Lords Sitting of 14 December 1971

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

CHANNEL TUNNEL STUDY
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: 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 when they expect that the feasibility study on the proposed Channel Tunnel will be completed.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we expect the present phase of studies into the Channel Tunnel project to be completed in the first half of next year. In the light of this work and of the financial negotiations now in hand with the French Government and the private interests with whom we are pursuing the project, decisions will be taken on the scope and timing of further studies and works remaining to be carried out before a final decision on the project can be made.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. May I ask whether, in deciding whether or not to go ahead with the Channel Tunnel, consideration will be given to the other forms of transport which could be available for cross-Channel use in the 1980s? Secondly, may I ask if the opinions of essential users have been sought about whether or not they would be prepared to travel in a train in a tunnel rather than use other traditional forms of oversea transport?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, with regard to my noble friend's first supplementary question, I do not think this point is being considered at the moment, because, as was published in the earlier papers, the other forms of transport were considered unsafe
988
—a bridge for navigational reasons and roads because of fumes and for economic reasons. As regards the point about the users, that forms part of the present study.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how long, in the opinion of the Government, it will take to build the tunnel once authorisation is given? Secondly, do the Government totally exclude the possibility of constructing, not a tunnel but a "bridge-tunnel-bridge" on the lines of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge which is already in operation?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, results of the present studies are not expected before the first half of next year. We should hope to reach a decision by 1973. If the go-ahead were given, it is hoped that the Tunnel could be in use some time in 1978 or 1979. I am not quite sure whether I understand the noble Lord's second supplementary question about a tunnel bridge. I take it he means a tube tunnel laid on the surface of the sea.
LORD GLADWYN: No, my Lords. The suggestion is that it should be a bridge which would go down to an artificial island, continue in great submerged tubes to another island and then go up again as a bridge to the other cliff. It is perfectly possible, my Lords. It has been done in Chesapeake Bay. It is a feasible proposition.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am advised that this would give rise to navigational hazards; also I am told that other maritime nations would have to be consulted before this could be done.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that consideration of this project has been going on for quite a long time? What can be done to speed up the study which has been taking place since the project was first introduced, a project which many people in both Houses gave credence to because they thought that it would be of great value to this country and to France?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. The earlier studies are now out of date and more geological surveying is needed. Present studies will, we hope, be complete by the first half of 1972.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE: ACCOMMODATION
2.39 p.m.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords. I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to provide the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with office accommodation more consistent with the requirements of modern business practice.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, a programme of works to improve working conditions in the Old Public Offices is being implemented at the moment, including redecoration, refurnishing and new accommodation for visitors. My right honourable friend is aware that very much more needs to be done and is considering with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how best to proceed in the longer term.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords. I am grateful to the Minister for reminding us of the minor works at present in progress. So far as the efficiency of the conduct of the business is concerned, may I ask whether he is aware that a quarter of a century ago this building, as a place to work in, was unanimously considered obsolete in accordance with the standards of that time? Is the Minister aware that eight years ago the then Minister of Public Works—whose name happened to be Mr. Geoffrey Rippon—said that the building was unsuitable for present, and therefore for future, purposes, and that the Duncan Committee came to a similar conclusion?
May I ask the Minister whether he can give any, or all three, of these assurances. First (and I put this without in any way wishing to prejudice what the decision will be) whether a decision can be expected in the near future as to how a radical modernisation can be carried out; secondly, whether he will press his right honourable friend—
LORD CHAMPION: Speech!
LORD GORE-BOOTH: —to bring about this decision quickly; and, thirdly, whether in doing so he will ensure consultation with those who have to work in the building, particularly those who will still be working there when the new building comes up for consideration.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think I can best answer those three supplementary questions by assuring the noble Lord that my right honourable friend is very well aware of the very long time during which this issue has been under consideration. He is as anxious as everybody else is to arrive at a satisfactory and radical solution and is pressing on as fast as possible, but he is not yet in a position to make any further statement.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this really is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs? Is he aware that the staff accommodation in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is, in most cases, unsatisfactory, and in many cases positively disgraceful—unlike the accommodation for Ministers which tends to he elegant and spacious? Does be not agree that this situation of Ministerial affluence alongside official squalor needs some kind of urgent treatment; and is it not in fact the case that what we need is a new Foreign Office? It may be that the present one is more in keeping with the Government's policy, but it is not very good for the staff of the Foreign Office.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am aware of this problem and so is my right honourable friend. He is anxious to solve it as quickly as possible.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the future of the site between the Treasury and Central Hall has yet been decided, or whether this would be open for a Foreign and Commonwealth Office?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that is rather a different question, if I understood the noble Lord to be referring to Parliament Square. If he will put down a Question I will answer it.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask whether the Minister can give us an assurance that when these new offices are built, adequate accommodation

991
will be provided for those civil servants who will be engaged on the drafting of Parliamentary Questions?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords.
LORD SHERFIELD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the plasterboard "rabbit hutch" in which I spent four years of my working life 25 years ago still houses an Under-Secretary? Will its abolition be included in the minor works?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I was not aware of that point, but I can almost certainly assure the noble Lord that it will be.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that all Governments, though notably this Government, have been lax in dealing with a problem which ensures major loss of efficiency in Whitehall? Will he consult with his noble friend the Lord Privy Seal to see whether some progress can be made which might quite significantly reduce the number of civil servants and the amount of paper? If the noble Lord has any doubt, would he try visiting the basement in the Foreign Office late at night and see whether he can find his way out? I once got lost there.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, is the Minister aware—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has taken us rather wide of the original Question, but the object of a full and complete solution to this problem is to provide satisfactory accommodation for all people who work in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that any change in the external appearance of the present buildings would be regarded with great distaste by the majority of the population?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, my right honourable friend is fully aware of that fact.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the "rabbit hutch" in which the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, worked, apparently so unhappily, was constructed by me at the end of the war, and was at least greatly superior to the attic in which I worked
992
for two years previously? Does not the noble Lord agree that in any reconstruction of the Foreign Office that may be undertaken it is best to think in terms of a headquarters staff next door to Downing Street, and the great bulk of the Departments being housed, not in squalor, but in comparative squalor, if you like, somewhere in the suburbs?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, all these points are among those which are being considered by my right honourable friend and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that not only do the conditions of Government office accommodation not comply with Lord Gore-Booth's Question to-day, concerning "modern business practice", but that in fact they do not comply with the Offices Act? I assure him that I can give him instances of that.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am advised that the work currently in hand brings the offices up to the standards required by the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, while this is perhaps a superficial question, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is in a position to give an affirmative answer to the last assurance for which I asked; namely, that there will be continuous consultation with those who have to work there when the time comes for designing new accommodation?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords.

GREECE AND MEMBERSHIP OF N.A.T.O.
2.45 p.m.
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 what was the reaction of the British representatives at the meeting last week of the Council of Ministers of NATO Governments, to the proposal by Denmark to consider the eligibility of the Greek Government for membership on the grounds of its repudiation of the NATO Charter.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, proceedings at meetings of the NATO Council of Ministers are confidential. It is our firm policy, however, that the security of the Western Alliance, in which Greece plays a very important part, should not be jeopardised. The Greek Government have not repudiated the North Atlantic Treaty.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I ask whether it is not the case that both Denmark and Norway have repeatedly raised this question at the Council of Ministers, and have been brushed aside? Is it not the case that the North Atlantic Assembly has expressed great concern about this issue? In view of the fact that the preamble to the Treaty of the Charter is dedicated to democracy and individual freedom, and that Article 2 makes the commitment to strengthening free institutions, is it not a mockery that Greece, with its present record, should be a member of NATO?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I do not think I can add to what I said with regard to the meetings of the Council of Ministers; namely, that they are confidential. Of course Her Majesty's Government would like to see democratic Governments in all countries; and the Greek Government know that we look forward to the restoration of democracy in their country. But it is not for us to tell them how to manage their internal affairs.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not the case that there has been martial law in Greece now for four and a half years, and that the only advance towards democracy is the present election of an Advisory Committee by 0·24 per cent. of the population? Is not there evidence of the torture of political prisoners, as indicated by the record of Lady Fleming?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the points which the noble Lord has brought forward may or may not be true, but in the belief of Her Majesty's Government this would not alter the fact that NATO has a very important part to play, and that Greece has an important part to play in NATO.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is it not true that the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance exists for the defence of
994
democracy? Is it not true, also, that the Parliamentarians at the North Atlantic Assembly have not been prepared to allow Greece to attend a North Atlantic Assembly for the last three years?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think it would be true to say that the NATO Alliance is there for the military protection of the West. The fact that the North Atlantic Assembly has met and passed various resolutions is, of course, a indication of the feelings of those people who are members of the North Atlantic Assembly. But they do not bind any government.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, while taking the point that Greece is an important member of the North Atlantic Alliance, and of course that the collapse of that Alliance might lead to losses of freedom even worse than that which is taking place in Greece at the moment—although that is bad enough—can the noble Earl give the House an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not lag behind other members of NATO in attempting to bring pressure on the régime in Greece to return to a democratic form of government?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the Greek Government know full well what our position is, which is that we look forward to an early return to a more democratic Government. Further than that, I could not go.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that NATO is primarily a military alliance and that all the senior military advisers and commanders arc wholehearted in their demand that Greece should remain the linchpin in the Eastern frontier?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I entirely agree with what my noble friend has said, that Greece forms a very important part of the NATO Alliance.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, does not this rather isolated small island need as many allies as possible in the world, without particular regard to their local politics?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think that is perfectly true.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, what kind of an ally and what kind of a partner in NATO? In a repressed country, with very great disruption, and where the armed forces have been very largely purged during the last few years, what asset does the noble Lord really think the armed forces represent to the NATO alliance?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, Greece has a very important part to play in NATO as one of the countries that form the Alliance, and if Greece were removed from this, it would have a deleterious effect on the security of the West.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will reconsider either now or at some later stage —but preferably now—an answer in which he appeared to give support to a suggestion that this country should find its allies anywhere and that it might find them without regard to their internal political arrangements?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if I gave wholehearted support to that suggestion, I would certainly withdraw it. The inference that I had intended should be drawn was that Her Maejsty's Government wished to have allies, and has allies, including the Greek people. But it is not up to Her Majesty's Government to interfere with the internal political workings of another country.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that the claimed basis of NATO is to defend democracy and freedom? Is not the inclusion of such a Government as Greece one of the reasons why there is disllusionment and scepticism felt by the youth of this country in politicians and in politics?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I do not think that that is so. People may be disillusioned by politicians for a variety of reasons, but we have to carry out our commitments in the best way we can, and this country has great friendships with the Greek people. We wish to keep those friendships.

LONDON HOUSING: RENT INCREASES AND ACCOMMODATION
2.52 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: 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, bearing in mind their wages and prices policy, what action they propose to take to curb the present tendency on the part of some landlords to increase the renewal terms for short leases for flats in Greater London to the extent of 42 ½–44 per cent.; and whether they are aware of the increasing shortage of unfurnished accommodation for rent.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the noble Lord does not mention the period for which the current rent has been in force but I have no evidence of increases of the size he mentions for periodic or 3-year tenancies. For dwellings which come within the protection of the Rent Act—which are the vast majority—the rent officer can be asked to determine a fair rent. The Government are well aware of the shortage of unfurnished rented accommodation within the rateable value limits which attract Rent Act protection. For this reason the Government attach great importance to the protection given by the Rent Act in relation both to security and rent.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. The periods I have in mind were three, five, and seven year leases. Does he not think, bearing in mind the Government's White Paper, Fair Deal for Housing, that in effect tenants should be given similar protection when they have leases which come above the ceiling to which the Rent Acts refer—that is to say, £400 in Greater London? In the White Paper great stress is laid on the fact that there should be fair rents in the private sector. Would not my noble friend agree that this should apply equally to tenants of properties below or above £400 rateable value in the Greater London area?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think the simple answer is that when we did not lower the rateable

997
value figure which carries with it rent protection below £400, it was in order to give security of tenure to the tenants. On the other hand, we did not want the amount of unfurnished accommodation coming on to the market to dry up completely. We felt that if we raised the figure above £400 this might happen; and the object of the Rent Act is, as you know, to protect people who if they lost or could not afford their homes would experience difficulty in finding somewhere else to live. People who can afford to live in rented accommodation having a rateable value of more than £400 usually have sufficient means to find alternative accommodation.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that there is a great shortage both of flats and houses for renting? Because of this, is not the Government's encouragement to local authorities to sell council houses not only misguided but utterly political?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think house ownership has always been a good part of Conservative philosophy which does no harm to anyone.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, do the Government realise—and here I must declare an interest—that there are a large number of people at present occupying flats having a rateable value of above £400 and who would be incapable of paying the new rent that has been demanded of them, sometimes amounting to double the amount they are paying at present. Do not the Government think it time that the rateable value was increased from £400 so as to give certainly middle-class people an opportunity of being able to live, instead of having to be thrown out of their homes?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we believe that if we pushed up the rateable value limit for protection the amount of unfurnished accommodation coming on to the market would be very little. The answer probably is that if people did not insist on living in central London, but were content a
998
little further outside, they might find what the noble Lord is looking for.
LORD JANNER: Yes, my Lords, but surely, if nobody is suggesting that there should be an unfair rent and fair rents are being set for those houses of below £400 rateable value, there is nothing to prevent a fair rental being demanded for properties of over £400 rateable value.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords, the Francis Committee, as your Lordships' House will be aware, did recommend the other way, that existing limits were too high. We believe that in £400 we have struck about the right balance.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend (because I think this is an important matter, and there have been these increases of the percentage that I have given for short tenancies) whether my noble friend has seen the article in the Sunday Telegraph last week-end headed, "Financiers move into the Flat Business"? I will quote from it if I may. It says:
"London flats have become a favourite hunting ground for a new type of property operator often backed by City finance".
Does he not feel that, for people who are living on fixed incomes, this is something which, in view of the shortage of unfurnished accommodation and bearing in mind the White Paper, Her Majesty's Government should look into at the moment?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords, it is something we should look into. We are doing so, and when our housing policy begins to take effect I think we shall find it beneficial to the country.

BUSINESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will at a convenient moment be making a Statement on the future of public employment services.

E.E.C. NEGOTIATIONS: FISHERIES AND ANIMAL HEALTH
2.59 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat the Statement made yesterday in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The text is as follows:
"I should like to make a statement about my meeting with the European Community in Brussels on the 11th and 12th of December.
"At this meeting, which was attended by Ministers of the other applicant countries, I was accompanied by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture as well as my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. The two main subjects on the agenda were fisheries and animal health.
"On fisheries the United Kingdom, together with the Republic of Ireland and Denmark, have now reached agreement on the outstanding problems. We have persuaded the Community of the need to safeguard the essential fishing interests of the applicant countries in order to ensure conservation of fishing stocks and the protection of the livelihood of our fishermen. As a result of the agreement we have reached the position would be as follows.
"First, it is clear that we retain full jurisdiction over the whole of our coastal waters up to twelve miles. In other words we have power to control on a non-discriminatory basis the conservation of stocks by such means as the regulation of size of nets, types of trawl and methods of fishing.
"Secondly, access to our coastal waters within six miles from our baselines is limited exclusively to British vessels. Next, in areas between six to twelve miles, where the baselines are not in themselves a sufficient safeguard or where the stocks are already fully exploited, the fishing will also be limited to British vessels and to those with existing rights to fish there for certain species of fish. The areas covered in this way out to twelve miles
1000
are the Orkneys and Shetlands, the North and East Coasts of Scotland, North-East England from the river Coquet to Flamborough Head, Devon and Cornwall including, of course, the Scillies and Lundy Island, and County Down.
"The effect of all this is that there is no change at all in the protection now afforded in areas from which 95 per cent. by value of the total inshore catch is taken. As far as the remainder is concerned, that is. those areas I have not mentioned earlier, there will be a generalisation of existing rights between six and twelve miles only.
"We have also sought and obtained a formal assurance from the Community that the legal application of the Common Fisheries Policy would not permit, either in form or in fact, any discrimination by a member State in waters beyond twelve miles over which it might exercise fisheries jurisdiction against the fishing vessels of other member States operating in such waters. This is a valuable safeguard for our deep sea fishermen.
"As to the future of the Fisheries Policy, we have urged upon the Community the need for common action in all our interests to ensure conservation of stocks. In consequence we have agreed with the Community that as soon as practicable, and by 1979 at the latest, the Community will attempt to determine conditions for the preservation of the biological resources of the sea.
"We have further agreed that before the end of 1982 the enlarged Community will, after studying a report on the situation then obtaining with particular reference to the economic and social conditions of inshore areas and the state of the fish stocks, examine the arrangements which could follow what we have negotiated for the first ten years.
"Here I must emphasise that these are not just transitional arrangements which automatically lapse at the end of a fixed period.
"In substance what we have achieved can fairly be described for the most part as a maintenance of the status quo for a decade, followed by a fair and open-ended review taking account of all

1001
the circumstances of the time. I am confident that when that review takes place Her Majesty's Government will continue to safeguard this vital national interest.
"Before leaving this subject I should like to bring to the attention of the House the advantage we have secured in regard to marketing arrangements which are designed to secure better and more stable conditions in the fishing industry and to which I referred in my statement to the House on the 11th of November.
"Finally, I know the anxieties that exist about conservation and effective measures of policing. As I have already explained to the House, we will retain full jurisdiction over our 12-mile limit. The Fisheries Protection Services of the Royal Navy and the Scottish Department of Agriculture and Fisheries will continue to he responsible for the enforcement of our regulations, including those governing fishing methods and for ensuring that vessels of other countries are excluded from the inner six miles and that limitations on access in areas between six and twelve miles are strictly enforced.
"Honourable Members will be aware that the Scottish Department is already ordering a new fisheries cruiser, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has undertaken to strengthen the forces at present employed by the Royal Navy on protection duties in coastal waters. My right honourable friend will be making a further statement on this in the near future.
"The other major issue on which we were able to reach agreement was animal health.
"The Community has adopted a number of Directives which, if applied to Britain would have involved a number of important changes in our animal health arrangements.
"We therefore asked for and secured agreement that pending the establishment of a common veterinary policy we would not be required to accept any animals, whether for rearing, breeding or immediate slaughter which have been vaccinated against foot and mouth disease. We shall similarly he free to continue our existing methods of test
1002
ing for brucellosis and tuberculosis. Imports of non-vaccinated animals from other Member States will continue to be covered by national rules, and imports of meat will he subject to animal and public health controls in accordance with the Community's provisions.
"These arrangements will apply for five years. Well before the end of that period the Commission will review the whole situation and the veterinary developments which have taken place and to the extent necessary make appropriate proposals taking account of those developments.
"These arrangements, which take account of the existing differences in standards and practices, will ensure that progress towards common veterinary arrangements throughout the enlarged Community will involve no increase in animal health risk.
"I am therefore satisfied, as is my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, that our essential animal health requirements are fully safeguarded now and will remain so in the future."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
3.7 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I, on behalf of your Lordships, express to the noble Baroness our thanks for repeating that Statement the day after it was made in another place. My noble friend made the request that it should be repeated in this House because of your Lordships' interest in this particular problem. May I discount the latter part of the Statement about animal welfare and regulations and confine my questions to the fishing industry? The noble Baroness talked about a new fisheries cruiser being ordered by the Scottish Office, but is it not a fact that this cruiser was coming, whether we went into the E.E.C. or not? It was necessary for the protection of our fishing grounds and has nothing to do with this particular problem.
When the noble Baroness says that all things have been safeguarded until ten years ahead, is she not in fact saying that the only matter that will be considered in ten years' time is whether the countries of the E.E.C. will have an entry into our fishing grounds or not? That is the

1003
only question that will then arise, because there are no other fishing grounds available to us. As a result of this agreement, would the noble Baroness not agree with the summing up in a very ex-parte paper, the Daily Telegraph, of yesterday which said that the conclusion for Britain is that Britain has in effect dropped her demand for a formal automatic right of veto over free access by Market fishermen to her waters after the first decade of membership? Whether the noble Baroness agrees or disagrees, I do not think that the agreement is what she makes it out to be. It may have been the best that could be obtained, but it certainly has nothing to do with the promises that have been made.
If that is so, may I ask the noble Baroness what our position is vis-à-vis our partner, Norway? On October 25 the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said in another place:
"We have also to protect the position of our partners in EFTA."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, col. 1241.]
He made that perfectly clear. The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries said in another place on December 7:
"Our approach is a joint approach with Norway, Ireland and Denmark and we shall hope to continue in that way. It would be a great mistake to be hypothetical on what may happen if any of these countries should fall out. We hope that this will not be the case."—(col. 1106.)
If Norway has fallen out, how can the Government declare that they have maintained the British position by not claiming anything less than Norway? If Norway has not accepted, it is because she wants rather more and we must have rather less.
In this respect I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would either confirm or deny a statement made in another place last Thursday when an honourable Member sought to raise the matter on the Adjournment, and said that the Prime Minister of this country had written to the Prime Minister of Norway and said to him, "For goodness sake ! tone down your claims about these fishing agreements." In other words, "You are going to make it awkward for Britain in these negotiations. You must accept less than you have." Indeed it has been regrded in the Norwegian Press as a great interference in the rights of Norway herself.
1004
It comes very strange, on the day when the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in reply to another Question, says that we have no right to interfere in the affairs of another country. Did the Prime Minister in fact send this letter? If he did, was not his reason to try to tone down Norway's request and get somewhat less than we had been promised before? Finally, would the noble Baroness not agree that, as a result of these negotiations, there are considerable parts of the fishing industry in this country, with which I have been associated for many years, who not only are disappointed but feel that they have in fact been betrayed by the settlement that has now been reached?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, my answer to the first question, whether a new fishery cruiser was necessary whether we joined the E.E.C. or not, is, yes, it is necessary. In answer to the second question, quoting the Daily Telegraph, whether in 1892 we have given up our right to an automatic veto—
LORD HOY: My Lords, 1982.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I apologise. I meant 1982—I have written the date down wrongly. As to whether we have given up our rights to an automatic veto, that is not so, because we have declared that fisheries are of course a vital national interest, and that being so they attract the unanimity rule. On the question of the position of Norway, we have always said—in fact I said this on the last occasion when this matter was discussed —that we sought comparable opportunities for all the applicant countries. As I have already said in the Statement, the Republic of Ireland and Denmark together with ourselves accept these conditions, and we hope very much that Norway will, too.
Regarding the last question, whether the Prime Minister of this country wrote to the Norwegian Prime Minister, I also read the remarks in the Press. The point is that we are always in constant touch with all our negotiating partners. We believe that, as we have secured for this country that 95 per cent. of the fishing for the inshore fishing interests is preserved in this country, all the arrangements, including the review arrangements

