injustice, nor does the landlord gain anything, except the site value of the land if he wishes to redevelop it, as he very likely would be well advised to do; and he does not gain anything from the manufacture of whatever it may have been in the previous fifty years. If you take club premises, the same kind of argument can be applied. Or, if you take my professional chambers in the Temple, if I had had to move from Inner Temple and had found myself chambers in Lincoln's Inn I do not suppose I should have lost anything by way of goodwill; nor, so far as I know, would my landlord have gained anything. The fact is that the problem is a great deal more complicated than the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has appreciated; and to meet the factual loss by simply doubling the existing compensation or, for the intermediate class which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has created, trebling it, is not really a scientific way to approach this subject at all.

667
Over a wide range of the premises to which the principal Act applies it would hopelessly over-compensate a number of otherwise undeserving tenants.
In support of his contention that the present Bill was required, the noble Lord introduced a certain number of specific arguments which have nothing to do with the revaluation in 1973. The first of these was the contention that valuation lists are intrinsically out of date because they take two years to prepare. There is an element of truth in that, of course, but the fact is that in 1954, when the Act was passed, the rating and valuation list was much more out of date than that. My recollection is that it was twenty years out of date. Therefore that was something which everybody had in mind in 1954, when the Act was passed. As a matter of fact, for a large number of years until the postponement of 1968 I personally agree with the Solicitors Journal that there had been remarkably little complaint about the working of the Act. It was an arbitrary figure.
No doubt some people were overcompensated and other people under-compensated, but it was rough justice of a kind which seemed to meet with a wide range of genuine public support; and nobody had suggested anything different until quite recently. So far as we in my office have been able to consult various interests, which I do not think has been done by the sponsors of this Bill, obviously the retail outlets would welcome the principle; equally, I suppose that, on the whole, those whose business it is to let business premises would not. Some surveyors, I know, are opposed to the Bill; and as to the solicitors, who have not yet been consulted, I do not know, although I do know that the Solicitors Journal condemns it. It is difficult to see, therefore, that one can speak with confidence in its favour if one looks at the whole range of premises affected.
One must remember that even the cases to which the noble Lord has referred—and I accept that these were based on obsolete rateable values which will be put right in 1973, one hopes and believes—do not really carry him the whole way, even on the assumption that one confines one's attention to the shops. The fact is that if the landlord
668
genuinely wants to redevelop he does not gain anything whatever by the goodwill which the tenant may claim to have put into the premises; and the tenant, if he continues his business somewhere in the near locality, will not lose anything like the goodwill of his practice, if he be a professional man, or, if he be a shopkeeper, of his customers, because they will, at any rate largely, go to the new place. As regards the investment over a long lease, this ought to have been written off in the ordinary course of accountancy; and I do not think that that is an adequate example to justify the Bill. So far as one can judge, the future benefit of the investment is lost only if it has not been written off, and the goodwill, as I say, may vary infinitely from nothing to something which may be quite substantial. It will depend upon whether the tenant is able to get premises elsewhere and how close they are to the original location.
The theory that the trader may have to retire prematurely is something for which, I think, no legislation can reasonably be expected to cater. Certainly the Act of 1954 does not cater for it, and certainly the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will not cater for it. It is of course the case—and I think it is fair to say this—that if the landlord wants the premises for his own occupation and then proceeds to carry on a business of identically the same kind, he will get something which in ordinary morals one would probably call unjust enrichment; but you will not cater for that case effectively by simply taking an arbitrary figure and multiplying it by two and getting a result. There may be a case, in such instances, either for a new lease or for compensation based upon actual loss or actual gain. But that is a very unusual case. The usual case when a landlord redevelops premises is that he redevelops them into something quite different. It he re-lets as a whole, he always does; and if he occupies them himself lie usually wants the premises for something else and not for the original business.
What, then, should we do? I do not myself think that there is a sufficient case for setting up a new Commission to see whether they can succeed where the Jenkins Committee failed, in substituting something other than an arbitrary figure for compensation. I do not think the