1005
in 10 years' time, are very satisfactory; and we hope that Norway will join, too.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I press the noble Baroness on one question before we go any further? The noble Baroness says we are always in touch with the other countries. I asked a specific question. Did the Prime Minister of this country write to the Prime Minister of Norway and ask him to tone down the negotiating position of Norway with regard to transactions in the E.E.C.? Was a letter sent or was it not sent? That does not require a difficult answer.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: As a matter of fact, my Lords, it is a difficult answer to give because I do not happen to know. I will certainly try to find out the answer. Even if it has been sent, I would suggest that that is a perfectly fair position. If four applicant countries are negotiating together on fisheries, and three of them agree that the results are good, I should have thought it was a friendly act to suggest to the fourth country that they were satisfactory to them, too.
3.13 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, what we on these Benches feel is that the agreement now reached on fishing is certainly the best that could have been achieved in the circumstances. All that we might be disposed to criticise is the impression previously created, I think, by Mr. Rippon, that he could achieve something even more cast-iron in the way of long-term guarantees. Obviously the Six have abandoned their original position and have agreed to most important and far-reaching derogations from their fishing regulations, which was presumably the chief object of the exercise. Nor can anybody legitimately object, I suggest, to the arrangements proposed for the 10 years following on our entry into the E.E.C. What will happen then will be the result of some further long negotiation in which all the members of the enlarged Community will of course do their utmost to safeguard the legitimate interests of all their fishermen. It seems to us there is no reason to suppose that the British Government in 1983 will be unable to fight their corner perfectly well; but the eventual agreement will have to be something which reflects the interests not only of one country but of the group as a
1006
whole, and this will naturally include sensible arrangements for conservation.
However, what we surely cannot do—and this is something which I hope is accepted by the Government; indeed, from what he said yesterday in another place it seems to have been accepted implicitly by Mr. Rippon—always supposing we propose to join a Community which is something more than a collection of totally independent States, is to bang the table and say that unless we obtain complete satisfaction on every point, on any question that may be under discussion, including of course fishing, then we shall veto (as the saying is) any collective decision. If we go into the Community in that frame of mind, it will not work, and indeed there would be small point in our joining.
My Lords, I have only one question to ask.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD GLADWYN: I always understood, my Lords, that on Statements one could make a statement in reply, provided it was limited to a minute or two. I have only one specific question. Supposing, as now unfortunately may be the case, the Norwegians cannot reach any agreement on fishing, and therefore decide not to proceed with their negotiations for entry into the E.E.C., is such a fact likely in any way to upset the timetable respecting our own entry and that of the other candidates?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, if I may speak for everyone I think the House will be very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who has taken such an interest in the European Communities, has welcomed this final, very difficult stage of the negotiations. If I may say so, he is of course absolutely right. The Common Market countries have in fact gone a very long way from their Common Fisheries Policy in agreeing to the very large derogations that we have, happily, been able to achieve with our partners. It is certainly true, I would agree also with the noble Lord—and this is why we have said we must do this at least before 1979—that we must all agree on a policy of conservation. This is absolutely vital. He asked also whether it is not a fact that

1007
we must not all the time be speaking about a veto. I think this is true. I believe I used those words during our debate, saying that the European Community has been a success so far because it rests upon consent. While one might have the power of veto in the background, one would hope to achieve what one wished by negotiation. On the question of whether, if Norway did not join, it would affect our signing of the Treaty of Accession, the answer is, No. We hope to he able to do this about the middle of January; but of course we hope very much that Norway will join.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to congratulate the Chancellor of the Duchy on a remarkable achievement after these days and nights of arduous negotiation, which I should have thought unjustified and unnecessary because the whole problem should never have arisen? But what happens after 10 years? That is the nub of the problem. Is this merely a stay of execution, or do Her Majesty's Government consider that in practice the arrangements now negotiated and concluded can never be changed without our consent?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I will certainly gladly convey to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the congratulations of my noble friend Lord Boothby because they come from someone who has taken a lifelong interest in fisheries and knows a great deal about them. As regards his question, a very important one, whether after 10 years, in 1982, the agreement will have been merely a stay of execution, or whether it would mean in practice that the arrangements negotiated thereafter could not be concluded successfully without the United Kingdom's consent, the answer is, Yes; the arrangements could not be concluded without the United Kingdom's consent.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her answer.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to clarify a point? She is resting on the unanimity rule in the Council of Ministers regarding matters touching national interests. Is
1008
she aware that that unanimity rule has been subject to some discussion recently, and that there are many inside the Common Market who believe it should be changed to a comprehensive majority vote situation in the Council of Ministers? If the unanimity rule were changed to a majority rule between now and 1982, would it still require the consent of Her Majesty's Government before the fisheries situation could be changed?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, there is no question at the moment of any change whatsoever in the unanimity rule. In fact, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said so yesterday. Also, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will remember that when the Prime Minister came back from meeting President Pompidou he particularly referred to this question: it was agreed between them that subjects which were of vital national interest would be subject to the unanimity rule. In fact, if I may quote it exactly, it was on May 24 that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said:
"the maintenance and strengthening of the fabric of co-operation in such a Community requires that decisions should in practice be taken by unanimous agreement when vital national interests of any one or more members are at stake."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; 24/5/71, col. 32.]
That is really the answer to the noble Lord's question.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, does that not mean that we should have the right of veto if we objected?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Yes, my Lords.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness two questions? First, has she observed that throughout the whole of these negotiations those who are seeking to put us into the Common Market have used the argument, "This is the best we can get"? The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, used that very phrase a moment or two ago. It is not what is in our interests but, "the best that we can get". I should like to receive an answer to that question.
Secondly, has the noble Baroness observed in the public Press—and I

1009
thought my noble friend might have mentioned this in his welcome to this alleged concession—that my noble friend Lord Boothby had a conversation with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster yesterday about these negotiations, when he said that he was now satisfied that the scheme was what we wanted. Could the noble Baroness furnish us with the information as to what it was that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said to my noble friend Lord Boothby which converted him?
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I think I had better answer that—
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, perhaps I should answer first, because I think the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, wanted to know whether this was only the best agreement that we could get or whether it was a really satisfactory arrangement. As I said earlier, if we can preserve 95 per cent. of the total inshore fishing of this country and 98 per cent. of the total catch, I think that is a very good agreement. In regard to the public Press, I also observed that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, had approached my right honourable friend, but as I was not present at the meeting I cannot, of course, say what transpired.
LORD BOOTH BY: My Lords, I do not know whether I am allowed to reply, with the leave of the House—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I know my noble friend is trying to be helpful to the House as a whole, but nevertheless I think he can put himself in order only by putting a question to the Minister.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, whether he is aware—
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am afraid the question must be addressed to the Minister.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I would ask the Minister whether she is aware that I saw the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster this morning; that he gave me satisfactory assurances that the breeding grounds and our inshore waters would he completely protected under the arrangements made, and that I then asked
1010
him the specific question I asked the noble Baroness, as to whether in practice Her Majesty's Government consider that the arrangements now negotiated can never be changed without our consent, and she said, "Yes", and he said, "Yes", and that satisfied me?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend, may I say that I hope very much that those assurances have been conveyed to other parts of the House?
3.25 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, a very important issue has been raised. I am not saying that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, should reply to my question, because he is not a member of Her Majesty's Government. But now we are informed that, in addition to the communiqué yesterday which the noble Baroness repeated this afternoon in your Lordships' House, something has been said privately to a Member of your Lordships' House which apparently was not contained in the Statement made yesterday in another place and repeated this afternoon in your Lordships' House. Surely, we are entitled to know what transpired between the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my noble friend Lord Boothby which has not been disclosed to us. Because if it were disclosed to us we might also be converted.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, it has been disclosed.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am quite certain that nothing could have been added to what has already been said by me to your Lordships' House this afternoon.
LORD BOOTHBY: Hear, hear!
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is hoping that there was some secret pact, but I do not think he can raise that hare.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, may I ask whether this agreement includes a 12-mile limit for a considerable extent of the French coast, and, if so, whether this will not give the French considerable opportunity for the conservation which they so badly need to do; and that

1011
further, when the benefits of this conservation are achieved by the French, they will then wish to continue with the present arrangements?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Yes, my Lords, it does. The 12-mile limit is extended to five Departments of Brittany. I agree with my noble friend that it should ensure that the French are very interested in conservation, and therefore we hope they will be interested in the arrangements after the next decade.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that when I made my first statement she said that three countries had agreed and one had disagreed. At that time agreement had not been reached at all. When the Prime Minister sent his letter he was seeking to get agreement, but no decision was reached. If the noble Baroness is now saying that we have the right of veto this was not referred to yesterday in another place. Indeed, on December 11 the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said that any agreement that had a time period written into it, be it five years or ten years, could not be accepted in Britain. Now, apparently, we have a 10-year limit.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, that makes all the difference.
LORD HOY: No, my Lords, it does not make any difference to what the noble Lord said, because he said that no matter whether it was five years or ten years, both periods were unacceptable. He is on record as having said that just a few days ago. I am now asking the noble Baroness, as Minister of State, whether this is not in fact going much further than the Statement in the House of Commons yesterday. If the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is in agreement with the noble Baroness it will not be difficult for her to request him to repeat this Statement in another place.
The noble Baroness has said that there can be no change in the unanimity rule, but the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, did not take that view. He said that we have not got the right of veto. What the noble Baroness is now saying to the noble Lord is that we retain the right of veto. If that is correct, then obviously
1012
the noble Lord is wrong. The only request I make is this: if in fact we are retaining the right of veto in ten years' time, the least that the Government can do is to arrange for a Statement to that effect to be made in another place, and I would respectfully ask the noble Baroness whether she can arrange for this to be done.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I was present in another place yesterday and I heard all the replies made by my right honourable friend to the questions on his Statement, and while I do not have the complete Hansard in front of me at the moment I can remember clearly that he spoke of the question of unanimity, and that if there is a unanimous decision it means what it says. But it also means that if unanimity cannot be reached, then each country has the right of veto if they have declared a particular question to be of vital national interest.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords. would not the Government agree that the so-called unanimity rule is a convention, nothing more, nothing less, and that in the Treaty of Rome there is provision for qualified majority "voting? Would not the noble Baroness also admit that if, by any chance—I hope myself that if will indeed be possible—we came back in the next few years to acceptance of the majority principle, we should still then be able to block any suggestion as regards fishing, or anything else, if we had only the support of two small countries, namely, Ireland and probably Norway? Even under that system, which in my view we ought to accept, we should be in a position which in practice would be fully safeguarded—even to the extent desired by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord. Lord Gladwyn, said earlier, that we must not proceed to enter the European Communities by considering that we shall always rely on the veto; we must try to reach agreement and be part of the membership of the Community. The Six members of the existing Community have shown great understanding of the needs of the applicant countries as regards fisheries. So far as voting is concerned, if noble Lords look

1013
at paragraph 70 of the White Paper they will observe that it makes quite clear that in practice
"Where a member State's vital interests are at stake it is Community practice to proceed only by unanimity".
If, however—to answer the noble Lord's second point—we did in fact have qualifield majority voting, there would have to be 43 votes cast in favour of the decision, and as the United Kingdom would have 10 votes, Denmark and Ireland three each, and Norway, if she becomes a member, three, we should outvote anyone, not taking into account the position of France, who now also has an extension of her rights.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, will the addition of one cruiser be sufficient to protect British fishing interests, and will this protection fall exclusively on British forces, or will the other States of the Common Market agree to collaborate in maintaining that protection?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned that responsibility lies on British forces. At the moment, for England and Wales there are six minesweepers which undertake this duty on behalf of the Navy for the Ministry of Agriculture; in Scotland we have seven fishery protection vessels, and we have another one building at this moment.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may I turn from the very popular subject of fisheries to the less popular but none the less, to my mind, important question of animal health, which the noble Baroness mentioned, and ask her whether she is aware, in the first place, that the agreement on brucellosis and foot and mouth disease will give great satisfaction to the fanning industry in this country? Is she also aware of the enormous importance, when all the veterinary regulations come to be discussed, of maintaining the position that this country has, because it is an island, particularly with regard to foot and mouth disease?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Yes, my Lords. I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Walston, raised this matter because it is a very important part of the Statement. It is for just the reason that we wish to help to
1014
improve the standards throughout the Community that we have maintained the present arrangements, which for ourselves are very strict, for the next five years; then we shall see what veterinary developments come within those five years.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, if we may return to fisheries at a more parochial level, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware of the grave alarm in the Western Isles, which I think have been not too well treated in the terms of limits? They would like to enjoy the 12-mile limit allowed to Orkney and Shetland. We have protected the Inner Minches, but surely it is the Western seaboard of the Long Island, where herring spawn in the shallow water of the Long Island to the Butt of Lewis and down to Barra Head. This is at the mercy of anyone who cares to come in and rake the bottom. It is one of the most important areas of spawning fish and fish nurseries in the Highlands. With unemployment running at 29 per cent., I feel the whole of that area's future is in serious jeopardy. The noble Baroness talked about a fishery cruiser. Having sat in the House for nearly forty years, I know that there has been talk of fishery cruisers since time began, and poaching goes on in the Minch nightly. The position is extremely serious for the island fishermen, who have come into their own since 1964 when the 12-mile limit was introduced.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, as my noble friend rightly says, the way in which the base lines are drawn does include the whole Minches, which are very rich in fishing—much richer than the West coast of the Long Isle. As far as the breeding Grounds are concerned, if it were necessary to extend any limit beyond six miles it would be possible because we still have our national jurisdiction up to twelve miles, provided it is non-discriminatory to any State.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, without wishing to prolong this exchange too far, may I ask the noble Baroness to clarify one matter for the benefit of the House, as I think there is some confusion about the question of unanimity? Will she confirm that the unanimity rule, so-called, is in fact only a practice or convention and that it has no basis in law,

1015
and that the only rule governing voting in the Council of Ministers is the rule of qualified majority?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, it is perfectly true that it is a practice, a convention. But, as I said earlier, on major questions the Six Common Market countries as at present constituted have always had to proceed by consent.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, would my noble friend answer my question as to when we can hope to see the new fast fishery cruiser?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the tender has just gone out. In about a year, I hope.
LORD CAMOYS: My Lords, I want to support the noble Lord opposite on the question of animal health and ask the noble Baroness whether there is any possibility of preventing pollution of the sea by atomic waste and other horrible things that go into it?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, international discussions are going on about the question of pollution of the high seas.

PRIVATE BILL ETC. STANDING ORDERS
3.37 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL)THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL) rose to move, That the following amendment be made to the Standing Orders relating to Private Bills:—
Leave out Standing Order 163 (Appointment of new trustees to be with approbation of High Court).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the first Amendment, which is to leave out Standing Order 163, I should like to explain quite briefly its purpose. This Amendment and the subsequent Amendment are Amendments to Private Bill Standing Orders regulating procedure on personal Bills. I am informed that it is not the practice of the High Court, in exercising its jurisdiction to vary or approve settlements, to impose a requirement that the court must consent to the appointment of new trustees. I would, therefore, ask the House to agree to this
1016
Amendment, so that our procedure is brought into line with that of the High Court. I beg to move.
Moved, That the following amendment be made to the Standing Orders relating to Private Bills:—
Leave out Standing Order 163 (Appointment of new trustees to be with approbation of High Court).—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, in moving the second Amendment in my name, which is to leave out Standing Order 169, I should explain that this Standing Order was originally inserted because a trustee appointed by Act of Parliament, that is, as a result of a Personal Bill, could not refuse to accept the appointment. I am, however, of the opinion that the consent of trustees is covered by Standing Order 166, which provides that the consent of all parties concerned in the consequences of a personal Bill shall be proved to the satisfaction of the Committee on the Bill. Trustees affected by a Personal Bill are clearly concerned in the consequences of the Bill. In addition, this Standing Order requires trustees to give their consent in person before the Committee on the Bill. I suggest to the House that this additional precaution is unnecessary, because it is quite sufficient to obtain their consent in writing. For these reasons I am asking the House to agree to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the following amendment be made to the Standing Orders relating to Private Bills:—
Leave out Standing Order 169 (Trustees to consent in person).—(The Earl of Listowel)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY THEATRE (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
3.40 p.m.
BARONESS LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships have the Bill before you and I think you will agree that it is not a complicated or long one. It is simply asking that the live theatre should have the right to perform on Sundays. This right is already enjoyed by cinemas and by orchestras, large and small. People in their private homes are able to look at

1017
theatre on television; and, not least, in our pubs, more and more on a Sunday evening there is a sing-song or a concert of some kind, and, although it is not strictly within the letter of the law, there is no doubt at all that costume is quite often used. So it seems odd that I should have the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, representing Covent Garden, the National Theatre, the Coliseum, about sixty repertory companies, ardently asking that the theatres, for which he has a special responsibility as Chairman of the Arts Council, should have this privilege. The noble Lord. Lord Goodman, may be here before the end of this debate, but he has other pressures on him, and if lie fails to be here in time, I have his personal consent to say that he most ardently wishes the support of your Lordships' House for the passage of this Bill.
At the same time the managements of our commercial theatre are most anxious that your Lordships should agree that their theatres should be open on a Sunday—not for the whole of Sunday but only after one o'clock, so that many morning church services will not be interfered with at all. As we know, modern churchmen of all denominations have discarded the idea of a gloomy old-fashioned Sunday, on which you get people to church because there is nothing else that they can do. There are very few modern churchmen who would take this point of view. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, was kind enough, speaking as a distinguished Methodist leader, to say that he agreed with the purposes of this Bill. Other leading churchmen—I do not want to claim too much support—of all kinds of denominations have taken the same point of view.
Several Members of your Lordships' House have been a little worried whether the Bill would result in actors, mechanics, and other people being compelled to perform on seven days a week. They have also been a little disturbed because, in the original drafting of the Bill, there was specific mention of the six-day week. That specific mention is not included in the present Bill. I think I could best explain why by reading to your Lordships a passage from a letter which I received from Mr. Emile Littler, the chairman of the Theatres' National Committee. He says:
1018
"I am writing to you because I thought it might be as well if I explained to you the reasons why we are deleting from the previous draft of the Bill the provision that no performer would be employed on a Sunday who had been employed under the same contract to act on each of the six previous days. We were advised by the Home Office officials that it would be very difficult to draft this provision satisfactorily, "—
this is the important matter—
"and as we have previously given an undertaking to Equity in writing, which they have acknowledged, that we would not require their members to work more than six days a week on the same contract, it was agreed that it would be better to leave the matter to be dealt with between the Unions and Management in collective agreement negotiations."
The management side and the union side (Equity and the technical unions) feel it would be better that this question should be left for negotiation among themselves.
Mr. Littler goes on to explain part of the reasons. He says:
"Had the six day clause been part of the Bill, it might have stopped a small variety artiste, who works only during the Christmas season, from taking a Sunday engagement for a Christmas party, if he had been working in a variety bill, even doing only 10 minutes in a show, during the week. It might also have prevented an artiste who was appearing in a show, from giving a charity performance on a Sunday."
He then explains that he himself was very keen to have this written into the original Bill, but by common consent and the will of both management and unions it is agreed that this matter should be left to private negotiations between them.
I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, would have been Present, but to-day in his full-dress rehearsal for the Eugene O'Neill play which begins a week to-day. It was impossible for him to be here in person but he has written to me, and I could not possibly answer some of of the doubts and give some of the reasons behind this Bill more adequately and eloquently than in the way he writes in his letter. If your Lordships will bear with me, I should like to read a passage or two from his letter. He begins by saying:
"I will never forget during the war, how appalled I was by the sight of soldiers on leave having absolutely nothing to do on the Sunday except go to the pubs or sec a movie at the local cinema. What they saw at the local on the Sunday night was always a

1019
specially cheap old film that the cinema could foist on to these captive audiences."
I am not saying that that is the contemporary situation, but the noble Lord is recalling that he became concerned about this first of all during the days of the Second World War. He continues:
"There was a big movement afoot to open theatres on Sundays to look after these fellows a hit and the people in favour tried hard to sell the idea to the membership of my profession, at least as a wartime measure and to feel, if you like, that this was part of their war effort, but so strong-ingrained was the feeling of affectionate tradition regarding the famous English Sunday, that we did not succeed."
Lord Olivier goes on to make what I think is a very important point; namely,
"If the Sunday Observance Society had been strong enough to keep pubs closed on the Lord's Day and the cinemas shut also, not to mention Sunday concerts, the English Sunday would at least have consistency.
"But I do think the times of performances on Sunday should be restricted to between the beginning of the usual matinee time and the usual end of the evening performance time, and it must of course be"—
taken for granted that the free day will exist. He says:
"I think from every realistic point of view, from that of good business to that of employment, we must now bring the theatre within legalised Sunday entertainment."
He talked about fair play for our live theatre on a Sunday. He has expressed himself as a family man, and indeed in his last passage he writes:
"Perhaps I am strengthening my case a little by declaring that this is not to my own personal advantage, in fact being a family man, very much the reverse as it will indeed be to any professional person who is a parent, but cardinal in the nature of our business is that our work is other people's play."
I think that last paragraph expresses the generosity of Lord Olivier's personal character. Of course he does not want to work on Sunday, and neither does his talented and distinguished actress wife. They want a free day on Sunday. Who does not? But the theatre, like so many other occupations, is casual in its labour. There are times when there is no work at all—alas! far too many times. There are times when, although their main contract may be for a six-day week, those employed, want to be free, if an offer comes along from television, a charity show, perhaps a seaside performance, to take on this extra work.
1020
I have talked about our great repertory companies. Most of the young people engaged in them are underpaid, and often have to starve for years. The lazy ones are weeded out, because it is no good just being Daddy's girl, or Mummy's boy. You may have influence to get your start, but you will not get very far unless you have staying power, and unless you can accept the disciplines of the training. I think almost without exception the young ones are eager for Sunday opening. Some of them say, "Normally when we travel on a Sunday it is the fish or us." Sunday is not an ideal day for travelling, so even in terms of their personal convenience they would see some advantages in the theatre opening on Sunday.
Another important point is that if the live theatre is not only to survive but to flourish, it must attract a wider audience. After all, at the beginning of the century there were the music halls, and not only in the large cities; there were concert halls even in the smallest towns. In fact, my playground as a child was a music hall. I owned it and everything around it, in the way a child owns everything. Actually, my father managed it, my great uncle owned it, my grandmother owned the hotel, and my mother managed it, so that the whole world I surveyed was my world. It was very common at one time for there to be a lively music hall where there would be folk music, sentimental plays, old-fashioned plays, D'Oyly Carte and the visiting opera companies. But the cinema came, together with radio and television; and since then our little theatre has had a very bad time indeed. Most of the theatres have either vanished or been converted into cinemas, and many of the cinemas have now been converted into bingo halls.
We are not engaged in banning people from the leisures that they choose, but what civilised society must surely do is to give a diversity of choice. If anyone wants bingo, then good luck to him! If anyone wants to go to a good old do "in his local pub, then good luck to him, too ! But I hope that no one will encourage my friend and colleague Lord Longford to go to some of our Midland clubs on a Sunday. They are not vulgar; they are bawdy—and there is a big difference. All we are asking is that we do not take away from anyone what gives

1021
him pleasure. and that we should encourage our living theatre, the best of our actors and actresses. And I am not talking only of high drama or opera or ballet; I am talking about the family that goes for a holiday at the seaside. What guarantee have they that it is not going to be wet on a Sunday evening; and why should this one form of entertainment be denied to them? They can go and get drunk in a pub if they want to; they can go to a sleazy night club, or to a cinema, good or bad; but they cannot go to a living theatre. That seems so wrong. Many of your Lordships have an enthusiasm, which I do not share, for going into the Common Market. On the Continent they think we are crazy to have our theatres closed on a Sunday. In this island we depend for our livelihood on attracting as much tourist trade as we can, but visitors from abroad, as well as our own people, coming to the cities for a week-end find that the theatres arc closed on a Sunday.
I am not going to go into the details of this Bill, which is a very simple one. This is only the Second Reading, and there will be ample time for any legal points to be raised. Furthermore, there are other Members of your Lordships' House, with a lifelong knowledge of the theatre, who will contribute. I just want to say this. For me, in my childhood, Sunday was the best day of the week and it was the day we looked forward to. For us, it was both a holiday and a holy day. My father was a deeply religious man, not in a narrow sense, but not as one who belonged to any particular Christian denomination. If you had to put a label on him, he was a humanist. But he worked very hard for his trade union' movement and in the Labour Movement, trying to help his fellow-men in the fight against poverty and in the attempt to get a better life. Sunday was the day that we were with our father. It was a family day. But there was no reason why you should not go to a Socialist Sunday School and hear the ten Socialist commandments. or go to the Methodist chapel, to the Catholic church, or to the Jewish synagogue. One thing does not exclude another. But I feel that Sunday is the family day, providing an opportunity for old and young to enjoy themselves, together or separately. There is surely no reason at the present time why families should not be able to
1022
go to the theatre together. You might ask: what about the other nights of the week? But more than ever these days men and women do not leave their work at the factory door. At the end of the days' work they have to get a bus, a train or a car home, and life is such that, by the time they have earned their living and have got home and cooked themselves a meal and done a bit of cleaning up, very often all they want to do is to put their feet up and look at the television.
I am not speaking in opposition to television, but I would say this about it. We are told,
"A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deep or leave it alone."
I say the opposite about television. I say that a little television is not a dangerous thing, but that to drink deep and have too much of it, and too continuously, especially where children are concerned, is a dangerous thing. Indeed, there is a danger of the "telly" becoming a substitute for the old-fashioned dummy teat: the way to keep the children quiet is just to sit them in front of the "telly". But there is a revolution beginning in our schools, which I think will come to the rescue of the theatre. Particularly in the primary schools, children are being given a sense of movement and drama and design. These will be the theatre-goers of the future, and the theatre of the future will be what we care to make it; there are fashions in the theatre, as there are in everything else. Surely it is better that, instead of thinking of a nation sitting like fascinated rabbits for hour after hour watching television, there should be a diversity of choice. They should have all the television they want, especially if they are very tired and their feet are sore and they cannot go out. But if at the week-end the old and the young want to go out to the enchantment, excitement and stimulus of the living theatre, then they should be able to do so. I hope that we in this House feel that we are no enemy of any man's religion; that we do not want Sunday to be the same as any other day of the week; that we want Sunday to be a day of rest, a day of refreshment and recreation, but that we want it to be a happy day, a holiday, as well as a holy day.
This is a simple Bill. It has nothing to do with sport, or with the fear that some people have of a great deal of congestion and noise. We can leave those

1023
questions entirely aside. I am simply asking your Lordships to be good enough to agree that this ban on the live theatre on a Sunday is an anachronism, and that the time has now come when, in the interests of employment, in the interests of the living theatre, in the interests of that vast talent that we have in our theatres, and in the interests of the enlargement of life, it should at last be lifted. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª. —(Baroness Lee of Asheridge.)

THE EMPLOYMENT SERVICE
3.58 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I hope that it will be acceptable to your Lordships if I now repeat the Statement that has been made by my honourable friend the Minister of State to the Department of Employment. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the future of the public employment service. My right honourable friend has to-day made available in the Vote Office and through the Department's local offices copies of a Report entitled People and Jobs which outlines a programme for modernising the Employment Service. This programme is based on a review my right honourable friend has been making of all the Department's manpower services. We acknowledge the debt we have owed during that review to earlier work on the Employment Service including the comments received from many individuals and organisations on the Consultative Document of May, 1970.
"The Employment Service has important economic and social functions. It has responsibilities for improving the operation of the labour market and for helping people who have difficulty in finding or keeping satisfactory employment. The present service is undoubtedly doing good work in both these respects; but for largely historical reasons it is not able fully and effectively to meet the many and varied needs of employers and workers in a modern labour market.
1024
"Accordingly the Government is making major changes in the way the service is organised and run. These are set out in detail in the Report. The main changes are:
First, the Employment Service is to become a departmental agency—that is, a self-managing unit within the Department of Employment. A newly appointed Chief Executive will be directly responsible for the efficient performance of the service.
Second, the staff and offices dealing with placing and other employment work, on the one hand, and administration of unemployment benefit, on the other, will be separated and unemployment benefit will be paid by post.
Third, job self-service and vacancy displays will be extended to all local employment offices, and the staff and training requirements of advisory interviewing work will be thoroughly reviewed.
Fourth, a new network of attractively designed well located employment offices will be developed.
Fifth, plans for re-styling the pro. fessional and executive register and charging employers for the service will be urgently followed up.
Sixth, a new division of responsibility between the Department of Employment and local authorities will be established for giving careers guidance and a placing service for young people.
"As the House will realise, it will not be possible to make all these changes overnight. The Chief Executive, supported by a management team which has been freed from responsibilities for day-to-day work, will be responsible for carrying out the modernisation programme as quickly as practicable in full consultation with staff and other interests concerned.
"The Government is determined to carry through this programme with all urgency, and believes it will provide the positive and dynamic public service which is required as an effective instrument of manpower policies in modern employment conditions."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating what is an extremely important Statement, and one which really will be very significant in the field of employment. I am grateful, too, for the noble Lord's acknowledgement of the previous work done. These proposals are, as he said, based on the Consultative Document of the previous Government. and I only wish the noble Lord had referred to the part of my right honourable friend Mrs. Barbara Castle, who brought energy to bear on this matter.
Although I have given a broad welcome to this Statement, the fact remains that I am disappointed that the Government have taken so long to make it. I can only conclude that they were so busy with the Industrial Relations Bill that that took priority; and I would ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that, as we pointed out in the debate on industrial relations, the saving of even a single day in placing each person unemployed would in total exceed the number of days lost through strikes. We gave the noble Lord these figures during the debate, and my noble friend also has them. If the noble Lord works it out, he will find that this is so. Therefore the highest priority is necessary; and all the more so while unemployment is running at its present level. I will not enter into a discussion on that now, but the need for a much more highly-geared employment service is very great indeed. I note that the noble Lord said that a new management team is going to look at the setting up of the organisation. I am glad to see that the same concept of semi-hived-off. management by objective style and accountable management style organisation is to be set up. Intending no reflection on the excellent work previously done, I would say that it will need to take on a rather different image; and I am sure the noble Lord will acknowledge that.
May I ask the noble Lord how far the discussions with the staff side have gone? I would have hoped that in the seventeen months that have elapsed since this Government came into office we might have gone a lot further along the road. My main complaint is that these proposals are not as sweeping as ours were. But, as I said, I give the Statement a welcome. I urge the Minister to use his influence
1026
to press on as hard as possible, and possibly even look at some of the devoted work which was done, both in the Department of Employment and Productivity and, indeed, in other Departments, on this subject.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I slightly deprecate the rather grudging welcome from the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition. The prodigal son was welcomed home, not chided for being late when he came home. It is so rare to get something very good from this Government that we must welcome it indeed. From these Benches I should like to welcome it wholeheartedly, and to say how particularly important think the separation of the administration of unemployment benefit will be, and the payment of unemployment benefit by post, and also the careers guidance for young people. The only question I would ask is, I think, an important one. Would the Minister care to comment on the one really important subject which is not mentioned in this Statement at all? Surely almost the most important job of the Department and of the service will be channelling people into retraining—which is so important, as we on these Benches have been pointing out, at this particular moment, with the large amount of unemployment that exists. There is no mention of this at all in the Statement. I wonder whether the noble would like to repair the omission.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will not mind me—
LORD SHACKLETON: Is the noble Lord going to answer?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I will willingly answer, but I thought it might be convenient if so distinguished a noble Lord as the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, were to speak first. If the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, would prefer it, and thinks it is more in accordance with the usual custom, I will of course answer his points now.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am bound to say that I am in a difficulty and I apologise to the House that I should be at a Committee of the House; but it is customary, I think, to answer the first two speeches before the points get lost. I fully agree with the noble

1027
Lord's comments about the importance of any contribution which will come from my noble friend.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Then perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, will allow me to reply now: I shall listen to his contribution later. My Lords, I am very grateful for the way in which this Statement has been received, and for the recognition of its importance. I fully recognise this is an urgent matter. On the other hand, I think I am bound to point out that, in the nature of the case, the whole body of these proposals will take some time to work out. But I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that, as I have said, the Government are determined to proceed with all possible haste in these matters. I am sorry if he thinks that the acknowledgement in the Statement was in any way grudging. I am not sure that it is always necessary to refer to personalities in these matters, but I thought the acknowledgement was—
LORD SHACKLETON: Better than most.
LORD DRUMALBYN: —better than most.
The noble Lord asked about the discussions with the staff side. Of course, these mainly relate to the matters affecting the employment of staff, and these will arise mainly in the sector dealing with separation. In the nature of the case, this is bound to proceed slowly. So far as the general question of the staff's duties is concerned, the management has been set a goal for its proposals: that they should be completed by October of next year; and that will, I hope, give adequate opportunity for discussions with the staff side. I am also glad that the noble Lord welcomed the management team. It is, I think, a good team. It is a small one, I believe, and it has representatives from outside the Department as well as from inside.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for his remarks. He asked about channelling people into retraining. I fully agree with him on the importance of this work, and this is something that has not been overlooked in any way. The occupational guidance service which was set up during the term of office of the Party opposite is already
1028
dealing with something like 45, 000 people a year, and it is expected that this number will increase very considerably. The advice given to those who come to the employment board will certainly include advice on the retraining facilities that are available. As the noble Lord will understand, the actual training does not come immediately into this Statement, but advice about what is existing does.
LORD COOPER or STOCKTON HEATH: My Lords, while we may agree with the noble Lord that the method of payment, the method of training and the method of placing is very important, I think we ought to keep a sense of proportion about this matter. In a situation where there are almost a million unemployed people we are at this stage almost in the realm of theory. If any message at all were to go from this House to the other place, I hope that it would be a message about the urgent need to do everything possible to relax the overall economy, so that we can get the size of this great army of unemployed labour down to proportions where the proposals may have some meaning.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I fully take the noble Lord's point, but I think that in this regard Lord Shackleton's point was also relevant, and the more quickly we can get people into the jobs available as they arise the better. The whole object of this exercise is to get the needs of the employers, for jobs to be filled, and those of the workers, to find jobs, satisfied as efficiently and as quickly as possible.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it would obviously be a great convenience if the payment of unemployment benefits were made by post. But what is going to happen in the event of disputes as to the entitlement amounts? These will be quite numerous, and I wonder whether the noble Lord has any specific arrangements in mind for dealing with this matter.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord says that these arrangements will be quite new. They have been in operation already in the Greater London area and I am not aware of any particular difficulty arising through mistakes in payments. But I will make inquiries and let the noble Lord know.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I endorse what was said by my noble friend Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath and I agree with him that one must see this matter in the perspective of the present unemployment situation. I am also mindful of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. Nevertheless I am bound to ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, whether he would not agree, after this delay of 17 months, that the proposals which were put forward on a consultative basis by the former Government have not been developed or expanded during this lapse of time; that rather, so far as one can judge from the Statement made, they have been substantially diminished? Would he not agree, for example, that the proposal for a network of manpower centres, which was a feature of the Consultative Document, does not have a place in the present proposals? I do not think that the new employment offices to which the noble Lord referred are intended to cover the ground of the manpower centres. Would he not further agree that these proposals appear likely to be giving, over a fairly wide field of employment, a further lease of life to fee-paying agencies? I take the point, of course, that in respect of professional persons the Department is to seek to take over this work; hut, as I understand it, in the remaining fields of industry the fee-paying agencies, where they exist at the moment, will have a further lease of life. Lastly, would the noble Lord say whether it is intended to make the careers guidance work mandatory on local authorities?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, asked about the comparison between what is proposed here, what is to be brought into operation, and what was proposed by the Labour Government. I think, my Lords, that to a large extent it is a matter of nomenclature. What was to be done by the manpower centres is, I understand already being worked out. For example, there is the computer service for vacancies circulation in London; the experiment that has been made in Birmingham, and the extension of that experiment to some ten cities in the coming year. There are also the proposals for manpower intelligence which will be brought within the duties of the manager of each employ
1030
ment exchange. It will be for the management team to decide how best to coordinate those. So far as the question of a fresh lease of life to fee-paying agencies is concerned, I must make clear that the Government do not envisage any kind of monopoly of the services in this area. Nor would it be posible for them to give the variety of services that are required, both by employers and also by employees, if they did envisage a monopoly. My Lords, the last question which the noble Lord asked was about the new employment service and whether it would be mandatory. This is a matter which my right honourable friend is going to discuss with the local authority associations. He has not yet made up his mind about it.
4.18 p.m.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, I am very concerned about this problem because I am probably one of the few who have "signed on the dole" for years and wondered why. I have discovered, in the years that have passed by, that unless there is sufficient investment inside industry there is no hope at all of curing the unemployment problem. I have discovered that, following the investment, following the provision of the necessary money, you must have the necessary skilled employees. That brings me to the question: is the present employment exchange, which we used to call the unemployment exchange, sufficiently able to obtain the necessary skilled labour which would warrant the necessary investment in industry? The unskilled labour in any country—make no mistake about this, my Lords—is completely dependent on two things: first, money, and secondly, skilled labour. It seems to me that the question posed to the House is whether independent selective employment agencies can supply the skilled labour better than State-controlled employment agencies. I do not know the answer to that. If the State can supply the skilled labour, let it say so. If the independent agencies can supply the skilled labour, let it not be denied. Because we have to decide which of these can supply the skilled labour before we get the investment. If we then decide how to get investment in this country. we shall resolve a lot of problems. I have heard many arguments lately about whether we should have foreign capital in this country, and

1031
whether we should have the highest concentration of capital inside the country or whether we should not. I think that we must attract the capital inside the country before ultimately deciding what is to be done about labour. Having got the capital, we must then get the skilled labour. If we are to exclude the independent people who really got the skilled labour inside this country—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, I will give way for a reply.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I began to think that perhaps he was going a little further than we generally go in putting a point after a Statement had been made. Perhaps I could reply simply in this way. In this Statement we are not really concerned with the actual supply of trained labour; we are concerned with the means of bringing together the employer, whoever he may be, and the possessor of that skilled labour. The view that I expressed in response to a question asked earlier was that in discharging this task we need to call upon all available agencies. The employer may himself prefer to advertise directly for his requirements; he may prefer to do so through an employment agency, or he may prefer to go to the employment exchange. The object of these proposals is to encourage him to prefer to go to the employment exchange, and to put down his requirements and notify his vacancies there. The difficulty in the past has been that employers have not been notifying as many of their vacancies as we should like. We hope that in future it will be possiable for them to double the number of vacancies that they notify.
LORD DOUGLASS Or CLEVELAND: My Lords, I accept that argument. I was not aware that I was arguing against it. We must encourage people to go to the labour exchange; but the fact is that they have been encouraged by events to go elsewhere. Is the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, suggesting that we ought to exclude all the outside agencies who bring skilled labour into contact with the money which is necessary for the development of industry? His argument must surely be—and I am sure this is the view on this
1032
side—that if we cannot bring together the skilled labour and the necessary investment there is no hope for the future. Surely what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is arguing now is that we should encourage all vacancy notifications to come within a certain ambit.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, may I ask a question? I must at least be allowed to ask a question. Is it suggested that if employers who want skilled labour make a different approach from the State-controlled one suggested by Lord Drumalbyn—if they go to the independent people who bring together investment and labour—this is wrong?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords; I have tried to suggest the contrary. We want to use all available agencies possible in order to match those offering jobs with those seeking jobs. What I said was that we think that the employment exchanges, after 60 years in more or less the same pattern, could he modernised in such a way as to attract a greater share of the employers to notify vacancies to them, so that they could place a greater proportion of the employees in work.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, may I ask a further question? Is the noble Lord advocating the eradication of all the employment agencies except the State-controlled ones? It seems to me that that is what this argument leads to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords. I was merely saying that we do not think the employment exchanges do as large a share of the work as they could do.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, after listening to the various contributions that have been made, am I to assume from the Statement that all the employment exchanges are to come within the ambit of the main employment exchange? Is that to be the position? Or will there be the employment exchanges with this proposal additional to them? The noble Lord said that the Government want other sectors who may he able to help. I have recently seen on Tyne-Tees Television advertisements of certain vacancies in Newcastle and the surrounding area. This is a means of advertisement which could be of some assistance: and if more of this were done it might help.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I hope I have made it clear—I have endeavoured to do so—that there are three main ways of recruitment. One is by the employer advertising directly: the other, is by going to private exchanges, and the third is by using the employment exchange. We do not intend to cut off any of those three sources. We want to improve the last.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, I am going to insist.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, if I may speak for just a moment, there is a great deal of additional Business on the Order Paper. The noble Lord has already spoken—
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, I am still on the original question. I am in order. I am asking the question now. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that not enough work is going to the labour exchange, which is where it should be going. I am asking whether there is a reason for this. I am asking whether the labour exchanges are sufficiently capable of dealing with this problem. If they are, does the problem of the outside agencies arise? But this problem does arise; and it increases unemployment.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, I have a right to ask this question. I do not care how many agencies we have so long as they help to decrease unemployment. I am going to follow that particular line.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with the answers I have given because I do not see how I can add to them. I am sure that he will read this paper, People and Jobs, and then perhaps we could discuss the matter further.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, I conclude by saying that, with a million unemployed, I am not at all sure that any agencies are satisfactory. But I shall pursue this question at a future date.

SUNDAY THEATRE (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
4.28 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should like now to continue the debate on the Sunday Theatre Bill. When I spoke on Lord Strabolgi's Sunday Cinema Bill last week I described the attitude of the Government as one of benevolent neutrality. The same remark applies to the Bill which the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, has commended to your Lordships to-day in such a remarkably persuasive speech. This means that the Government are sympathetic to the aims of the promoter and would not wish to do anything to impede the Bill's progress. If the Bill passes through your Lordships' House it will, however, need to make progress in another place on its merits, and I am afraid that owing to the very heavy programme of legislation I am not in a position to offer either Government time or drafting assistance. Nevertheless, I have had an opportunity to discuss the Bill with the noble Baroness and her advisers, and I am glad that my Department have been able to be of some assistance in the framing of the No. 2 Bill. I am advised that there are still one or two minor defects in the Bill, but these are fairly technical and can be straightened out in Committee. My noble friend the Paymaster General had hoped to speak for the Government in this debate, but unfortunately he has suffered from a bout of 'flu and has to have his energies for the further debates on museum charges later this afternoon. But he has asked me to say that from his standpoint as Minister with responsibility for the Arts he looks on the objects of this Bill favourably.
Since the war, much has been done to encourage the writing and production of plays. The reputation of the British theatre to-day stands very high. Visitors from overseas have paid many well-deserved compliments to the standard of

1035
acting, of writing and of production. We can take pride in the fact that artistically the theatre is flourishing to an extent that has not often been achieved in the past. But while the tourists and the visitors turn up at the box office in their thousands, we have not yet done enough to attract British audiences. Cinemas have been open on Sundays in most cities and towns for many years now; and a wide variety of television programmes are available on three channels. These newer media (partly perhaps because they are newer) are privileged in comparison with the theatre, and in a way that is contrary to the best interests of the Arts.
The live theatre must draw audiences —domestic audiences as well as visitors —and at times that are convenient for the widest possible theatre-going public. As the noble Baroness reminded us, not everyone has the time, even perhaps the energy, to get to the theatre after work in the evening. Things are more leisurely on Sunday, and there seems little doubt that if plays could be performed on Sundays they would attract a bigger audience than on Mondays, and perhaps than on some other days of the week, too. This can only be in the interests of a healthy theatre, in close contact with and appreciated by as many people as possible.
The noble Baroness referred to the fact that her Bill does not specifically lay down that no one employed in the theatre should work for more than six days out of every seven. Such an omission would not, I think, find favour with many of your Lordships if the promoters could not tell us that they have discussed this with the unions concerned, and that in their view satisfactory arrangements and safeguards can be made. The Government see no objection to a Bill of this kind without a clause on seven day work, because we believe that it is desirable, wherever possible, to regulate terms and conditions of employment by means of voluntary collective bargaining rather than by statutory provision. I understand that this will be the case here, and no doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, will give us such information as she can on this matter as the Bill progresses through your Lordships' House.
But, my Lords, this Bill is not only about the theatre and those who work in
1036
it. It is also about Sunday, a day of worship for some and of rest for most. I doubt whether any of your Lordships would want Sunday to be the same as Saturday or as Monday. We may have a religious concern for keeping Sunday different; or our concern might spring from reasons of health, physical or mental, or just common sense. As the Crathorne Committee acknowledged. Sunday has a special character quite apart from its religious significance. So the arguments are very strong for keeping Sunday as a day of rest for the great majority. But inevitably some people have to work on Sundays to keep certain public services going. As an increasingly large proportion of the population have the opportunity to go out and enjoy themselves on Sunday, employment has to go on in all sorts of ways to provide for leisure activities—traffic control, garages, restaurants, pubs, park-keepers; all those whose work, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, which the noble Baroness quoted to us earlier, is "other people's play ".
My Lords, I do not believe that there is any chance that the Churches will be threatened by this Bill. if there was evidence to the contrary, the Government would want to think long and hard before declaring themselves to be even benevolently neutral. A man becomes, and remains, a Christian because he believes. If he does not believe, restrictions on the opening of theatres on Sunday seem hardly likely to encourage his conversion. In 1780, when the Sunday Observance Act was placed on the Statute Book, the relationship between the Churches and the people, between work and leisure, were very different from what they are to-day. Maybe an essentially modern obstacle to the propagation of the Christian faith can be found in the widespread ignorance that there is any reality that lies behind what we Perceive with our senses and apprehend with our reason. I hope it is not too high-flown to claim that the Arts can contribute to removing this ignorance. Good art has always taught men something true about the human condition.
Let us not, therefore, as we consider this Bill, make the mistake of setting up considerations of religious observance, on the one hand, and of leisure activities, on