669
noble Lord has made out his case in full for doubling the present rate of computation if you keep the arbitrary figure. What I suggest would be the sensible thing to do is to wait until 1973 and then see how the arbitrary figure works under the new valuation. To do it now, before we have any experience of the 1973 valuation, is, I think, almost certainly to court disaster. I would just make this comment by way of general criticism. If you are going to reform anything so complicated as the law of landlord and tenant you will have to undertake some wider series of consultations and investigations and consider them over the whole range of businesses affected rather more deeply and rather more widely than has been done by the sponsors of the Bill.
Having said that, I am exceedingly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for having raised this subject. It has been to some extent a matter of concern to me since I became Lord Chancellor to find a number of instances where, owing to the obsolete nature of the valuation lists, compensation has been manifestly much less than Parliament intended, and but for the fact of the impending revaluation I would suggest an interim measure to deal with it. I think the House ought therefore to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for having raised the subject. But having said what I have, I cannot advise the House to give the Bill a passage—and I am quite sure that if it should go to the other place it has in fact no chance of reaching the Statute Book this Session. Having said that, I have given the House the best and the most objective advice that I can.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I was interested in the reference to the Solicitors Journal. Before the Bill was drafted I consulted a number of solicitors who act for both landlord and tenant. They all said two things. They said that this compensation is totally inadequate and ought to be increased; and they said, "For Heaven's sake!, keep to some kind of formula similar to the present; otherwise it will be unworkable." I think that the difference between the practising solicitors and the Solicitors Journal is clear. It is very likely that the Solicitors Journal is written by somebody who is mostly a journalist and is not in touch
670
with practising solicitors. I think that consulting with practising solicitors is more important than reading the Solicitors Journal.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that on principle if one was going to consult with the solicitors' profession one should consult the Law Society and the British Legal Association?
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I must agree with that. I accept that the choice is between the rough justice of the kind we get now or something which according to past experience has appeared to be unworkable. I accept the rough justice; but what I am saying is that we have had the formula since 1954; we have had it not only when the valuation list has been out of date but when a new valuation list has been introduced and we have found it to be inadequate. I think that the present compensation is inadequate—not temporarily so until 1973, but that it has been shown to be inadequate since 1954, regardless of the valuation list being out of date. I therefore think that there should be some improvement. What I am asking the House to do is to approve the Bill in principle, for that is all that a Second Reading does. If, after that, your Lordships want to restrict the provisions of the Bill to retailers or to retailers plus somebody else, then all right; but let us at least approve it in principle, so that it can be further examined.
Furthermore, after it is approved in principle, if at a later stage it is thought that by doubling the compensation I have gone too far, then there is a step in between that could be taken. I would point out that it was not I who thought of a number; it was the people who prepared the 1954 Act who thought of a number when they put the compensation at twice the rateable value. I have merely accepted the kind of thing which was accepted by Parliament, and all that I have done is to increase the multiplier. But there is something between two and three that can be considered if necessary. I hope that sufficient has been said to show that the compensation since 1954 (especially as far as the retailers are concerned) has been proved to be inadequate and that the matter requires further consideration. I

671
hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading, which is merely an approval in principle.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, on a Motion for advancing a Bill by a stage or going into Committee, there being an equality of votes, in accordance with Standing Order No. 51, which provides that no proposal to reject a Bill shall be agreed to unless there is a majority in favour of such objection, I declare the Motion agreed to.
Resolved in the affirmative Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

IRON AND STEEL (COMPENSATION TO EMPLOYEES) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1971
7.12 p.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS rose to move, That the Draft Iron and Steel (Compensation to Employees) (Amendment) Regulations 1971 laid before the House on November 23, be approved The noble Earl said: My Lords, these Regulations are quite short and, I would suggest, entirely uncontroversial. Their main effect is to require the British Steel Corporation to pay compensation to any person listed ill the 1968 Regulations who suffers loss or dissolution of emoluments or pension rights as the result of the making of a vesting or dissolution Order under Section 8 of the Iron and Steel Act 1969. This part of the Regulations will take effect retrospectively from March 29, 1970,
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordship divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 23.

CONTENTS

Bacon, Bs.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Champion, L.

Janner, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Longford, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Peddie, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L. [Teller.]

Gardiner, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Garnsworthy, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hoy, L.

Segal, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Ferrers, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Conesford, L. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Cowley, E.

Hood, V.

Reigate, L.

Denham, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

St. Aldwvn, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Jessel, L.

St. Just, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Mountevans, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Thomas, L.

which is the date when the vesting Order came into operation. As the Act requires, the British Steel Corporation and the trade unions have been consulted in the preparation of these Regulations. I trust that this short explanation will enable your Lordships to approve the Order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Iron and Steel (Compensation to Employees) (Amendment) Regulations 1971 laid before the House on November 23, be approved—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.