1037
the other, as being in conflict with one another. They are not in conflict. They are part of the same continuous spectrum, the whole of which is illuminated—or is capable of being illuminated—by art. Of course, not all theatrical performances on a Sunday, any more than on any other day of the week, will measure up to these aspirations. But some will—make no mistake about that—as they do now, not only in the West End, but in other parts of the country as well. Others may do little more than make live performances available to people who at the moment can see drama only though the filter of the cinema screen or the television set. If we have faith in the theatre and its potential, as we should; if we take pride in its achievements, as we can, then it is difficult to see why the two-centuries-old restrictions on Sunday opening of theatres should survive for much longer.
It is for reasons of that sort, as well as those which I mentioned earlier, that I can congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, on her initiative in bringing forward this Bill, and assure her of the good will of those who sit on this Front Bench.
4.38 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT or WHITLEY: My Lords, I should like to give my support to this Bill, which I think is a major step forward. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, is not here this afternoon: he might find that A Long Day's Journey into Night is going on here too; but I will do my best not to add to that. As noble Lords have previously said, finding and planning the means of recreation for the country is going to be a growing problem. This is so regardless of the days we are talking about. If there is going to be growing technological unemployment, as many of us fear, the whole idea of recreation and its provision will require a great deal more thought than it has had in the past; and I think it is unrealistic to put up too many artificial barriers in the way of particular dates, times or places.
The theological problem is not, I think, a difficult one. In speaking of this, I was going to apologise for possibly pre-empting the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. But as we have both already been pre-empted by what seemed to me to be a very good theologi
1038
cal exposition by the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench, there is no need for me to follow him except to say that, as Christians, we have a duty to decide whether a measure put forward, as seen by us as Christians, is for the good of society; and if we do so judge that it is good for society, then it is no part of the Christian duty in any way to object to that merely because it might be inconvenient for Christians, as such. Christians are here to be at the service of the world for what is generally good, rather than to put barriers in the way from a selfish point of view.
I have one reservation, and one extra point of condemnation, on this Bill. The reservation is about not writing a six-day week into the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Lee, assured us about the amount of agreement that will go forward between Equity and the technical unions, on the one side, and the theatre managements, on the other. But she will not be unaware that the Government's Industrial Relations Bill has grievously weakened the position of Equity with regard to the employers. Many of her colleagues and many people on these Benches, and some people from the Conservative Benches, voiced fears during the passing of the Industrial Relations Act that it opened the way to fly-by-night managements who cannot have agreements forced on them by Equity. Nothing has happened since then to calm those fears. I know that it is likely to concern a minority of cases, but I believe that this is a point that we might well consider at a later stage of the Bill.
The extra thing which I believe to be in the Bill's favour is that it will allow increasing opportunities for the young in an already overcrowded profession, in that the spare day--Monday or whichever day it is—can well be given over to performances by members of Equity producing one-night stands without charging, as is sometimes done, or club performances on Sundays. This will be a very good vehicle for young people to gain experience and for the trying out of productions of one kind or another. I see this as a very valuable by-product of the Bill as it is drafted.
Lastly, I would say that, if I did have any doubts about this Bill, it seems to me that in judging the measures before us in

1039
a free society the burden of proof should be on those who wish to restrict freedom, and the assumption should always be in favour of freedom. I do not see that any burden of proof has been undertaken by anybody as to why these restrictions should have been made or, since they have been made, why they should be continued. I think it will be a very good thing indeed when they are taken off, and I hope that the Government will be able to sec their way to give this Bill a bit of a fair wind later.
4.43 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: My Lords, I must confess to a somewhat more tempered enthusiasm for the Bill than was exhibited by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, whichever of his collars he is wearing, because I do first of all speak positively, wishing to make my own the sentiments voiced by the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of York, from these Benches in 1965 when the Crathorne Committee Report was under consideration. If I may briefly quote him, he said:
"I welcome the case for the whole man which has obviously motivated the drawing up of this Report, and I welcome, as indeed the vast majority of Churchmen would. the desire to eliminate from the Statute Book anomalies and anachronisms in legislation which only bring the matter of Sunday Observance into ridicule. It is clear to my mind that those who served on this Departmental Committee had in mind that we must work for such conditions as will allow men and women to have, not a Sunday which is drab and boring, but one which provides for re-creation … of body, mind and spirit, for refreshment and renewal of the whole person. Such a day once a week is a very important factor— would say a vital factor—in the growth of men and women."
With those positive sentiments transferred from the Crathorne Committee to this Bill I would fully identify myself. I have nevertheless three reservations, which arc themselves based not on religious grounds but precisely on the ground which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, referred to, on the restriction of liberty. The first is my doubt as to whether there is in fact sufficient safeguard for those who do not wish to be compelled to work a seven-day week. When I say "compelled" I do not mean legally compelled, but compelled by those sorts of pressure which in a crowded profession exercise
1040
a very considerable pressure: the fear of losing work and pay through not competing with one's neighbours when everybody else is doing it, and often thereby having to accept roles which are uncongenial and undesired simply because the pressure of circumstances released by such a Bill would make it very difficult to resist.
My second scruple, when I read the Bill in its second form as compared with the first, was whether the local option was sufficiently retained. I find it hard to see where this is provided for in the No. 2 Bill. There was, for example, an expression of opinion on behalf of the Welsh Churches, that while agreeing in principle they would wish to see freedom for local opting out if relaxation took place, so that areas in Wales could be given local options. It would seem, my Lords, a very important part of all cultural legislation that we should recognise that the United Kingdom is a community of very varying cultural climate. One of our important considerations in such a representative House as this is to remember continually that London is not England and although the Bill does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland I still believe that there are many parts of the United Kingdom in England and Wales where the climate of sentiment would not so readily wish to avail itself. I want to be reassured that this draft of the Bill makes provision for local opting out in the way that I understood the first draft of the Bill to do.
Thirdly, I have scruples about the hour of 1 p.m. It seems to me too early. not because church services are affected—that position clearly is safeguarded so far as morning worship is concerned, and in any case that was not an aspect of the matter on which I should wish to dwell—but because of an entirely different matter, that of Sunday dinner. I believe that in many parts of this country the Sunday midday meal is one of the really few family occasions that remain, and this is vastly important at a time when more and more housewives arc themselves employed. I would regard it as a very sad restriction of the fullness of family life if, by encouraging a curtailment of that all-too-rare occasion when the family gathers as a family, we were to encourage that almost sacramental moment to be abandoned.

1041
I listened most carefully to the very persuasive advocacy of this Bill by the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, and almost all my first scruple was removed. I recognise the force of what was said in the letter quoted from Mr. Emile Littler on behalf of the Theatres National Committee, of which she sent me a copy. I still think that there are real dangers in the kind of economic pressures in the overcrowded state of the theatrical profession which would make it very difficult for some people to resist having to take jobs in Sunday entertainment which on all other grounds they would wish they did not have to take. Clearly in a plural society such as ours the right of those who wish to worship is fully safeguarded in this provision which is made, but I should still like to ask the noble Baroness, when she replies, to give us some further assurance about local freedom to opt out in those areas of the country where the benefits of the Bill will not be so self-evident as they seem to be in other quarters. I should also like to know whether the early hour of 1 p.m. is necessarily the best, and whether all the positive advantages which this Bill envisages could not be met by a somewhat later hour of opening, allowing, as I suppose one must, for the large number of people who would have to be employed considerably before the formal hour of the beginning of the performance. That is the reason why my enthusiasm is somewhat tempered, though I should like nothing better than to find by the time the Bill has passed through all its stages that all my scruples have been satisfied.
4.51 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the Second Reading of this Bill. I was always a supporter of the Crathorne Committee's Report which I thought was very moderate, very balanced and very sensible. Your Lordships will remember the debate that we had on the Bill introduced by my noble friend, Lord Willis. I did not take any part in it, but I heard it all from the Woolsack. We had a number of Amendments moved at the Committee stage, and some on the Report stage. None of them succeeded on a completely free vote they were all defeated on their merits. I thought at the time that it was remarkable that this
1042
quite substantial Private Member's Bill should leave this House exactly as it arrived.
Tonight we are dealing only with a small part, the theatre. This has always in the past suffered under a disadvantage. The Crathorne Committee said, in paragraph 84 of their Report:
"In principle, we could find no justification for treating theatres and variety entertainment differently from cinemas and music and the figures we quoted in paragraph 50 show that, even if all the theatres opened on Sunday, the increase in Sunday employment would be only a small fraction of 0·6 per cent. of all employed persons."
After dealing with possible objections the Committee came to the conclusion that this was a course which ought to be taken. It is now a long time since the cinemas, or most cinemas, opened on Sundays. The theatre has always been under this very unfair handicap. Of course, you could have 40, 000 people at Brand's Hatch, or watching "Sunday night at the London Palladium "which was about the most popular feature of the week on television. It really was absurd that you could not see the show being performed at the Palladium, if it was at the Palladium, or in the studio, if it was in a studio.
I do not want to take up any time about this. I agree that we must at a later stage consider the position of Equity. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that the Industrial Relations Act has weakened the position of actors and actresses in relation to theatrical managers. However, we shall be able to satisfy ourselves that we can meet that position. The House may remember that in Appendix D of the Crathorne Committee's Report it was shown that when the then 11,000 members of Equity were asked. "Are you opposed to the Sunday opening of theatres under any conditions? ", only 401 members replied, "Yes ". With those few words I commend the Second Reading of the Bill to the House, and hope that, under the guidance of my noble friend Lady Lee, it may do well both in this House and in the other place.
4.54 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am very glad from these Benches to support the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, and indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner,

1043
in bringing forward this Bill; and I congratulate the noble Baroness in the way that she did it. Although what I have to say represents purely personal views, I must declare an interest inasmuch as I have always been interested in the theatre. I helped to found the English Stage Company at the Royal Court, and I am now President of the British Drama League, and also of the Chichester Festival Theatre, of which the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, was the first Director. Although on this occasion I am not speaking on their behalf, I have none the less a strong impression that the Bill receives the support of the great majority of the 4, 000 members of the British Drama League. Some of these members represent societies and drama organisations which make a total of probably around 20, 000 people.
Most of the Drama League week-end courses and summer centres already take place on Sundays. In many cases Sunday is the only day of the week in which people are able to involve themselves in such activities. I also have the impression, both from the correspondence I have received and from what I have heard from noble Lords this afternoon, that this Bill has the support of a majority of the British theatrical profession as a whole. In regard to Chichester, if I may speak about what I know, we have regular Sunday night celebrity concerts which are allowed to include such highly theatrical events as Emlyn Williams as Dickens, or Micheal Mac Liammoir as Oscar Wilde, both productions in costume. Sometimes there are even "pop" musical events on these Sunday nights.
It seems to me quite nonsensical, even ludicrous, that people may do almost everything else on a Sunday—look at the television, go to the movies, listen to concerts or readings—yet are not able to visit the living theatre. I am not committing the Chichester Board in any way by speaking this afternoon. They will decide on their merits whether they should close on Sunday or on Monday. They should have freedom of choice, and, I should like to say to the right reverend Prelate, freedom to opt out if they wish to do so.
Like the noble Baroness, and others who have spoken, I am of the firm
1044
opinion that since cinemas have the right to open seven days a week, the theatre should be allowed to do so too, or at least should have the right to choose which days it opens. It may be that many theatres would like to close on Mondays as on the Continent. No-one is suggesting that artistes should be expected to perform seven days without a day off. A free day is essential, and on this I agree with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Olivier. Having spent over five years of my working life in Paris—and it was a very hard-working period—I know that the one evening a week when my wife and I felt free to go to the theatre was on a Sunday. I know, too, that in this country overseas visitors would welcome this facility.
The theatre is the servant of the people. If the public want to be entertained at the weekend—as they certainly do on the Continent and in all the countries within the European Community which we are shortly to join—and as from television viewing figures, even in this country, it would seem that they also wish to be entertained on Sundays, I feel that the theatre should be able to accommodate them. With great respect to the Lord's Day Observance Society, there are many worse things that people might be doing on Sunday evenings than going out to the theatre. Chichester is a well known cathedral city. Our own right reverend Prelate is on the council of our theatre trust. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester has not, to my knowledge, objected to any of the activities that I have already mentioned as taking place on Sunday evenings—indeed, I know that he welcomes many of them. And, pace what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol has said, I cannot believe that our own Bishop would object. Nor do I think that his predecessor, the right reverend Dr. George Bell, who was greatly interested in the theatre, would have objected; and I knew him very well indeed. Most of us understand the point about restricting the activities of commercialised sport, but it does not apply to activities that do not interfere with others. My Lords, I gladly support the noble Baroness in introducing this Bill.
5.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, I must oppose this Bill, and that for the reason that I believe that Sunday is a

1045
God-given day for worship and recreation, and it is needed by members of the acting profession more than any of us. In this connection, I should like to quote from a petition signed by 48 actors and actresses in 1953. This is what they said:

ACTORS AND ACTRESSES PETITION FOR PROTECTION.
"Actors and Actresses earnestly and humbly beg that the House of Commons will not allow them to be compelled, in the interest of commercial managements, to work on Sundays, but will preserve to them the liberty which the law provides to work only six days in each week and to have their day of rest in their own homes.
"They submit that this day of rest is valueless to them if, by the arbitrary will of local authorities and of managers, it is varied in each contract, for Sunday is the day on which wives, husbands and children are released from labour. Actors and actresses who are denied this day will be debarred from the happiness of private life, and, though profit may be increased, humanity will suffer."
This petition is signed, as I said, by 48 actors and actresses, including Dame Peggy Ashcroft, Richard Attenborough, Cicely Courtneidge, Nicholas Hannen, Jack Hawkins, Evelyn Laye, Dame Margaret Rutherford, and Dame Athene Seyler.
I should now like to come a little closer to the present time and to give the reactions of Equity when Mr. John Parker's Sunday Entertainments Bill was introduced in 1969. I have heard nothing from Equity to indicate that their view has changed in the intervening period. I quote from the Stage of July 3, 1969:
"Sunday Bill. No Equity support in any way. Gerald Croasdell, General Secretary of Equity, states that Equity Council have decided that they would not be reflecting the views of the membership as a whole if they were to support the Sunday Entertainments Bill in any way.
"It is widely believed, ' says an Equity statement, that members of the theatrical profession as a whole support the Sunday Entertainments Bill. It is true that many do so. On the other hand, since the Bill was introduced strong opposition to it has been expressed at meetings of Equity members and a request that Equity itself should actively oppose the measure has been signed by a large number of actors and actresses, including more than 200 artists now appearing in nine West End productions "
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, would the noble Viscount allow me to speak on one correction of fact,
1046
or would he prefer me to wait until the end of the debate? I have been in con; tact with Equity officials this morning, and they have no objection to this Bill provided that negotiations take place directly between Equity and the managements.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, I would suggest to your Lordships that this is a matter on which people do not lightly change their opinions, and, as I said a moment ago, two years ago there were at least 200 artists asking Equity to oppose the measure. The noble Baroness also mentioned the support that she has for her Bill from the licensees and theatre managers. I should like to read to your Lordships a letter from one licensee and manager, written to the Evening News on March 6, 1969:
"As the Licensee and Manager of the historical Theatre Royal, Haymarket, I agree with all my heart with John Lambert's views on Sunday opening …
"To everyone who works in the theatre from check-takers and dressers to small part and leading actors Sunday is a blessed day, our one clay off, the only day we can spend in our homes with our children.
"And don't forget that we in the theatre work six days a week. What a splendid thing it would be for our country if everyone did the same. For decades we have worked all day Saturday giving pleasure to other's leisure. Who wants a Continental Sunday anyway?
"I believe it was our English Sunday that gave us the self-control and discipline that served us so well in times of stress. Today, especially, it is these qualities we cannot afford to lose.—Sylva Stuart Watson. Theatre Royal, Haymarket."
My Lords, I hope that I have said enough to show that there is a substantial minority of actors and actresses who are opposed to Sunday working because of the harmful effect on their families. The trouble about being an actor, I understand, is that one is away from home just at the time when one's children return from school; and one does not go to bed very early and may not be up in time to see them off to school the following morning. I would particularly ask at this time, when a happy family life is not easy to achieve, not easy for any of us, that we do not do anything which is going to detract from the family happiness of others. Let us not look to short-term profits but to long-term happiness. I must oppose this Bill and I hope that

1047
other noble Lords who share this view will support me.
5.8 p.m.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: My Lords, I should very much like to support this Bill and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, on introducing it. I am going to give your Lordships only a few of my personal views, so I shall not keep you very long. I have a good many friends in the theatrical world and I have spoken to a number of them about this Bill, not only now but in the past. Only a couple of days ago I spoke to a well-known producer, and his view was that, as Mondays are always bad days for the theatre, why should not the ordinary person, who has a holiday on Sunday, be able to go to a theatre on Sunday? Another friend, to whom I spoke quite lately, a well-known actor, told me that he thought the average actor or actress would like Sunday night opening, as Monday nights were always dreary and the theatre was almost empty. I am quite in agreement with the right reverend Prelate in saying that there ought to be an option and that we cannot expect people to work six days a week, but I think that Sunday opening might help a great many people. It seems a universal view among my friends that Sunday opening is something they are very much in favour of.
My next point concerns a personal observance of my own. I have only comparatively late in life lived entirely in London. I am a rather busy person, so I find that I go to the cinema or to a concert on Sunday because they are open, whereas the live theatre, which I love, is not. I am astonished at the queues of people outside every cinema both for the afternoon and for the evening performances, not only in the West End but far afield—in Chelsea, Kensington, Putney and so on, and one has usually to queue or to go to two or three cinemas before one can find a seat. Why should they be allowed to go to a cinema or concert and not to the live theatre?
I read through the Crathorne Report on The Law on Sunday Observance, and I found nothing in the Report against the opening of theatres on Sunday—in fact quite to the contrary. Add to this, as we all know, that T.V. goes on from morning to night and that many families look at it
1048
all day and all evening, what is the difference between this and going to the theatre? It is true that some of the T.V. performances are recorded before Sunday, but many programmes are transmitted live, and by not opening the theatre until after 1 o'clock no one is prevented from attending service in their church. Like the right reverend Prelate, I feel that the theatres should not open before 1 o'clock, but I doubt whether they would open at that time because the people concerned might want to have something to eat before the performance started. It seems to me to be quite ridiculous that an Act of 1780 should prevent the public from seeing a stage play or a variety performance on Sundays when they can visit any cinema, drink in a public house, watch television or, should they wish, visit a night club where a show is often prevented. It need not be pornographic to he entertainment. I urge your Lordships to support this Bill.
5.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I think the whole House was deeply impressed with the sincerity with which the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, spoke just now. I would like to support him; and I do so, wishing to recall to your Lordships that, not for the first time, the label "progress" has been used to invoke a measure that is in fact essentially retrograde. And merely to denounce an Act because it was passed in 1780 seems to me to be a strange course of logic in a Parliament, some of whose rights date from Magna Charta itself.
No sensible person denies society's need of a regular interval or even day of rest for everybody. That is common ground. Pressure for, and acceptance of, the five-day week indeed demonstrates this. The question is whether this so plausible and so agreeably moved Bill really helps to bring that about. I am always happy when I hear the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, speak because of her and my associations not only with Scotland but with Lanarkshire, and I was particularly struck by the way she spoke in happy memory of Scottish Sundays at home. Surely that in itself was something of a demonstration that the tranquil Sunday, even though it is much maligned by Latins and others in Europe, is something special; and those of us who have had

1049
the privilege of being brought up to enjoy it, realise what a pleasure it is.
This Bill is based on the Crathorne Report and I question its logic. To say that because the Sunday Observance Act 1780 was intended for one purpose and, because that purpose no longer obtains in the plural society of to-day, therefore it, or as much as possible of it, should be repealed seems to me to be a non sequitur. For it may well he that this same Act, having served one purpose in one age, can serve another which is urgent in our contemporary society. In paragraph 48 Crathorne recorded that there was a wide spectrum of people who wanted Sunday, as the Report put it, "kept different" and as a day of leisure. The Report quoted the Churches and others not only as being against enforced worship and conformism—of course we are all against that in these days—but in favour of Sunday at least as a day of quiet and leisure and of the family, and in that regard I was particularly struck by the reference to the Sunday dinner made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. There must be many families up and down the country for whom, as he said, the Sunday dinner is almost sacramental in character. The point of the family being together on Sunday is something which indeed the Crathorne Report respected, and the question which I would ask and which, having answered for myself, causes me to oppose this Bill, is whether in fact this Bill is conducive or otherwise to the maintenance of Sunday as a family day of tranquillity.
Who really, if they are honest, would deny that Britain is rapidly becoming a nation of neurotics, thanks to a host of unwanted tensions? There is the breakdown of family life and loyalties; there is the spread of violence; there is the invasion of privacy, by noise, by smell, by the telephone—there are all sorts of other environmental distractions. And that brings me to the point posed so well, if I may say so with respect, by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. He said that Christians must ask whether such a thing as is envisaged here is good for society. That is the question that I have asked because I believe that to base all claims on an indiscriminate and unlimited freedom of the individual is not really possible. That freedom is
1050
only possible if it is nurtured and protected; otherwise its exercise degenerates from truly free will to the impossibility of doing anything else than of making one self-destructive choice after another.
My Lords, I believe that this Bill offers an extra distraction from quiet; and because, as a nation, we need to return to the conscious practice of tranquillity, which at its most rewarding and most productive level is indeed the practice of worship, I believe that the seemingly civilised, liberal and innocuous proposals of this Bill are indeed damaging and retrograde. It is too easy and too logical a step from the live theatre (with which of course we all have a deep emotional sympathy) to the big sporting events, league football, boxing and wrestling. And while I do not suggest that the supporters of the Bill at this moment of time would wish to see those invasions of Sunday, who knows whether this Bill, once given a Second Reading and once passed through all its stages in both Houses, might not be taken as a pretext for further incursions into our tranquillity? This harmless looking Bill is by no means the end of the story.
Because, therefore, it offends the principle of Sunday tranquillity; because thereby it distracts from family life and enjoyment; because I wish to see our people re-discover—as more and more "trendy" young folk are now learning to do—the pleasures of worship instead of the worship of pleasure, I call on noble Lords to think hard and to search their consciences well and truly before they support the Second Reading.
5.20 p.m.
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot go along with my noble friend Lord Lauderdale in his opinion of this Bill. I had not originally intended to speak on the Second Reading, and I apologise for my intervention now. But I felt that I should be lacking in my responsibility as a Member of your Lordships' House if I did not give the noble Baroness's Bill a great welcome, since prior to joining your Lordships' House as a regular attender I worked in the world of theatre and ballet for 36 years. The years I have referred to were very happy ones for me, especially those that included the last ten years of the life of the late Sir Charles Cochran, when

1051
I had the honour to be his partner. During that time together we presented several big musical shows, as well as straight plays. If Sir Charles were alive to-day, I can tell your Lordships that he would have given this Bill his 100 per cent. support.
During his lifetime we had frequent discussions on Sunday opening in the theatre. I can also tell your Lordships that the late Sir Alan Herbert, the late Ivor Novello, and the late Andre Chariot, that brilliant impresario, with all of whom I worked in close association, would also have given the noble Baroness's Bill a great welcome—in fact would have given it unqualified support. I speak now in memory of the departed members—very great members—of the world of the theatre with whom in the past I have had the honour to be so closely associated. The noble Baroness told your Lordships that a Member of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, welcomes this Bill. This I know to be so. But the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, is not the only star who would welcome this Bill. Your Lordships would find the same, I am sure, if you referred to Sir John Clements. Sir Ralph Richardson, Mr. John Mills, and many other stars of first magnitude.
My noble friend Lady Ruthven of Freeland mentioned pretty fully the point about possible Monday openings. Monday has always proved to be a dead duck "so far as the theatre is concerned, unless you had, to use theatre parlance, a "smash hit "on your hands. So I suspect that a number of theatres might choose to close on Monday night, and in this way there will be no overworking of artistes or theatre staff. Anyhow, I am given to understand that Actors' Equity are not against Sunday openings and that any future negotiations between them and managements concerned will be conducted in a friendly way. The noble Baroness, Lady Lee, told your Lordships of the support this Bill has from the West End Theatre Managers' Association, an important body of the theatre, of which I was a member for many years, and I can confirm this.
With regard to the religious aspect of this Bill, I would say that it does not harm things at all. We can still go to church, and people need not work unless
1052
they wish to. I am in agreement with what my noble friend Lord Windlesham said, but I would go further and say that Sunday theatre opening would be of benefit both to members of the public and to the acting profession. Before I resume my seat I should like to say that I hope all noble Lords will give the noble Baroness's Bill their wholehearted support. In closing I would use just ten words of the late beloved Sir Alan Herbert, from a song in "Tough at the Top ", which was set to music so delightfully by Vivian Ellis and was presented at the Adelphi Theatre by the late Sir Charles Cochran and myself. The words are:
"This is not the end
This is but a beginning ".
With those ten words, my Lords, I welcome and strongly support the Second Reading of this Bill.
5.26 p.m.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, as a Welshman, I came here this afternoon to speak against the Bill. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol told us that London is not England. I am sure he will agree with me when I say that England is not Wales, and that we have a very peculiar view of this question of Sunday. However, having listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, I found her speech so fair, so logical, that rather than speak against the Bill I am on my feet now to urge the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, not to divide the House to-night, but to see to it during the later stages of the Bill that the safeguards which were sought by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol are secured after which I am sure we shall find it a perfect Bill.
5.27 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I very much regret that I have not been able to be present throughout the whole of the debate on this Bill this was due to attendance in a Committee of the House. My only reason for intervening is to say to the House that we as a Party take up no attitude on this Bill officially from this Bench I am not advising those who happen to sit behind me to vote either for or against the Bill. There is a completely free vote so far as this Bill is concerned and so far as this Party is concerned. I am rather surprised to hear

1053
the speech of my noble friend Lord Maelor. I thought I should have to get up and disagree with him about the Welsh attitude, while agreeing with him that he knows perhaps more about North Wales and mid-Wales than I do. But I am rather shocked to hear the attitude he has taken up. Nevertheless, I am bound to say that I agree with that attitude as being a very sensible one. After all, this is a Bill that was passed in the last Parliament—very much the same sort of Bill indeed. It is, in my opinion, an improvement on the one that went through this House in the last Session and ran into difficulty in the other place. I believe that what has happened to the Bill now, taking out that part regarded as objectionable by many Members of the other place, will help the Bill on its way, I hope through both Houses. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has said. He cannot promise us any time for the Bill in the other place; nevertheless lie looked upon it with some benevolent neutrality. That is a well-known timeworn phrase, and we understand and respect it. So far as I am concerned—and this is my personal view—I am strongly of the opinion that this House ought to give the Bill a Second Reading, and I sincerely hope that it will get a Second Reading tonight.
5.30 p.m.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I have only one regret as this debate terminates, and that is that the noble Viscount, the Paymaster General, was not able to be with us earlier on, and we all know the reason why. We are very glad that he is well enough to come back to a more controversial part of your Lordships' proceedings later in the evening. But he was gracious enough to inform me before this debate took place that this was not a Party matter—and of course that is clear from both sides of the House. We began this debate with a great deal of goodwill from both Front Bench and Back Bench speakers. That goodwill has been very evident throughout the course of the debate. I was grateful indeed to the right reverend Prelate for putting down a number of points that he wanted considered. He was quite right to worry about safeguards regarding the seven-day week. This point was again brought
1054
forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and we know that Equity was weakened by the Industrial Relations Act. However, I can assure the right reverend Prelate and other Members of the House that it is not a case of waiting for an exchange of signatures between management and Equity after this Bill is passed; the exchange has already taken place. There is a firm understanding that no one will be expected to work seven days.
No one in the House is going to suggest, or has suggested in this debate, that religion is something for one day of the week and not for the other days. The faith we live by—and our faiths are very diverse in this House—must surely be something that is with us on seven days of the week. Therefore we come to the point about whether there is some kind of violation of the special quality of the Sabbath. I think not, at a time when, as has been said by so many in this debate, cinemas, television, and concerts are open. We surely cannot turn back the hands of the clock:
The old order changeth, yielding place to new."
My fellow countryman, the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, talked about the tranquillity of a Scottish Sabbath. I said that I had loved my Sundays. They were for me not just holy days hut happy days, but they were not tranquil. Most Sunday evenings I was present at vast, excited public meetings. Very often they were addressed by right reverend Prelates and ministers. One of them was a Member of another place for many years, the reverend Campbell Stephen. There was no conflict in the loyalty of many of our leading churchmen, who could be in a pulpit one Sunday evening and on a Socialist platform another, preaching what they believed was an essential part of the Gospel: that we must be concerned about oppression and the problems of the poor, and fight for greater social justice. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, would not disagree with me there. Though we have a special feeling in Scotland for the Sabbath, that Sabbath can be spent in very different ways.
The right reverend Prelate was concerned about local option. This is the Second Reading of a Bill; if your Lordships should, in your wisdom, care to give

1055
it an unopposed Second Reading, then there will be the Committee and other stages when all kinds of important points that have been raised in this debate can be looked into. For instance, the times,
"between the hours of three in the morning and one in the afternoon "
are not to be taken too literally. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, said in his letter that he thought it ought to be normal matinée time, 2.30 p.m., or whatever it is, which should be the time for the show to open if it is to be a normal performance. That is something we can look at. We all like our Sunday dinners. Talking about Sunday dinners, one bears in mind that our hospitals, our transport and a great deal of the life of a modern industrial community simply must be carried on on a Sunday, and we all accept that. Although no doubt it is a difficult problem if you are a railwayman, a coal miner or a hospital attendant and do not want to work on Sunday yet must do these things, you have to reconcile it with your own individual conscience. While we must have a tender, sensitive regard in a democratic community for the views of minorities, ultimately it must he the general consensus of opinion which becomes the law of the land.
I have listened with the greatest respect and understanding to the contribution made by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby. He feels deeply on this issue, but I ask him—and, as I say, "the old order changeth, yielding place to new "—as so many forms of entertainment (in my view many less worthy forms of entertainment) are now available on a Sunday, is there really a case for saying that the greatest and most distinguished actors in the profession should not be allowed to produce great plays? I know there would be other things, but I would ask him to consider the whole picture. Is his respect for Sunday really going to be belittled, or endangered, when we are living in an age of greater leisure, by people insisting at the weekends, Saturday and Sunday alike, that they want a diversity of ways in which to spend their leisure? But these are minor problems which should all be looked at when we come to Committee stage.
I was also reminded—I think it was by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of
1056
Whitley—of the "fly-by-night" managements who have to be watched. I entirely agree, and that is again something we can look at. I think the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, made a very fair point. He is an ornament and support of the Chichester Theatre, and at the same time of the Cathedral. He said that in that lovely city there was really no conflict of interest between the work of the cathedral and the contribution which that splendid theatre is making to the life of the place.
I do not want to detain your Lordships longer. It is quite true that the Crathorne Report concerned itself with sport as well as the theatre. I am rather relieved that we are not dealing with sport this afternoon, because it is quite true that many people are afraid of congestion and noise on Sunday. That would be a difficult issue, but it is irrelevant to our discussion. We are discussing simply whether or not there should be one law for cinemas, television, concerts and pub concerts, and another law for some of our most distinguished practitioners in the British theatre. I am not speaking for them all I quoted only from the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, because he is a Member of your Lordships' House and regretted his inability to be here this afternoon, but I could, like the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, give a long list. Practically all the leading actors and actresses with whom I have been in contact favour this Bill, although most of them view it in the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, views it: they do not think it is going to be any treat for themselves if they have to work on a Sunday, but they do feel that it is necessary in the interest of a first-class theatre and in particular of the younger members of the profession, for whom there will be greater opportunities and employment. The fact is that times change and we change with the times. I cannot feel that those of us who do care for having one day of the week different from the other days will be diminishing the value of the Sabbath if we say that this is not a day of compulsory gloom and a day of compulsory religion, but is a day which can be a day of happiness, of free choice, and a day when, if we cannot have the tranquility that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, talked about, we can at least

1057
have the tranquility of a happy conscience.
House adjourned during pleasure and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Bill read 2ªaccordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NEW TOWNS BILL
5.49 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a
5.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2ª?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 142; Not-Contents, 6.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Airedale, L.

Eccles, V.

Nugent, L.

Albemarle, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Nunburnholme, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Oakshott, L.

Amory, V.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Amulree, L.

Falkland, V.

Phillips, Bs.

Ardwick, L.

Faringdon, L.

Platt, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Foot, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Auckland, L.

Fulton, L.

Rea, L.

Avebury, L.

Gage, V.

Reading, M.

Barnby, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Reay, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gardiner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Belstead, L.

George-Brown, L.

Robbins, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gridley, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Bird wood, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Blake, L.

Hailes, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bledisloe, V.

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

St. Davids, V.

Blyton, L.

St. Helens, L.

Boothby, L.

Hankey, L.

St. Just. L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hanworth, V.

Saint Oswald, L.

Bradford, E.

Harris, L.

Sandford, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Headfort, M.

Sandys, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Henley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hoy, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Sherfield, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Shinwell, L.

Caccia, L.

Il ford, L.

Slater, L.

Champion, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Snow, L.

Clwyd, L.

Killearn, L.

Somers, L.

Colgrain, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Collison, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Stonehaven, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Leatherland, L.

Stonham, L.

Conesfortd, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strang, L.

Courtown, E.

Long, V.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Craigavon, V.

Lothian, M.

Strathcarron, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sudeley, L.

Crathorne, L.

McLeavy, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Crook, L.

Maelor, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davidson, V.

Margadale, L.

Terrington, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

de Clifford, L.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L, [Teller.]

Denham, L.

Milverton, L.

White, Bs.

Derwent, L.

Molson, L.

Windlesham, L.

Diamond, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Wolverton, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Monsell, V.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L

NOT-CONTENTS

Balerno, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Lauderdale, E. [Teller.]

Gainford, L.

Ingleby, V. [Teller.]

Strathelyde, L.

second time. I think it would be in accordance with previous practice, and in order, if I were to deliver to your Lordships' House a long speech concerning all 28 New Towns of England, Scotland and Wales and their history since the end of the war. But the indications are that no other noble Lords wishes to speak in this debate. I shall therefore assume that
on this occasion the House will be content with the briefest possible exposition of the specific purposes of the Bill. But if noble Lords have questions for me about particular New Towns and their progress, I shall be happy to deal with them.
My Lords, the purpose of the Bill is to increase the amount of Exchequer money available for New Town development in Great Britain. The Development Corporations and the New Towns Commission are financed by means of Exchequer advances authorised by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for New Towns in England, and for New Towns in Scotland and Wales by the respective Secretaries of State. The total amount of money which may be advanced is limited by Statute. This limit has been raised by successive Acts of Parliament from the amount of £50 million set by the first New Towns Act, in 1946, to the figure at which it now stands of £1, 100 million, set by the last Act, which was in 1969. By March of this year, advances and commitments stood at £990 million. If advances and commitments continue at the present rate, the current limit will be reached at the beginning of the financial year 1972–73. It has become established practice for Parliament to authorise enough money to cover New Town development for about three years. With this in mind, the Bill which I now commend to your Lordships' House provides for an increase in the limit by £400 million to an overall figure of £1, 500 million. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª;Committee negatived.

MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES ADMISSION CHARGES BILL [H.L.]
5.54 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be received. —[Viscount Eccles.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Liberty to charge for admission]:
VISCOUNT ECCLES VISCOUNT ECCLES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert—
"(3) The power to make orders under subsection (2) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and any instrument containing such an order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, if I have any trouble with my voice it is not caused by the emotions aroused by this Bill but, unfortunately, by the tail end of influenza. In the course of the Committee stage noble Lords opposite were unhappy at the terms of Clause 1(2) of the Bill, and I undertook that we would propose an Amendment to ensure that where a conditional request to a national museum or gallery in Scotland has been ratified by an Act of Parliament, the Secretary of State's order varying or revoking the provisions of that Act, which would be inconsistent with the making of charges, would be exercised by Statutory Instrument. Other noble Lords, and I think particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, urged on us that we should go further and require the Secretary of State to use the Statutory Instrument for the other variations, of which we believe there to be only two, which are not subject to an Act of Parliament. On looking at the point we thought it was right to go the whole way, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will now, in the terms of this Amendment, proceed by Statutory Instrument, which will be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. In this way, we do our best to bring the procedure in Scotland level with the English Act of 1960, and I think I can tell your Lordships that this is a satisfactory way in which the procedure GI' the Secretary of State will be open to debate when he makes these orders.
Before I formally move the Amendment, may I correct a mistake that I made last time? I said that there was a dispute about the ownership of the pictures of the Torrie bequest. I find they are firmly in the possession of Edinburgh University, that the correspondence which I had in mind was

1061
entirely amiable, and that there is no doubt to whom these pictures belong. I apologise for that mistake. I beg to move the first Amendment on the Marshalled List.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I must first express the sympathy of this side of the House with the noble Viscount the Minister. We are sorry to hear he has not been well, but we very much appreciate the trouble he has taken to come here to-day so that the Report stage can be dealt with. We are grateful to the noble Viscount for moving this Amendment, which, as he says, goes very much further than what he indicated in Committee, when he said, I think, that the Government would be prepared to lay such a measure before Parliament only if it dealt with Acts of a local nature. However, we are very grateful to the Government for meeting the points that were then made. I think that this Amendment, though perhaps better drafted, is virtually the same as Amendment No. 2 which I moved in Committee, and which the noble Viscount said he would look at; and I am very glad that he has moved this Amendment in the way in which he has. I hope this is an augury. The Committee stage ended with the Government accepting one of my Amendments, and they have now started the Report stage by accepting the spirit of another one. I hope this is a good augury for the future.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Parliamentary control of admission charges
".—(1) The Secretary of State for Education and Science in respect of England and Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of Scotland shall so soon as may be after the passing of this Act jointly lay before each House of Parliament a statement giving full particulars of the charges for admission to be made by the trustees or other governing body or governing authority of the national museums and galleries in Great Britain.
(2) An institution to which subsection (1) above applies shall not make any charges for admission—

(a) until 40 days after the relevant date, and

1062

(b) if either House of Parliament resolves within the period of 40 days after the relevant date that such charges be not made.

(3) Nothing in this section shall prevent the trustees or other governing body or governing authority as mentioned in subsection (1) above from making from time to time other charges for admission than those contained in the aforesaid statement of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Scotland; but before they so make these other charges the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Scotland shall so soon as may be after 31st March 1973 and so soon as may be after the same date in each year thereafter jointly lay before each House of Parliament a further statement giving the full particulars of all such other charges to be made by such trustees or other governing body or governing authority as aforesaid.
(4) No other charges such as are mentioned in the preceding subsection shall be made—

(a) until 40 days after the relevant date, and

(b) if either House of Parliament resolves within the period of 40 days after the relevant date that such other charges be not made.

(5) The relevant date for the purposes of this section is the day on which the statement or further statement, as the case may be, of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Scotland is laid before each House of Parliament.
(6) Nothing in this section shall prevent the trustees or other governing body or governing authority as mentioned in subsection (1) above from making charges for the purposes of special temporary exhibitions and such charges shall not be subject to any of the provisions contained in subsections (1) to (5) of this section."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment seeks to retain Parliamentary control over the financial arrangements. It will be remembered that we debated the principle in Committee. The Minister raised some objections to the wording of the Amendment, so it has been very carefully redrafted. I hope it now meets the points that he raised. The first main change is that the charges will now be "made" by the trustees, and not "determined ". The reason is that the Amendment covers all the 18 national museums and galleries in Great Britain, as indeed does also the Long Title to the Bill. However, while the Bill allows the four institutions listed in Clause 1 to "determine" their charges, there are several others which are Departmental museums—for example, the Victoria and Albert. I have therefore used the word "make" for all. But although the institutions will make the charges, the

1063
Government of course will decide how they will be made, as the Minister stated several times in Committee. For example. he said in Committee on December 6 (column 610):
"The Government can always use their influence to insist that all the charges arc the same."
He went on, at column 611, to say that the museums:
"accept that the rate of charges is fixed with the Government."
Then again, he said, in the same speech:
"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."
The second change is that the statements setting out the charges will be laid before Parliament only once a year, the first one after the passing of the Act. These statements will also, however, be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. This is to take account of the Minister's—I think reasonable—objection that Parliament would continually be asked to pass small changes relating to museums throughout the country. The idea is now that once a year, after the collective arrangements have been made, the Government will lay on the Table the statement which will relate to any changes over the whole field. This proposal does not refer to charges for special temporary exhibitions, which are excluded under subsection (6) of the proposed new clause.
I submit that this Amendment will allow once a year a Parliamentary review of the collective arrangements. It is, I think, important to have some control of this charging scheme. At present there is. for example, nothing in the Bill to stop the British Museum from charging what it likes. I think it also important that future arrangements should be referred to Parliament as a check on the Government of the day; otherwise we are giving the Executive an absolutely free hand and all kinds of financial pressure against which there will be no redress might he brought to bear on trustees. I beg to move.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, it is not in my mind to go over the arguments that were produced in Committee. The arguments about the new Amendment, as opposed to the one
1064
whose place it takes, have already been ably put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I should like merely to say that we on these Benches still feel strongly that the Government should give way. We are not challenging them any longer, much as we disagree, on the principle of admission charges; what we are doing is asking that there should be some Parliamentary control.
There is one pertinent point which arose out of the Committee stage which should be raised now. One of the reasons why two trustees or past trustees of galleries and museums spoke against our Amendment at that time was that they wanted to retain the freedom of manoeuvre and negotiation between the trustees and the Government. Some of us on this side thought, "What freedom of movement?" After the complete giving way on this issue, what freedom of manoeuvre could they think was left to them? But an interesting clue to their thinking came when I re-read in the OFFICIAL REPORT the speech of the noble Lord. Lord Robbins. I refer to column 601 of December 6, 1971, where he said:
"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-kari only once."
I do not question this attitude on the part of Lord Robbins. My question is not to him; it is to the Minister. May I ask what matters the Government have been raising with museums and galleries which raise issues much more important than these—so that trustees who might otherwise have thought of resigning do not do so because they wish to retain the option to commit hara-kari over something that they regard as more important? I think that this is a very pertinent question, because either there are these matters which are more important (in which case I suggest that we should know all about them, though this is possibly not the appropriate time or place) or there are not such matters—in which case I think we are entitled to say to people who ask that the freedom of negotiations be kept between the trustees and the

1065
Government: "After this Bill, what freedom of negotiation do you think you have left?" That is the one point that I wish to raise in strongly supporting this Amendment.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for the moderate way in which he introduced this new clause. I can understand his hope that the changes he has made will result in making this Amendment somewhat less objectionable than the one put on Committee stage; but I am afraid it is still a matter, we think, of very great importance that we should not have this reference to Parliament. I think it would introduce an unusual and, in many quarters that matter in the museum world, an unwanted and serious complication in the system of charging. It could certainly lead to delays that would endanger the Government's plan for financing museums. It is precisely those plans which are of more importance than the charges and therefore of more importance to a great many people in museums.
I must come to them in more detail in order to answer the reasonable question from the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. Perhaps. therefore, I may explain what the Government policy aims at in introducing these charges. We need this revenue as an appropriation in aid towards the cost of making good the large backlog in museum buildings, equipment and staff. The collection of the charges is therefore part of our long-term plan that is to say, the system itself has to be simple and it has to be sure and it must not be open to political debate at repeated intervals on any change of detail. This is part of the method by which we shall try to get the sums of money we need. I have made a calculation that over a period—and, of course, the shorter the better—at least £40 million is needed for the expansion of the national museums and galleries alone. I would assure the House that if these plans are not realised future Governments will find the museums unable satisfactorily to cope with the crowds that are coming. Programmes of this kind cannot be financed in isolation from the rest of the Government's capital commitments. The introduction of charges allows us to show those who are interested in other areas of Government expenditure that we are being fair—fair as between one art and another, and fair
1066
between the Arts and the social services. If these charges are to be a dependable element in the plan of museum finance, once Parliament has accepted them in principle—as it has done in both Houses —the details are best worked out within the normal relations of the museums and the Department concerned.
There is nothing new in putting that to your Lordships. The practice of charging as a means of obtaining an appropriation-in-aid is very common at Government-maintained buildings. In no case are these charges referred to Parliament. At the Tower of London the basic charge is 10p from October to March, and 20p from April to September. The revenue in 1970 was £490, 000 net, almost half the modest total that we want to get from the 18 national museums. The Labour Government, when they were in office, raised those charges. They did the same at Hampton Court where the scale is the same. The Labour Government charged children and pensioners at both these places 5p for each category, and I may tell your Lordships that that was the precedent we followed when we worked out our own scale. There are a great number of other palaces, historic buildings and ancient monuments where charges are made. There has never been an outcry against these charges, and no-one has ever argued that the scale should be laid before Parliament. The reason is obvious enough. The scales of charges are bound up with the size of the grant. They may often require minor amendments, and it is good management practice—I put this point to your Lordships—that the strategy be decided by Parliament and that the small matters of day-to-day management, changes and so on, are settled by the Government Department concerned and the people who run these institutions.
In the case of the national museums and galleries, reference to Parliament would I think be very inappropriate. I do not put much on the fact—but it is a fact—that the charges we propose are lower than those in other Government-maintained buildings which have not been referred. More important is that these charges are part of a very ambitious scheme of finance for the museums; and if, first, the original list, and then every time a change was made, once a year every year, it had to be laid before

1067
Parliament, the scope for uncertainty and delay is quite obvious.
During the Committee stage, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has reminded us, we heard two noble Lords oppose reference to Parliament, and I should like to quote what they said. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, said:
" … if it is a question of dividing the House on this extension of Parliamentary control I shall feel compelled to abstain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6/12/71, col. 602.]
The noble Lord said that out of his long and distinguished experience at the National Gallery. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook said (col. 605):
… 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."
The noble Earl was of course referring to the statutory duty on museums to report to Parliament every three years, when, of course, if the Trustees want to come out in the open about any matter of this kind, they can; and they certainly do. Very rough things have been said in those reports, and I hope that, where necessary, they will continue to be said.
I do not wish to delay the Committee much longer on this, but, in short, I think it comes to the fact that the principle of charging is a political question. It is certainly something on which Parliament must vote. Parliament has voted in both Houses in favour of the principle. On the other hand, the details are not, we think, proper material for repeated Parliamentary scrutiny; first, because it is not done in other similar cases, and now because the result would be bad for the relations between the Government and the museums. That is one basic objection. The other basic objection is that the uncertainty about the yield of the charges, if they were, even at only annual intervals, brought back into the political arena, would compromise our financial plans. Therefore I would ask those of your Lordships who do think about the future of the museums to realise that there are these enormous difficulties ahead of us —matters on which a good many bodies
1068
of trustees are particularly exercised at this time. I would ask you to accept that we make a trial of the charging system as it is now proposed and then, after three years—I will speak to that on a later Amendment—we shall have a review; and we can then see whether the estimates that we on the Government side have made turn out to be right or wrong. But I do not think that this is a case where our normal practice should be broken and where charges in detail should be brought back to Parliament.
6.18 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for his support and also to the noble Viscount, the Minister, for deploying his argument. But nothing the noble Viscount has said convinces me that this Amendment should not find a place in the Bill, if your Lordships so decide. The noble Viscount talked about delay, but the proposal is only that the statement shall lie on the Table for 40 days and be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. I cannot believe that the whole of his charging scheme would be put in jeopardy because of this. As I see it, assuming that the other place passes the Bill without too much delay, the Act will come into operation on April 1. The statement will then lie on the table for 40 days, and during the course of the year, if the Government find that they need to alter the charges in any way and agree this, either reluctantly or not, with the Trustees, at the end of that year it will come back to Parliament and before those changes are made it lies on the table for another 40 days. I cannot see that this is going to make for undue delay.
I also cannot understand the noble Viscount's objection to laying on the Table a statement of this kind. It has been done before. As I mentioned in Committee, in relation to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Bill, at the wish of the Trustees it was decided that if we wished to send a painting abroad, Parliament should be asked. If the Government told the Trustees, "We want to send the Leonardo somewhere because we are trying to do a particular trade deal, "and the Trustees replied, "We do not like it; the picture is far too valuable and far too fragile," and if the

1069
Government then said, "We cannot help that, we have to balance our payments, and the picture has to go ", they would then have to come to Parliament and Parliament would have to approve the proposed action. There is nothing wrong with that. It is not detracting from the Trustees' responsibility in any way.
To-day, in Amendment No. 1, the Government have offered to put an Order before Parliament when they wish to revoke any trust, and I am very glad that they have done so. Therefore the Government ate prepared to do it when it comes to pictures, and in the case of wills of dead people; but they are not prepared to do it when it affects living people and gallery-goers. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the arguments deployed by the Minister. This is a basic principle. He said that Parliament has approved this whole charging system. Parliament has approved the White Paper. The White Paper is not legislation. Furthermore, the White Paper is already out of date.
The noble Viscount has made various concessions. He made welcome concessions for members of the supporting societies; he has made the concession of half price admittance for retirement pensioners and so on. In the course of the passage of the Bill he may make other concessions, and when he comes to negotiate the whole system with the trustees there may be others. By the time the Act comes into force Parliament will have no control. Furthermore, when we let the ship go out to sea we shall have no idea what will happen in the years ahead. The Government will have complete power to do what they like. I believe sincerely, as do others of my noble friends in all quarters of the House, that this is a basic principle on which we must retain some democratic control through Parliament.
6.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 82.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gardiner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Ardwick, L.

George-Brown, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Avebury, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Segal, L.

Beswick, L.

Henley, L.

Shackleton, L.

Blyton, L.

Heycock, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brock way, L.

Hoy, L.

Slater, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hughes, L.

Snow, L.

Champion, L.

Kennet, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Clwyd, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Killearn, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Crook, L.

Lea therland, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Wade, L.

Diamond, L.

Maelor, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

White, Bs.

Faringdon, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Foot, L.

Platt, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Rea, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Amory, V.

Conesford, L.

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

Auckland, L.

Courtown, E.

Balerno, L.

Cowley, E.

Hankey, L.

Barnby, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hanworth, V.

Beaumont, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Harris, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Belstead, L.

Daventry, V.

Hawke, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Davidson, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Bessborough, E.

de Clifford, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Birdwood, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Jellicoe, R. (L. Privy Seal.)

Blake, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kilmany, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Eccles, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Kinnoull, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Ferrers, E.

Lothian, M.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gainford, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Margadale, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Merrivale, L.

Reading, M.

Strathcarron, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Strathclyde, L.

Monsell, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Sudeley, L.

Mountevans, L.

St. Just, L.

Terrington, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Saint Oswald, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Sandford, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Nairne, Bs.

Sandys, L.

Vivian, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Sherfield, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Oakshott, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Windlesham, L.

Pender, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6.29 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Children and retirement pensioners
". Notwithstanding the provisions of this or any other enactment, children not in organised educational parties and retirement pensioners, the latter on production of their pension books, may be permitted free entry to the permanent collections of any of the national museums and galleries in Great Britain on such clays as those institutions are open to the public."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3, which relates to children and retirement pensioners. The charge for children under 16, according to the White Paper, will at all times be 5p. I was very impressed by the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in Committee when he said:
"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."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 6/12/71; col. 590.]
I commend those words to the Minister. This principle was supported by my noble friend Lady Lee, by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, who tells me he is sorry that he cannot be here to-day, by the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, by my noble friend Lord Slater and many others. Indeed the same principle was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, the Chairman of the British Museum Trustees, in the debate we had a year ago almost to the day on the Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. Turning to the White Paper, I see that children in organised educational parties will be allowed in free. I should like to ask the Government what is an organised educational party? Not all visits, for example, are made in school hours: indeed small groups of children will often
1072
be taken informally for visits at weekends or half-term by a teacher or indeed during the school holidays by one of the parents. These small groups can often be seen in our museums throughout the country. I should like to ask the Minister whether they will qualify as authorised educational visits. We cannot underestimate the value of educational visits by children. I should have thought that the educational advantages were worth absolutely every penny of the amount involved, which is only £150,000.
Turning to retirement pensioners, I would point out that the charge for them will be 5p at all times, including July and August. which is one of the concessions given by the Government and announced in another place last June. The Government also said that they were looking into the question of giving free admittance to pensioners receiving supplementary benefits, on production of their pension books. As I ventured to put forward in Committee, there are great difficulties in differentiating between different pension books with identical covers. I think, therefore, there is a strong case for exempting all retirement pensioners, irrespective of whether they are receiving supplementary benefits or not. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in fact made the point—and I fully agree with him—on Second Reading, when he said:
"I wonder whether it might not be simpler to let them in entirely free."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22/11/71; col. 849.]
The noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, again during the same debate last December, supported this exemption. There is a further advantage too, which is that if children and all retirement pensioners were granted free entry there would be no need for the 5p ticket. This would mean a comparable reduction in overheads, which I am sure will commend itself to the Government. For all these reasons I put forward this Amendment, which I now beg to move.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I hope that the Government will see fit, if not to accept this Amendment—because I think that is too much to ask, and I see that there are some arguments against putting it actually on the Statute Book—at least to see their way to announce concessions because of the very real distress and care which lie behind it. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to say that although he cannot accept the Amendment he can accept the principle. To start with, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has put his finger on an extremely important point which goes to the heart of the matter when he talks about differentiating between what is an organised educational party and what is not. This is not a matter of detail which can be sorted out. As the noble Viscount knows, as an ex-Secretary of State for Education, it goes to the heart of the movement about modern education. More and more we are getting away from the idea that education is conducted only in groups of children marshalled into a crocodile, with a teacher at the head and a teacher behind, going into museums. More and more will education at every level mean encouraging children to go on their own, sometimes in school hours and sometimes outside, to visit the local museum or the local gallery. This is obviously quite apart from what they choose to do in their spare time.
But the point I am hoping to put to your Lordships is that the ideal for almost all education to-day is to make it and that part of life which we choose not to call education into a complete spectrum which is divisible at no point, so that it should be very difficult to tell where education starts and where it ends. Because education is something which should be going on all the time: in the home and in the school, in those hours which are spent at school and in those hours which are spent at leisure. This is why I feel strongly that it would be a great blow to education and to the educational services of this country if children were not allowed to go into galleries and museums free at any time. As I say, I see that there may be some difficulties in including the Amendment on the Statute Book, but I hope that the noble Viscount can give us some reassurances about the spirit behind it.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord who has just spoken that this is not the sort of Amendment to put on the Statute Book. It is exactly the same point which I made at the Committee stage, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. This is entirely an administrative matter. I can assure the noble Lord opposite that all trustees are anxious—indeed, more anxious than anybody else, I suspect—to see that children get the maximum amount of educational advantage from their collections. I think the arrangements made will inevitably vary from institution to institution and the organisation of them is much better left to the ordinary administrative machine. In moving the Amendment the noble Lord talked about what in fact is an educational party. It would be nonsense to try to define an educational party, whether here or anywhere else. It must be left to those who are responsible for running the museum services as a whole, and to each museum in particular, to decide which is the best way of getting the best out of their collections. So I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
As to old age pensioners, I recollect that my first thought when I read about charges being made was, "What about the poor old things who come into museums to have a look round because they are bored, and to keep warm on a cold day?" Now the Natural History Museum, of which I am a Trustee, has made a reasonably complete analysis of the people who come in by age, by the place they come from, by the sort of parties in which they come and the like, and the curious thing is that those of us who are old do not appear to take much notice of our museums. We found that only 4 per cent. of the people who came into the Natural History Museum—although it may very well be different for the Museum for which the noble Lord who sits on the Cross-Benches is responsible—
LORD ROBBINS: No, my Lords, it is the same.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: Only 4 per cent. were over 60, and the Registrar-General's figures for the over-60s figure in the population is, so far as

1075
I remember, about 19 per cent. I do not believe that old people are drawn towards museums as much as we would like to think they are. So far as the old ones who drift in for the benefit of the warmth are concerned, we all have them. We all know them; there are not many of them—a dozen or two in every institution. I suspect that we may well have to give them free tickets out of our purchase grants, or something, if it is absolutely necessary. I can assure noble Lords that there are not many like that who come in through sheer necessity to get out of the cold. I do not believe that this Amendment is necessary, and I hope that the noble Lord will not press it.
6.40 p.m.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, may I say a word or two in support of what has been said by the noble Earl? I do not feel strongly about the position of old age pensioners, largely for the reason which the noble Earl has stated. So far as the National Gallery is concerned, I am well acquainted with the nature of the attendance there. I visit there at least once a week; and since I specialise in audiences, having got into the habit of looking at how much money there is in the house when I was in my other capacity as chairman of the Finance Committee of the Royal Opera House, I have a good look round when I am in the National Gallery. The way that the attendance is weighted in favour of the middle or lower age groups is remarkable.
I rise to add my plea to what has been said on behalf of the children. The noble Viscount will have observed that in the various friendly altercations which I have had with him during the discussion of these charges I have always stated my case very mildly as regards the financial burden to the average gallery-goer. I find it difficult to believe that so far as the average person is concerned the charge of the equivalent of a packet of ten cigarettes, or a pint of beer, is going to be a great deterrent. I regret it for other reasons, but that part of the case against the charges can be tremendously overstated.
There are two classes of persons whom it is desirable to lure into the galleries who may be so affected. The first class consists of children accompanied not by
1076
their school teachers, but by their parents. While the charge for the single entry is a mild one, if a family party is in contemplation the cost adds up. Family parties visiting the galleries are an extra-ordinarily salutary and desirable thing. My second class consists of the isolated boy or girl who is not so keen on travelling around in an organised group, but who likes to wander into these places and contemplate by himself or herself the great masterpieces of all time. If you go into the National Gallery and observe the way in which people are enjoying themselves—it is a pleasurable experience to see people enjoying themselves in a way which does no harm to anybody—one thing that strikes one most is the spectacle, here and there, of some young person suddenly transfixed with the beauty which has dawned on him for the first time in his life. I do not want to deter that person. There is the possibility that even the smallest charge may deter him. For that reason I plead with the noble Viscount not that this Amendment should be put on the Statute Book, for I can see all sorts of objections to that, but to agree in principle with the desirability of giving some latitude in this respect.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, one has the greatest respect and regard for the work which the two noble Lords who have just preceded me have given to the offices that they have held as trustees in museums and galleries. I spoke in the last debate and endeavoured to bring before your Lordships the second point which was brought out by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches, that concerning the family. I referred to the family coming from the North-East; but such families come not only from the North-East but from the Northern part of Scotland, the Shetlands and so on. When they arrive down here, having carried the heavy burden of finding the fare to bring their families to London, and then to pay for the cost of residence for a week, ten days or a fortnight, in one of the cheaper hotels or boarding houses in London, they want their children to see everything possible. They want to see not only the Tower of London, but to go to the British Museum. Because of the fixed charge that may be made in accordance with what we now have under consideration,

1077
perhaps the parents will say, "We should like to take you into the museum but because of the charge that we as parents will have to pay, and also the charge we will have to pay for you, we are not in a position to do so." Fix the charge, if it is so desired, in regard to the parents, but not for the children. I am definitely against children coming from various parts of the country not having as much right to privileges and opportunities as children who live within the metropolis. and who are within easy access of some of these places. Local children do not have to face the cost of fares to the same extent as children coming from my area in the North-East, in the North-West, or the Shetlands, or elsewhere.
Coming back to the pensioner, I wonder how many noble Lords are aware that in this country we have what are known as Darby and Joan clubs which are run on a voluntary basis. Committees are organised to enable the people who have entered into the eventide of life to have one or two nights out a week without any charge being imposed upon them. They are entertained at no expense to themselves, for the volunteers pay their expenses and they use various ways and means to raise the necessary finance.
Bills have been brought before another place to allow free travel on buses for pensioners. I hope that noble Lords are not going to throw this matter to one side without giving serious consideration to the people who have entered into the eventide of life. Over the years, in various walks of life, to the best of their ability, they have made their contribution to this country, and if they feel disposed to go into the warmth of a museum, as has been pointed out that in itself is something.
I am one of those people who look upon not only the aged, but the young as being individual units of a great society of which this country ought to be proud. We ought to be proud of the efforts that have been put in over the years to establish the present situation, with freedom of opportunity and liberty of the subject. I sincerely hope that, if the noble Viscount cannot accept this new clause, he can find some words in substitution, or some way round the situation to meet
1078
the position referred to by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi.
6.50 p.m.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: I doubt whether anything new can be said on this Abject and I have no desire to detain your Lordships unduly. But Christmas is coming, and if we go down any side street in any industrial town and many a village at the present time we shall see up in shops notices about Christmas clubs. Sometimes the notices refer to Christmas clubs and sometimes to clothing clubs. Week by week money has been deposited—perhaps a shilling or two shillings, some humble amount—in order that clothing which is necessary, or Christmas gifts, can be bought and parents will not have to disappoint their children. Would any Member of your Lordships' House go to the trouble of paying into a weekly club for clothes or Christmas gifts or anything else if you were able to meet the full charge of these goods straight away? For one thing, it is a most expensive way to shop. Why do people do it? There are not just thou-sands but literally millions of families in this country—we have a million un-employed to begin with, and we know about the position of old-age pensioners and about families with very small incomes—in which people do really have to count their pence. It would cost the Government nothing—indeed, it might cost less than nothing—to concede the case so ably put by the noble Lord, Lord Slater, and the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. I apologise if I have left out others who may have made a similar case while I was not in the Chamber. Such a small amount is involved.
I do not vouch for the authenticity of everything I read in the papers, but I read from a cutting I have in my hand of a certain Mr. Carl Hawker, who has actually made quite a little sum of money out of his opposition to museum charges. I am informed here that Mr. Hawker is an artist friend of Sir Michael Tippett, the composer, and that in 1961, when Tippett dedicated his new opera "King Priam" to Mr. Hawker, and gave him the manuscript, Hawker sent it to the British Museum
"on indefinite loan as a gesture of goodwill and in memory of many happy years spent there as a student."

1079
This paper goes on to say that when Lord Eccles announced his intention to charge, Mr. Hawker felt he wanted to withdraw the manuscript—like so many other people who have made gifts to a museum or galleries. He knows there is a ready market on the other side of the Atlantic and he was offered a good price. Probably the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, who is with us is in an ideal position to correct or endorse this, but if I can believe what I read Mr. Hawker did not go for the highest price he could find but took the price the British Museum was willing to pay him. He made. I understand, a clear £1,000 out of the deal. What an absurd position that we should be antagonising and distressing men and women of all kinds (we do not know how many are involved) whose impulse is to give because they would wish, as my noble friend Lord Slater said, to create a united nation and not a divided one.
This is all so small. This is so petty. I would say to the noble Viscount the Paymaster General that Christmas is coming. Give the kids at least the opportunity of free entrance. Not many of them are involved and it is the special ones we are talking about. It is the special child who seeks to find his or her way into our museums and galleries alone. They might go in out of the cold, like the odd old person, or they may go out of curiosity. Who knows why? Suffer them to come unto ye. Why should we create even the most minute barrier, any kind of tripwire, between any child who wants to feel that he is accepted as part of the community and that our museums and galleries are part of his home?
LORD AUCKLAND: It could be that there are serious objections to this Amendment as drafted. For example, as has already been said, "organised parties" is a somewhat vague expression. Equally, a number of arguments could be made in defence of making charges for children. Increased pocket money may be one. But I think we must differentiate between a museum and a live performance. Much play has been made of the fact that there are charges for cinemas and concert halls, but in the latter case we are dealing with live perform-
1080
ances. With museums we are dealing with something which is entirely educational. I well recall, as I know many of your Lordships will, as a child going frequently particularly to the Science Museum of the Natural History Museum. Many children visit such museums in organised parties and otherwise. It may be that if three or four boys go in they will run around and let off steam and have to be pulled up by an attendant. But even if an Amendment could be brought in saying that a boy must be accompanied by a parent or a responsible adult, this would go some of the way to meeting what is wanted. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, instanced the case of a boy going in on his own. Such a boy is probably going to learn very much more from going into the Science Museum or the National Gallery than from going to the Cameo Cinema. For this reason, I urge my noble friend to reconsider this matter. It is not a question of what children earn these days. We all know that children get more pocket money than they received thirty years ago, but museums are, as I understand it, establishments of a purely educational nature and the more youngsters, particularly, we get there, the better for all of us.
LORD AIREDALE: I hope that the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Slater, will be listened to. The noble Lord said that if organised parties of school children are going to get concessionary rates, then let organised parties of retired people equally get concessionary rates. Apart from that, after listening to this debate, I am beginning to wonder whether the Treasury would lose anything at all if the spirit of this Amendment were acceded to. I am thinking of the family party referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, who are travelling together on holiday. Let us say that the family consists of a grandparent, two parents, and their two children. Supposing the question arises: Are we or are we not going round a museum? It might be said, if all five have to pay, "The children won't enjoy it very much, perhaps, and it hardly seems worth it. Don't let's go." On the other hand, if Granny gets in for nothing and the children get in for nothing, and only Mum and Dad have to pay, they might think, "That's a bargain, so let's go." So all the Mums and Dads under those arrangements are going to contribute to museum

1081
funds monies which would not be forthcoming at all under a system whereby everybody is going to have to pay. I cannot help wondering whether, by acceding to the principle of this Amendment, the Treasury may be on a money-spinner, whereas if they reject it they are probably on to a loser.
LORD PLATT: I feel very strongly in favour of this Amendment, but of course I am bound to be influenced by speeches by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, who so far as I can see feel that, although they are in general favour of children's entering museums and galleries free, nevertheless it should not be put on the Statute Book; it is one of those matters which should be left to the trustees and governors to discuss with the Minister.
I rise only to warn the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, who I think said that one of his points was that conditions might vary from one institution to another. I see he nods his head. I suppose he remembers the noble Viscount's reply to the Amendment which we proposed on December 6 —that the practical effects of the Amendment would be to introduce a network of charges so uneven, so chaotic, so troublesome to vary in the smallest particular that it would become worthless. He said he was advised that this was exactly what the first Amendment said. These museums do not all think alike. In some the charges might be very low, and the exemptions very numerous. At other extremes other things might happen. This is something which apparently he cannot countenance. The public would ask why, since all the museums depend upon the Government for their money, the Government did not see that the rates and the exemptions were all the same. I do not think the noble Earl will get very far.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I want to make one appeal to the Government on the system of charges. Education is one of the best things that this country does for its children. When we are dealing with education it is no good our educating the child and not the parent. Therefore I ask not only that the children should go in free but that the parents should go in free with them.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, having seen this Bill go through all its stages,
1082
I should like to say that in my view what my noble friend Lord Auckland said made a great deal of sense. Basically, in principle it seemed to agree with the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I am entirely behind the idea of children, especially in family parties, being allowed into museums free. The educational side, as we have heard, is very good. In regard to pensioners, I think that what has been said by the experts, such as the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, is perfectly true: this can be left to the trustees because they know who the pensioners are and a working agreement can be arranged.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, may I just express the hope that the noble Viscount will take into account the—perhaps in a sense surprising—number of Members of the House of Lords who have told him that when they were young if they had had to pay to go to a museum or gallery they could not have afforded to do so. In another sphere he may remember that the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King (whose musical nature we all know) told us that his introduction to music came entirely from concerts which, he having discovered that it was in the charter of the Albert Hall that on Sun-days there had to be a certain number of free seats, he was able to attend; otherwise as a boy he could not possibly have afforded to do. I think that one of the points which is in our minds is that it seems odd, in a way, that my generation and the generation of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, who lived as boys in difficult times of considerable poverty, could then be allowed to go into museums free, whereas his grandchildren in much better times are told that we cannot afford to let them go in free and that they will have to pay.
7.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate and I am grateful for all that has been said. I think we must divide the Amendment from the idea behind it. It will be seen that the Amendment would put into the Bill a permissive power to grant free entry to children not in organised educational parties, and to retirement pensioners. That is a power which we already have. There is no need whatever to put that power into legislation. We already have the power to charge and

1083
also to ask the museums to agree to certain details of charging, so we do not need this Amendment. On the other hand it provides an excellent occasion on which to discuss the two categories of old-age pensioners and children.
I should like first to refer to the phrase "organised party". It may surprise your Lordships that the reason why we have said that organised parties can come in free is that the time is already arriving when directors of museums must have some control over the number of organised parties. They must be told in advance when these parties are coming, because the number coming at one time is getting quite embarrassing. I propose to refer to that point later. If there is a premium on an organised party it is possible for the manager of the museum to space out in a convenient way the number of schools, for example, in the London area who will be sending a party to a given museum. I do not wish to refer to what is happening at a number of the more celebrated provincial museums in France, where they are rationing the number of children every day—and indeed it is happening in America. I will return to that later because it is an important point: the number of children who are coming now and the number who, with very little extra encouragement. would come in the future.
Our proposal that retirement pensioners should pay 5p and that children not in these parties should pay 5p is due to the fact that we have, I think it might be said, set a modest target, £1 million a year, for the amount of money we wish to collect from charging as an appropriation in aid. That figure, and the fact that we believe that it is right to keep the basic charge down to 10p for ten months in the year, governs the number of exemptions that we can make. We could, of course, go for a smaller sum, in which case we could make these exemptions quite easily. Personally, I should be happy to do that, but we really think that as we have such a large financial plan on hand £1 million must be our target. We could make exemptions and raise the basic charge to 20p, which for reasons that I have explained to the House on previous occasions is the first stopping place after 10p. If we did that, I am quite convinced that the result
1084
would be unfair as between those who would then be paying 20p and those who would then be paying nothing. If one looks round on a crowded day it is obvious that most of the few elderly visitors—and I agree with the two noble Lords who are trustees and who have spoken—and most of the children could as easily afford 5p as the visitors of working age could afford 20p. Speaking for a moment about the pensioners, I think we are agreed on both sides of the House that as pensioners wish to spend their money in many different ways, the best help that any Government can give them is to increase the cash rate of pension. Well, we have just done that by £1—the largest increase which has ever been made by any Government.
Now I want to come to the children. I think that those who are so solicitous for children—and I hope to convince the Committee that I am, too—cannot be very familiar with the situation in the museums to-day, and still less with the improvements in the services for children that simply must be made as soon as we can make them. It seems to me that such people are thinking, as the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner said, of the days when they were children. The differences between the pocket money at the disposal of children when I was a young man, and the noble Lord was a young man, and when the noble Baroness was still a child and the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, was in his cot, and the amounts they have now are very great indeed. The noble Baroness told us that her father spent a penny on a concert in Dunfermline; about how much he loved music, and said that that was why he paid his entrance charge, because he loved music. I think it very probable that a penny in those days was worth more to a Fife miner than 5p is to the average child who goes into a museum to-day. At least, that is the general belief of those who look after the museums which are most attractive to children.
It is very important to realise that our museums were built and arranged for adults. It is only quite recently that children have begun to come to them in tens of thousands, and to put tens of thousands of questions to the staff. And the result is that the demand on gallery space and the load on the staff are being

1085
radically altered. Some museums have appointed an education officer; others are about to do so. But none, I venture to say, has the number of lecture rooms, separate restaurants and other facilities which the children already need desperately badly, and they will need much more if they are not to get right in the way of the adults and make it very difficult at many times of the day and on many days in the year for the museums to be appreciated in the way we want.
The influx of school parties (it is admirably set out in a Report, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Lee commissioned, on Museums and Education) is going up rapidly, and it would be very easy indeed to encourage a further enormous increase. If children in the Inner London Education Authority area (let us take the one nearest to our major museums) visited the museum in the proportion which all of us in this House would like, the situation would be extraordinarily embarrassing. I think it is perfectly true also, from what I saw when I was at the British Museum, that many of the children who afterwards come back unaccompanied, or even bring their fathers and mothers, were first introduced to museums on school parties; and I believe that we want more and more of these children to be introduced, to have their curiosity fired, by one means or another. Therefore the question is this: do you want actively to stimulate the use of our museums by children, whether in parties or on their own? If you do—and this is the Government's firm intention—then you must ask how the money is to be found to finance the new building, the extra staff, special publications and all the other facilities which are lacking and which will be very urgently needed.
If we do not put these improvements in hand pretty soon, we shall have to find ways of rationing the number of children going to museums. As I said before, it is already done abroad. We do not want to be driven to doing that in our museums, but it is a race against time. If the new block at the British Museum—the finance for part of which the noble Baroness authorised, and the other part of which has now been authorised—is started next month, we shall have there a whole great set of educational rooms which can be used for children, in small groups, or on their own, or of course in
1086
larger organised parties, and we shall have a large new restaurant entirely for the children. I wonder how many noble Lords have witnessed the conditions in which children visiting the British Museum now try to get something to eat. It is really shocking.
Do noble Lords know that the National Gallery has told Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools that they are reluctant to encourage any more school parties for fear of overcrowding at the peak periods of the year? I wonder whether noble Lords have experienced the conditions on a weekend this summer—when of course the situation gets worse—at the museums most attractive to children. And here I must observe that not all the children who come unaccompanied are interested in the displays. Sad to say, a growing number are rowdy and destructive. Two provincial museums have recently initiated charges for the express purpose of keeping the young hooligans away. The charges have worked. The gangs do not come any more, but the attendances as a whole have continued to rise. One of those museums is in the North-East, and the noble Lord. Lord Slater, might like to know that it is now visited by more family parties than ever before. I should like to do what all noble Lords wish and admit children free, but we cannot do it just yet; we must get these museums more prepared. And as the power to do it is not required—we already have it—I feel that the Amendment itself would not commend itself to the House, and that the noble Lord would not wish to press an Amendment that would give a power which is quite unnecessary.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, do I take it from what the noble Viscount is now saying that the trustees of the various museums already have plenary powers whereby they can, if they so will it, intro-duce a policy whereby children could be admitted free, or could be admitted free with their parents, and aged people could be admitted free? Have they plenary powers to take such action?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I am glad the noble Lord raised that point, because it is one on which we had some confusion before. This is a Bill to remove impediments from four bodies of trustees only who do not possess that power. Then all the national museums

1087
and galleries will have a legal power to charge. But the charges would be made in principle and in detail on the scales which the Government tell them we think is the best and fairest way of raising the El million. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked why that is not the most important thing in the world. The answer is that the £1 million is opening the door to so many other things. That is why there are other things that are more important. We could, if we thought it was fairer, charge all people of working age 20p and charge children nothing. It is our view that that would not be so fair as between one category and another. But I propose to tell the House, on the last Amendment, that after this system has been working for three years we are prepared to have an official review in which all this experience can be looked at. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, said that they had some pretty good statistics in the Natural History Museum. I think they are very reasonable statistics, but I think I am right in saying that the national museums, as a group, have not good statistics now. We must collect them, and I undertake at the end of three years, if it appears that the way these charges are being assigned is unfair as between one category of person and another, we will review them. In the meantime, I must oppose the Amendment because it is totally unnecessary.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and that the spirit of the Amendment has had support from all quarters of the House. I was particularly impressed with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, when he said that he thought that we were dealing with something that is entirely educational. I was also impressed with the plea that the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, put forward for family parties. I must say that I was rather shocked by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, when he described retirement pensioners as "poor old things", and the slightly patrician attitude which he adopted.
THE EARL or CRANBROOK: My Lords, perhaps I may explain myself.
1088
There are about a dozen "poor old things" who come into our museum. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, would say that he has about a dozen poor old things". I think every institution has that sort of number who drift in just for the warmth. Everybody, except apparently the noble Lord opposite, knows that that very small number exist. I imagine that if charges were introduced we should probably "cook" them through, and say nothing about it.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for explaining what he meant to say. It may be that the retirement pensioners are not so interested in natural history. Many other museums are full of a great many old people, and I think it does them a great disservice to describe them in this rather contemptuous fashion.
I can assure the noble Viscount the Minister that I know the Refreshment Room in the British Museum very well. It is a ghastly place. It is a small catacomb leading out of the GrecoRoman rooms. The caterer there does extremely well in very difficult conditions. This is not the fault of the children. I do not think that you could argue that children should not be allowed into the British Museum because of this rather small and unsatisfactory refreshment place. I seem to remember that when the noble Viscount was chairman of the Trustees there was talk then of building a new refreshment room there, and I think that the Trustees at that time announced that they were generously going to give up their own board room. But nothing seems to happen, and I think that this is the fault of the Ministry of Works and not of the children.
We often forget that we are dealing with very small figures. The noble Viscount has his target, to which he must keep, but, as I said before, to exempt all the children would cost only £150,000. I know that the Government do not have the figure for the retirement pensioners, but it cannot really be very much. Nothing that has been said convinces me that this Amendment should not be accepted, and I must ask your Lordships to divide.
7.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
7.32 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Running costs
". If the proportion of the charges of admission attributable to running costs exceeds 10 per cent., the charges of admission may not solely for that reason be increased pro rata."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment seeks to ensure that if the 10 per cent. estimated running cost is found to be too optimistic, the admission charges may not be increased pro rata solely for that reason; so gallery visitors
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 75.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Diamond, L.

Peddie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Falkland, V.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Arwyn, L.

Foot, L.

Platt, L.

Avebury, L.

Gardiner, L.

Rea, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Headfort, M.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Beswick, L.

Henley, L.

Shackleton, L.

Blackett, L.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Blyton, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Simon, V.

Brockway, L.

Maelor, L.

Slater, L.

Champion, L.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Collison, L.

Norwich, V.

Summerskill, Bs.

Crook, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

White, Bs.

Davies of Leek, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Eccles, V.

Nairne, Bs.

Abinger, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Northchurch, Bs.

Ailwyn, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Oakshott, L.

Aldenham, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Amory, V.

Fortescue, E.

Reading, M.

Balerno, L.

Gainford, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Barnby, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Beaumont, L.

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

St. Helens, L.

Belstead, L.

Sandford, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Hanworth, V.

Sandys, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Harris, L.

Sherfield, L.

Bradford, E.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Somers, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hawke, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Strathcarron, L.

Conesford, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strathclyde, L.

Courtown, E.

Killearn, L.

Sudeley, L.

Cowley, E.

Kilmany, L.

Swansea, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Terrington, L.

Cran brook, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lucan, E.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Daventry, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vivian, L.

Davidson, V.

Milverton, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

de Clifford, L.

Mountevans, L.

Windlesham, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Wolverton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

will not have to pay for any miscalculations. So far as the Scottish national galleries are concerned, the 10 per cent. estimate seems to be little more than wild surmise. The total income from Scottish admission charges is calculated at about £70,000 in a full year, but according to an Answer given in the other place on December 8 last, the running costs are estimated at £11,000. I make that well over 15 per cent. In actual fact—and this calculation is based on the attendance figures—about half of this amount will come from the Royal Scottish Museum, with the remainder coming from the other four Edinburgh galleries, including the Scottish National Gallery. No wonder, my Lords, that the Trustees of the National Gallery in Edinburgh stated in their last Report that, even on

1091
the practical level, they had doubts about a levy which will be difficult and expensive to collect.
The minimum running cost at the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich, I am informed, will be £20,000 a year for wages alone. I understand that 15 new staff members will be required and there is very little accommodation for them. This does not seem to accord with the Government's policy of reducing the number of civil servants. At Greenwich there are ten entrances, which may now have to be reduced to seven, with some inconvenience to the public. I am afraid that the same heavy costs may be repeated in several other institutions. The last time an attempt was made to impose charges at the British Museum was in 1923, and one of the reasons for dropping the scheme was that the cost of running it would be far too great. The other reason was strong opposition from all Parties in the other place. I should like to ask the Minister whether it is true that an order has already been placed for a hundred ticket machines and 25 million tickets, presumably at a cost of £55,000. If that is so, it seems rather premature, when the Bill has not yet been passed by this House let alone considered by the other place. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that. My Lords, I beg to move.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has proceeded with his Amendment with the idea that the estimate of costs has to apply museum by museum. Of course that has never been possible. It is perfectly obvious that some museums are much more thinly attended than others and that therefore the cost of collecting the charges at some will be less than at others. We have tried to make our assessment on the basis of all the museums taken together. Of course the Amendment does not make sense, and I am very surprised to see it on the Marshalled List. What I understand the noble Lord would like to happen is that if, let us say, we have underestimated the costs in the whole of the museums by £25,000, we should then be prohibited by his Amendment from increasing the charges—and how we should do it, I cannot imagine—by £25,000. But the noble Lord's Amendment states that we may increase the
1092
charges by £24.000, or we may increase them by £26,000. In fact, your Lord-ships will observe that the words in the Amendment read, "… may not … be increased pro rata." I am afraid that this destroys the value of what the noble Lord is asking us to do.
On the general point, I am afraid that I do not know about the order for machines. I can say that we had hoped that the Parliamentary timetable in both Houses would be such that we could have got the Bill through by the Christmas Recess, in which case we should obviously have required the machines in order to start the charging on January 1. We could not possibly have ordered them between, let us say, December 17 and January 3. So I should think it is probable that some arrangements have already been made, but I am afraid that I do not have the details. It may be that, in practice, however much we try to keep the costs down, we shall find that at certain museums the net result is really hardly worth while. If that happens, then I have no doubt that when we come to our review in three years' time, that will be one of the points taken up.
But, in our opinion, when something like this scheme is started, which evidently arouses such a lot of public interest, we must start on a uniform basis and then, if experience tells us that we should vary it, we shall do so in time to come. If charges are kept where they are and for one reason or another wages are increased, then it is obvious that our original estimate of the proportion of the total receipts required for administration will go up. Obviously, there are matters of that kind which make it impossible to say that the proportion will never go up. But if the noble Lord reflects upon the amount by which the estimate might be wrong—if it is wrong —he will agree that it is so little that it would be extremely difficult to increase the charges to match it. How would you spread over, let us say, the sum of £25,000? I regret to say, therefore, that the noble Lord's Amendment does not do at all what he thinks it does, and I hope that he will not pursue it.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, may I make quite sure that the noble Viscount does not have in

1093
his mind at this moment any idea of making these ridiculous charges still more ridiculous by increasing them? I was rather alarmed, when he started talking about labour and costs going up, that charges might have to go up as well: because I believe that the fallacy under-lying all these discussions is that we are continually trying to feed the dog with its own tail. The particular dog we are dealing with is a very small dog. If you compare the total Estimates for the Arts and the museums and galleries with the Estimates for most other Departments of Government, you will see that in some Departments they are very large dogs—Defence, Transport and, quite properly, those concerned with hospitals and education. It may be that in those cases you can trim the tail or take a hair or two off the ears here and there without that having very much effect; but when you are dealing with something which is really a new form of public responsibility in its present size, is it not high time that, instead of going round in circles wondering whether we can pinch-penny here and pinch-penny there to get an extra little lavatory in the children's restaurant in a museum by charging some children, we turned to the Government and said to them, "Look here, you have got your priorities wrong"? Instead of sort of eating in on ourselves in this cannibal fashion, what we need is a little more money all round so that we should not have to indulge in this sort of discussion, which, quite frankly, I think is undignified.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Baroness Lee for her support, and I have little to add to what she has said. This, of course, is only an exploratory Amendment, and I shall not press it. I must say I am shocked to hear the Minister con-firm that the Government have spent a large sum of the taxpayers' money in buying these machines before Parliament has even passed the Bill. It seems to me an absolutely flagrant disregard, not only of this House but of the other place as well. But having said that, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.42 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Duration.
". This Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and seventy-four, and shall then expire unless Parliament by affirmative resolution of each House determines that it shall continue in force."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment limits the duration of the Act to two years from next March. We are setting out on new territory so far as the post-war period is concerned. All the museums and galleries have been free since the last war. Indeed, the Victoria and Albert Museum has been free since 1914—all my life—and the British Museum has been free since the middle of the 18th century. We do not know what effect these charges will have on attendances generally, or on the general attitude of the gallery-going public. We do not know what effect they will have on children's attendances. Also, of course, this is enabling legislation, through which Parliament will be giving more or less a free hand to the Government, who, by financial pressure, can get the arrangements changed or amended without having to come back to Parliament, since the second Amendment has been defeated. In our view, therefore, it is absolutely essential to have a review after a period. The National Gallery Trustees, in their last report—in which, of course, they came down firmly against charging—said that they considered that all arrangements for charging should be subject to revision after twelve months, but this period may be a little too short. After consultation, I think that two years would be about right, and that is the period I have put in the Amendment which I am venturing to move. I propose, therefore, that the Act should expire after this period unless Parliament decides that it should continue in force. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, we have not amended this Bill in any way which alters its character. It is a Bill—and here I read the Title—
"to remove impediments to the making of charges for admission to the national museums and galleries in Great Britain".

1095
It then goes on to remove the impediments in respect of the four bodies of trustees who are at present uncertain of their powers. If, therefore, we accepted this new clause, all we would be doing at the end of 1974 is to call in question whether or not the removal of the impediments to the powers of these four museums had been a sensible thing to do —and that is not what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, wants. What he wants—and I quite understand it—is that a system of charges which are novel and which have aroused very considerable opposition in many parts should be looked at.
Now we think the same, and therefore I have been giving thought to the best way in which I could give an undertaking to the House that we would have a thorough review. I am of the opinion that three years is needed before we shall know how these charges are working out, and whether there are any major changes that need to be made. I will undertake that the Government will have an official review of the working of the system in three years' time, by which time we ought to have proper statistics from which we can really know what has been happening—and we do not have them now. That, I think, is a much more satisfactory offer to the House than an Amendment which, as I say, is so narrowly confined to the actual Bill, itself a very narrow Bill, that we have been discussing.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I want to put on record that in my view the attendances at our museums and galleries are going to go up, irrespective of charges. They are going to go up because, although we are taking such a reactionary step in imposing charges, there is a more liberal attitude in our schools and there is much more encouragement to be interested in the Arts, as the noble Viscount knows. One of the last reports produced during the last Parliament was on the use of the museums and galleries by our schools. Indeed, as the noble Viscount has said, the real problem is the tidal wave of young ones and those of middle age who want to go in. You cannot have the kind of television programmes that have been given by Lord Clark—television programmes which have appeared on B.B.C.1 now, as well as on
1096
B.B.C.2—or the experiment of television programmes dealing with the treasures of the British Museum, without their having an immense impact. There are enormous numbers of people who never before knew of the existence of these institutions. To them, they were strange, dark, unattractive places. These people are now having their interest stimulated in all kinds of ways; schools are learning about museums and galleries, and so on.
Therefore, I hope it will not be taken for granted that any of us on this side of the House thinks that an increase in the total of attendances is a justification for charges, because what we have tried to say is that, although a wider public will become interested in museums and galleries, and in all that they stand for, which is my view, that still does not answer the point that unless society changes radically in the next few years there are going to be families—not just a few families, but thousands and hundreds of thousands of families; and I could go to a much higher number than that—in which there are individual children and individual middle-aged people who are going to be prevented from attending these places because of the charge. That is the gravamen of what we are trying to say.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt, particularly as I definitely shall not be a trustee in 1974 because my period of office expires before then, but I can assure noble Lords opposite that the trustees are as jealous as anyone else of what will be the results after this Act has been passed. Certainly in our triennial reports we shall put before Parliament very full reports of what has happened and all of us, I am certain. if dissatisfied will make it abundantly clear that we are dissatisfied and will expect Parliamenet to take action. I do not think this Amendment is necessary, for that reason.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I would ask leave to say one or two further words. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lee. I think that she is right. The tidal wave is such that. charges or no charges, attendances will go up. It is a matter of interest that in the museums in the Provinces, where charges have been put on in fairly recent years, attendances have gone up faster.

1097
The reason is very simple. It is because interest in the museums has grown so much. More people have talked about them and more ratepayers have, I suppose, insisted that more things were done. I hope that this is going to happen here. I agree that if we really "went to town" on the advertising of our museums over the mass media we should certainly see some extraordinary results.
I should like to say that I was at the British Museum for eight years, and for eight years I saw that this was going to happen. But did anybody listen? It is all very well to discover in 1971 that we are going to be swamped by these crowds. I think that we all have to take a share of the blame: that we ought to have found it out in 1961. If we had, by now we should have had many extensions built. But better late than never! Let us now combine and try to do what is right. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and I assure him that the tougher that he and his co-trustees make their reports the better the Government will be pleased.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I was rather hoping from the tone of the noble Viscount's earlier remarks that he was going to accept this Amendment—as he accepted the last Amendment on the Committee stage. The last Amendments seem to be the lucky ones. But we must be thankful for half a loaf, and I am glad to hear that after three years he will be reviewing this whole project It may be too early to ask him this question, but I should like to know what kind of review it will be and what form it will take. The difference between this and my Amendment is that the Government review will be conducted by the Government while my Amendment would ensure that the contents of the Bill would be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure of Parliament. I know that the Government always are anxious to avoid coming to Parliament—and have been so, right from the beginning of this scheme. It is at least consistent with that policy.
The noble Viscount mentioned how the attendances were going up in the provincial museums after admission charges had been put on. I suppose he had in mind Castle Museum in Norwich, for that is always cited. The reason for this is that it is now a focal point and highlight
1098
of many of the coach tours. It has nothing to do with the charges and the admission charge is often part of the overall day ticket. Having said that, I am grateful for the fact that the Government are regarding this as something that is experimental. I am sure it is right that something so new and so different from what has been the policy prevailing since the war should be reviewed again after three years. I welcome that and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
7.54 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, I wonder whether, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Dulverton, who is absent at the moment in East Africa promoting some philanthropic work in regard to the Flying Doctor Service there, I may ask Her Majesty's Government if they have any further statement to make regarding the grey squirrel? Your Lordships will remember that there was considerable discussion during the Committee stage on November 30 last under Amendment No. 10.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandys for giving me this opportunity of telling your Lordships about the progress we have made towards meeting what is, I am confident, a widespread desire in this House that there should be more effective means of controlling the grey squirrel. As promised, I have brought to the notice of my right honourable friends the strong views which were expressed when the Bill was with us in Committee. I think it would be a fair summary of your Lordships' feelings if I said that, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, all those who spoke on this subject wanted the law to be amended so that grey squirrels could be poisoned if and when scientific research established that this could safely be done—and by

1099
"safely" I am sure that the House would have in mind that there should be no material risk to other forms of wildlife, and indeed domestic animals. That, my Lords, is the very nub of the matter because, as I have been at pains to explain, we are not yet satisfied that we have an adequate safety margin, although recent research suggests that it could soon be within our grasp.
It is for this reason that the Government have been attracted to the suggestion developed by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and supported by my noble friend Lord Derwent, that the more satisfactory approach at this stage would be to introduce enabling powers under which the use of a suitable poison such as Warfarin could be permitted against grey squirrels provided essential safeguards were observed. In the short interval since that suggestion was made, there have been some urgent consultations with the wildlife, animal welfare and like interests concerned to obtain their first reactions to the principle of approaching the problem in this way. Although there is understandable apprehension in some quarters, it is clear that the principle of enabling powers would carry a wide measure of assent provided that no orders could be made without prior statutory consultation with organisations concerned and without the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
Clearly it would be an abuse of this constructive response to rush into legislation without giving the wildlife and other interests reasonable time to consider not only the principle—which, as I have said, appears to enjoy a wide area of consent—but also the actual form of the statutory changes that would be involved. Your Lordships will agree that a matter of this kind, which is of very real importance to so many people, cannot properly be transacted over the telephone in the brief interval between the Committee and Report stages in your Lordships' House. Nor would the Government wish to table an Amendment of this kind without giving your Lordships any margin of time to digest its implications. In these circumstances, I hope noble Lords will be content if the Government take steps to draft an Amendment which would enable orders to be made, on the lines I have described. This would give us a frame-
1100
work for urgent but more formal consultations with those concerned—and for this purpose, if it is acceptable to the House, I will personally take counsel with my noble friends, Lord Dulverton or Lord Sandys. In this way, the Government's aim would be to bring in their Amendment when the Bill reaches another place, and a new clause of the kind I am depicting would of course come back to your Lordships for detailed consideration at the concluding stages of the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

IMMIGRATION CONTROL: U.K. PASSPORT HOLDERS IN EAST AFRICA
7.59 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY LORD AVEBURY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they will take, following the recommendation of the European Commission on Human Rights in the case of the United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa, to reach a friendly settlement with the complainants.The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I apologise for detaining your Lordships at this hour but, if I may, I would start by recapitulating briefly the changes in legislation in the United Kingdom and Commonwealth countries principally concerned which have led to the unhappy plight of the applicants to the European Commission on Human Rights who represent the tip of an iceberg of human misery and destitution. Under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 a distinction was made, for the first time, between citizens of independent Commonwealth countries and citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The groups then remaining exempt from control were: persons born in the United Kingdom; persons who held U.K. passports as opposed to colonial passports and who were citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or who held such passports issued in the United Kingdom or in the Republic of Ireland; and persons who were included in the passport of another person who was himself exempt as falling into either of the two previous categories.
In 1965, the Government decided to limit the admission of Commonwealth

1101
citizens subject to control, by reducing the number of voucher holders from the previously existing level of 20, 800 under the Act of 1962, to 8, 500 per annum. This cut down not only on the number admitted for employment but also the number of their dependants, and we can see this in the figures issued by the Home Office since then which show a decline from a peak of 61,000 in total admitted in 1967 to about 37,000 in 1970. I would note in passing, my Lords, that during the same period on the official Home Office figures the number of aliens admitted for permanent settlement increased from approximately 18,000 in 1967 to 21,000 in 1970. So it is not the pressure of numbers which has occasioned this fresh legislation and the restrictions imposed by successive Governments.
This 1967 figure I have mentioned included 13, 600 United Kingdom citizens from East Africa who were also passport holders. These were mainly, as we know, from Kenya. In 1967 the Kenya Government passed the Immigration Act and Trade Licensing Act, which had the effect of depriving noncitizens—and those were, of course, mainly non-citizens of Asian origin—of the opportunity of supporting themselves in many categories of employment or independent trading. But the higher rate of immigration during the year 1967 may, according to the experts, have been as much due to the threat of impending British legislation as to the laws that were passed in that year in Kenya itself. And similar legislation was passed in Uganda, in 1969.
Originally, under the 1962 Act which I have mentioned, the United Kingdom passport holders were subject to control because their passports had been issued in a dependent territory. But then, after independence was conferred on those territories, those who did not obtain citizenship of the newly independent country were able to renew their United Kingdom pasports and, by doing so, to obtain exemption from the entry controls into Britain, since a renewed passport was then issued directly by the United Kingdom Government and not by the Government of a Dependency. It was clearly recognised at the time that East African persons who were of Asian descent might wish to continue to exer
1102
cise all the rights of United Kingdom citizenship, including the freedom of entry into this country; otherwise there would have been no point in granting them this choice.
I would refer noble Lords to the open letter written by Mr. Macleod to Mr. Duncan Sandys late in the day, just before the 1968 Act was introduced into Parliament, when Mr. Duncan Sandys was considering a Private Member's Bill. Mr. Macleod wrote to him in these terms:
"Two years after the introduction of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act you introduced the Kenya Independence Bill to the House of Commons. The constitution on which it was founded was detailed and exact. The pro-visions for citizenship and for renunciation were clear. The earlier Act must, of course, have been in your mind. Your Under-Secretary said in the House, after explaining the Bill, There is thus no question of anyone becoming stateless as a result of the Bill's provisions.' The only pressure in the House was for you to widen not restrict the protection given to minorities and you responded."
So that was the view of Mr. Macleod as to the motivation of the British Government at the time of conferring in-dependence on Kenya. There was no question whatsoever that this was in-tended to deprive the United Kingdom citizens of Asian origin who were then resident in Kenya of any of the rights which they had previously enjoyed.
Yet in 1968 the Government, alarmed by the rise in the number of immigrants from East Africa and panicked into action by the racialists who were in full cry at that time, suddenly revoked the right of their own citizens by passing the Commonwealth Immigrants Act of that year. This Act provided that in addition to the qualifications set out in the 1962 Act, it was necessary for a person to show that he was born in the United Kingdom or had a parent or a grandparent who was born in the United Kingdom or had a similar connection by way of naturalisation, registration or adoption. The only loophole then left, which is important in some of the cases we heard before the European Commission, was that certain wives could still obtain exemption for themselves and their children, even when their husbands failed to qualify for free admission. This loop-hole, I understand, has now been stopped up under the 1971 Act, with effect from January 1, 1972.
Apart from that, East African Asians were granted a special quota of 1, 500 vouchers, within the total of 8, 500 which remained unaltered, and that implied an intake of 6,000 to 7,000 persons a year from East Africa as a whole. This figure ought to be compared with the Government's estimate of 200,000 persons of Asian origin resident in East Africa at the time who might have sought entry within a very short time in the absence of any control. I may add that the Kenya Government's estimate of the number in mid-1968 was 100,000, and since then there has been a census in Kenya which shows that the actual number was only 60,000. But no attempt was made officially by the British Government either to establish, by means of detailed surveys in the countries concerned, what the total number was or what percentage of them might have wished to exercise their right of entry in the absence of any controls. So far as I am aware, the only information that we have on this subject is from a survey conducted by Mr. Martin Ennals, the Secretary-General of Amnesty International, who, in a survey of 2,039 heads of households in Kenya, discovered that only 18-2 per cent. of them would have wished to settle permanently in the United Kingdom.
I should add that there has been an increase this year in the number of special vouchers. It was doubled to 3,000 with effect from June 1, and there was also a once-and-for-all increase of 1, 500 during this current year. If you work out the time it is going to take for all the would-be immigrants to be admitted on the basis of the Government figures for 1968—let us say at the rate of 3,000 voucher holders per annum; that means an intake of 13, 500 persons allowing for their families—if there were 200,000 it would take 20 years before all those waiting in the queue were ultimately satisfied. I think the Government's estimate of the size of the queue has been grossly exaggerated, and I should refer here to some figures produced by my honourable friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles in the Sunday Times on May 9, 1971. He showed then, after a visit that he made to Kenya, that there were some-thing like 2,000 waiting to be admitted, and they broke down into the following categories: 650 young people who had left school and found themselves unable
1104
to get employment; 350 former traders living on steadily dwindling capital; 200 people with money and skills which could be particularly useful in Britain; 100 widows and 700 persons who had lost their employment. That was the size of the problem.
Now I come to the case which has been presented before the European Commission. As noble Lords will be aware, there were originally 25 cases, to which another six were added later. All these were declared admissible in January, 1971. Of this first and larger group of 25, the majority were the young single men whose case I have already mentioned, and just over half of them had applied for special vouchers before they left Kenya. It is noteworthy that not one of these applicants for special vouchers has been granted such a voucher, no doubt because they did not fall into any of the priority categories which were laid down by the Government; that is to say —and I quote from the Government's memorandum of evidence to the European Commission:

"(a) persons under notice to leave their country of residence by a given date;

(b) persons barred from employment or trading in their country of residence;

(c) persons unable to obtain employment (e.g., school-leavers who have never succeeded in obtaining jobs because of local policies in their country of residence);

(d) persons in economic hardship for other reasons (e.g., deserted wives with young children, retired persons with inadequate pensions);

(e) other persons wishing to migrate. Within categories (a) to (c) priority is given to those suffering economic hardship."

It would be interesting to know how many persons in the countries that we are discussing had their applications accepted under each of these headings, and in India also, since many of the passport holders originally went to India temporarily on the understanding that it would not affect their ultimate right to settle in the United Kingdom. I am not sure how many people actually went to India. I think my honourable friend, in the article to which I am referring, gave an estimate of 6,000 families who went to settle in India at the time in the belief that they would not thereby forfeit any of the rights that they held as United Kingdom passport holders. But when questions were put in another place on

1105
this subject at the time of the Statement on increase in the number of vouchers, the Minister responding was extremely vague about the rights of these passport holders. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could clarify their position this evening. The submissions of the Government do not make it clear whether any of the young men concerned in these 31 cases before the European Commission were employed at the time of their departure from East Africa, or whether any of them had been able to get jobs since the time that they left school, but it is a well-known fact that, quite apart from any legislation that may be operative in Kenya and Uganda, school-leavers of the Asian community have the greatest difficulty in obtaining work.
The second important category to which I should like to refer is the group whose wives had already become resident in the United Kingdom, either before the 1968 Act or as exempt persons after the passage of the 1968 Act. Paragraph 41 of the Instructions to immigration Officers says that an entry certificate will be issued to a man to join his wife and family resident in the United Kingdom only if there are special considerations which would render his exclusion un-desirable, such as the degree of hardship the family would suffer if the wife had to live outside the United Kingdom to be with her husband. Yet in no case that I am aware of, apart from these three taken before the European Commission, has the discretion of the Secretary of State been exercised in favour of a husband where the wife's and children's return to East Africa (assuming that they could pay the fare and that the East African country would readmit them, both of which are extremely doubtful) would mean a return to destitution, homelessness and permanent unemployment. I may take as a recent example the case of Mr. Chandrakana P. Joshi, living in Kenya, who applied to come here to join his wife and seven-year-old child, and was refused by the tribunal as recently as December 7. It would appear to me that paragraph 41 of these Regulations is still being interpreted very harshly, except in the few cases where unwelcome publicity is focused on the Home Office.
It would take far too long for me to enter into the cases heard at Strasbourg in any detail. I will just mention the
1106
Articles under which these cases were brought: Article 31, protection from de-grading treatment; Article 51, right to security of the person; Article 8, respect for family life; Article 14, protection from discrimination on racial and other grounds. I will only say, in this connection, that the argument before the European Commission frequently de-generated into one of semantics; but I think that the applicants had the better of the case, because when one looks at the first of the Articles that I have men-tioned—what constitutes degrading treat-ment—one can refer, as counsel on behalf of the applicants did, to the definition contained in the Oxford English Diction-ary. "Degrade" is defined there as:
"to reduce from a higher to a lower rank; to depose from a position of honour or estimation; to lower in the estimation of character or quality".
Sir Dingle Foot also referred to a case that was heard before the Privy Council in 1967, which was an appeal from the courts of Southern Rhodesia, interestingly enough, where counsel for the Crown, Mr. Mervyn Heald, who was acting against the applicants before the European Commission, produced a definition of the word "degrade". He said:
"'Degrade' means' lowering in rank, position, reputation or character'."
I think, my Lords, it is undeniable that so far as the 31 applicants are concerned they were lowered in all of these respects by the refusal of the United Kingdom Government to honour the undertakings that were given to them at the time of conferring independence on Kenya.
These complaints were all found to be admissible by January of this year. The Commission considered the written observations in May and held an oral hearing on the merits of the case in September. Under the procedure of the Commission the pleadings are not followed by a judgment. What happens is that an attempt is made to reach a settlement between the parties which is acceptable to both sides. Since the end of September, presumably the Commission has been sounding out the British Government and the complainants to see whether this is possible. I under-stand that discussions have taken place. But I would remind your Lordships that if no agreement can be reached, then

1107
the Commission will have power to report the case to the European Court, and the court in turn would have the power to award compensation to the victims of contravention of the treaty and even to require changes in British legislation, domestic legislation, which has given rise to the complaints. In other words, the European Court could require us to rescind Section 1 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968. Unfortunately there is no time for this stage to be reached, and that is why, after nearly three months, I am asking the Government to give us a progress report this evening.
In my opinion, my Lords, the 1968 Act was one of the shabbiest and most repulsive pieces of legislation ever passed through Parliament; and I think the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, probably agrees with me about that, because he voted against it at the time. Not only have we deprived many thousands of British subjects of their citizenship purely nn grounds of colour, but we have locked them up in our prisons when they were innocent of any offence; we have deprived women and children of the sup-port of their menfolk we have left families to rot in half the cities of Europe; we have treated without compassion or humanity the wretched supplicants before the High Commissions in the East African territories. I sincerely hope that the Government will be able to make an offer which is satisfactory to these particular complainants. But no redress for them could wipe out the stain on our country's honour.
8.20 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I do not think that any of us can have listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, without a feeling of shame—a feeling of shame because the real issue that is before us when we are considering the results of the Immigration Act 1968 is one of national honour. That shame was felt so deeply during the debate on the Bill that the representatives of this House who have had service in the Commonwealth Department were among those who spoke against the Bill and who voted against it while they were Conservatives. There was the speech of the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire; the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord
1108
Lansdowne, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said, perhaps the least happy person in the House to-night can be Lord Windlesham, who also voted against the Bill. Let me just add this, to be fair: I am perfectly certain that on the Front Benches of the Labour Government who introduced this Bill there was an unhappiness about it as great as the unhappiness on the other side.
The issue then was one of an honourable pledge which we had given to these British Asians in East Africa. We had said to them in the clearest terms: "You will be recognised as British citizens; you will have British passports with all the undertakings given in the name of Her Majesty which are within a British passport: freedom of movement, freedom to come here". I regard it as one of the most shameful periods in our history that when we had given a pledge of national honour in that way we should have betrayed it because of tensions within our own country. I am not saying for a moment that there were not great pressures—perhaps more by public speakers than in public opinion—which sought to restrict the coming to this country of those who were non-whites. But it was a shameful thing that our Government, with the support of a majority both in this House and in another place, should have given way to those kinds of pressures rather than maintaining the national honour of our country in pledges which had been given.
I am not speaking, my Lords, from prejudice in favour of the British Asians concerned. I think they took a wrong decision when the independence of Uganda, of Kenya and of Tanzania was recognised. I spoke in Kenya with my friend, Mrs. Indira Ghandi, now Prime Minister of India, to thousands of Indians in Nairobi, and I said that they should accept the advice of Pandit Nehru, the then Prime Minister, and become citizens of Kenya, where they were resident and where they were devoting their lives. Similarly, when the independence of Uganda was recognised, I met the leaders of the Indian community there and urged the same point. I want to acknowledge that a good deal of blame rests upon the Indian community for not becoming citizens of both Kenya and Uganda and in their failure to integrate themselves with the African

1109
majority in those territories. One could go to Kampala or Jinga in Uganda and see streets which were Indian rather than African, with Indian citizens segregated from the Africans. Thdrefore, in my opposition to this Bill when I moved its rejection in this House, and in my attitude now, I am not prejudiced in any sense in favour of the Indians concerned.
My criticism preceding the 1968 Bill was that there had been no proper consultations with the Governments of East Africa or with the Indian populations there. Three years have passed and it would be difficult to describe the conditions of Indians who are now denied, because of their absence of citizenship, the right to trade or the right to work. Go to-day to Kampala or to Jinga and you will see the Indian shops closed and the families who lived above their shops evicted from their accommodation.
We have been extraordinarily foolish, because while we have increased the number who are allowed to come to this country, when they come they will be in a far worse condition to become citizens of this country and to contribute to it than they would have been three years ago. There are many of them who had training, experience and high skills. In three years they have lost much of that capacity. Read the report of Mrs. Mary Dines of her visits—Indian families now in one room, everything having had to be sold; all that is left are mattresses on the floor, a few clothes, some religious symbols, photographs on the wall; utterly destitute, the children no longer able to go to school because of the fees which are charged for pupils; young men who have done no work ever since leaving school. In this House, as in another place, we ought to be measuring legislation by the suffering which it has caused.
I am not pretending that this Act created as much suffering as other instances of legislation. But when to the savage cruelty of making those who sought to come to this country return to Uganda and Kenya—sent back here, sent back there—is added the destitution of thousands of Indians without work, with-out any opportunity to gain a livelihood, reduced to a condition of destitution—this is a cruelty of which we all ought to be ashamed. This is an Act of which the House ought to repent, and ought to
1110
repent with the desire to bring in something else.
The Government have now announced that the number of vouchers for these people will be increased from 1, 500 to 3,000 a year. That number is insignificant compared with the need. I find it difficult to estimate the number of British Asians who would desire to come to this country, because those who make applications do not represent them. Many British Asians have given up all hope after months of application. Probably the figure of 50.000 would be an under-estimate—and we are allowing 3,000 of those to whom we have pledged their rights with the British passport to come to this country!
There have been three developments recently which relate closely to the subject. First, the recent immigration Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred, which has placed more restrictions upon those who desire to come here. The second factor—and this is desperately important—is the cancellation by the Uganda Government of 10,000 applications made over many years by Asians to become citizens of Uganda. Third, and I should like the Minister to make some reference to this, is the definition of citizenship given by the Minister in another place which will relate to entrants to the European Community. Even when they get here these British Asians to whom we are pledged will not merely have to wait the five years through which they must pass to have their nationalisation; they must remain here another five years before they will have any rights as residents in this country to enjoy the free movement into Europe.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? Surely it is still discretionary. The Home Secretary has power to refuse them permanent residence in this country at the end of the five years under the 1971 Immigration Act. It could be that if the Home Secretary did not like their faces they would never become citizens and never have free movement within the E.E.C.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am not sure whether it would be due to the fact that the Home Secretary might not like their faces, but clearly what the noble Lord has said adds to the argument that I was trying to make.

1111
The Government are now in this difficult position: the European Commission on Human Rights has considered petitions, and it has decided that there is a prima facie case. With moderation it has proposed friendly discussions with the Government. I wonder whether there is much doubt in the minds of the Government that, purely on the legal grounds of human rights, unless a settlement is reached by the Government with the European Commission, it will go to the superior court. If it goes to the superior court many of those who are familiar with international law and the regulations of the European court, consider it very doubtful indeed whether the decision will go in favour of the Government. There is therefore great pressure upon Her Majesty's Government to take advantage of these friendly discussions to reach some solution of this problem.
I always try at the conclusion of my denunciatory speeches to be constructive. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will immediately begin consultations with the East African Governments, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, and also with India, with a view to reaching some accommodation on this issue. I want to suggest something else. In the case where thousands of people feel issues very deeply from their own experience and suffering it is not enough to consult with Governments. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, knows from his own experience that the voice of these peoples in this country has been expressed by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. There have been quite remarkable reports from its Secretary, Mrs. Mary Dines, after visits to Uganda and Kenya. They were factual as well as human in expression. I suggest that Her Majesty's Government would be well advised if they began some consultations with the Joint Council. That would not merely mean direct information of an authoritative kind, but would also mean that the Council would be able to indicate to the Minister the best sources of information from the people themselves in Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania.
I believe it may be possible if one had such discussions to come to an agreement with Governments and the peoples by which there would be a phased permission of British Asians to come to this
1112
country, beginning with those whose condition is most desperate, and passing to those who have the right because we have given our word which they regard as honourable. I hope the Minister will respond to this appeal and take the opportunity of these friendly discussions to reach a solution to this problem.
8.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, it had not been my intention to speak and I shall make a very short footnote to the discussions which your Lordships have been having. I am doing so because I had the honour of being a delegate of the British Parliament recently in Vienna at a special meeting of the Council of Europe on the Freedom of the Individual. We did not discuss the matter of the Kenyan Asians because the case was, rightly, regarded as sub judice, but I can tell your Lordships that the atmosphere was heavy with the issue. If no agreement is reached and the case goes to the court, then Her Majesty's Government are likely to be in for a very sticky time. Naturally I cannot speak for the other nations present, but as a reporter, which I am by profession, I got the distinct impression that Britain's honour is regarded as being very much involved.
8.40 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it may be helpful if I begin my reply by explaining the sequence of events so far in respect of the 31 applications by United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa whose cases are currently being considered by the European Commission of Human Rights. The first applications to the Commission were received early in 1970, during the previous Administration, and were made by some 20 persons who had arrived in the United Kingdom for settlement but without first obtaining the necessary special vouchers from our High Commissions in East Africa. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, reminded us in asking his Unstarred Question, the system of controlling entry by means of a limited number of vouchers followed on the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968. The level of vouchers from 1968 until earlier this year was set at 1, 500 a year, available to heads of households in East Africa who were United Kingdom passport holders. Together with their dependants, this amounted to about 6,000 individuals per

1113
annum, which was roughly comparable in number to those who had come here in 1965 and 1966.
By February, 1970, the demand for special quota vouchers greatly exceeded the number of vouchers available. Although no applicant for a special voucher was refused, it was necessary for the British High Commissions to issue these vouchers on a priority basis so that they were given to those who were under the greatest pressure to leave East Africa. This unfortunately meant a long wait for some applicants. The 20 persons to whom I have referred were not among those in the category with the most pressing need for vouchers. They arrived in this country without vouchers, and were being detained here for further consideration of their cases when they sent their petitions to Strasbourg.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt. I asked whether these persons might not have been considered as falling under heading (c) of the special priority categories; that is to say, persons unable to obtain employment, in the words of the British Government's statement to the European Commission. And I continue with my quotation:
"(e.g., school leavers who have never succeeded in obtaining jobs because of local policies in their country of residence)."
I asked the noble Lord whether he would tell me how many of the 14 people out of the first 25 who applied for vouchers had not been able to obtain any employment since the time they left school.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I do not have that information without notice, but what I said was that the demand in February of 1970 for quota vouchers was very extreme indeed. One must remember that this is a situation which has altered very considerably over the period since the 1968 Act. The demand in the first six months of 1970, as measured by people arriving without entry documents, for example, was very much higher than in some other periods, and therefore, although some of these people may or may not have been in the third category, it may have been the case that in the period of months before that the available vouchers had been allocated to people in the first or the second category. But so far as I know, the indi-
1114
viduals were not all in the same category. The circumstances were somewhat different. I can look into these cases and give the noble Lord a detailed and written reply.
I was going on to say that they had already been released from detention and admitted to the United Kingdom on a temporary basis by the time the reference by the Commission of Human Rights was received in the United Kingdom. The first duty of the Commission was to seek the observations of the applicants and of the United Kingdom Government with a view to deciding whether or not there were issues to be argued, or, to put it another way, whether or not the cases were admissible. Following written pleadings an oral hearing was held in Strasbourg during 1970 so that the Commission, without assessing the merits one way or the other, could consider this question. It decided that the cases were admissible.
The Commission's next responsibility was to go into the facts by inviting the applicants to submit a memorial, and the United Kingdom Government a counter-memorial, dealing with the points raised in the petitions. In due course an oral hearing was held on the merits of the applications. Before this was held there had been some changes among the petitioners. In the period between the two oral hearings the United Kingdom Government had decided to allow the original applicants to settle here and all restrictions on their stay were removed. When this was done some applicants withdrew their petitions. But further applicants, who had also arrived in the United Kingdom for settlement with-out special vouchers, were joined in the proceedings. The position at the time of the second oral hearing in September of this year was that 31 applications were being considered by the Commission, although by then the persons submitting them had all been accepted in this country for residence. The Commission has not, as yet, adopted a conclusion on the issues considered at the hearing.
The European Convention on Human Rights provides that at this stage the Commission shall place itself at the dis-posal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement. Discussions have taken place in this context, but they

1115
are, like the other proceedings before the Commission, of a confidential nature. This is provided for in the Articles of the Convention. I should emphasise that the Commission has still to give an opinion on whether or not there has been any breach of the Convention. Nor has it yet drawn up a report, but if and when it does so this also will be confidential, unless and until it is published by decision of the Committee of Ministers if the issue comes before them. This, too, is in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.
Noble Lords who have spoken in this debate—the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—have understandably gone somewhat wider and raised the general question of the circumstances of the United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the current estimate is now that there are something of the order of 125,000 people holding United Kingdom passports—this means individuals—in the three East African territories. This is, of course, only an estimate.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, does the Minister mean that the 125,000 are those who have expressed a desire to come to this country?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the figure of 125,000 refers to our estimate of all holders of United Kingdom pass-ports in those three territories, irrespective of what wishes they may or may not have expressed. This question of the British Asians in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, is one to which the Home Secretary and I have given very close personal attention since we inherited this particular problem when the present Government took office in June, 1970. I have explained my own position here before. I made a fairly full statement on October 11. It is all in Hansard at cols. 247 to 248, and I do not think I need inflict it on your Lordships again now. But the outcome of our consideration has been that after having had useful discussions with the Governments in East Africa, and after paying due regard to community relations in this country, the Government decided to make a substantial change in the special voucher scheme from June 1, 1971, and with effect from that date the
1116
number of special vouchers to be issued annually to heads of households has been increased from 1, 500 to 3,000. In addition, there has been a once-and-for-all allocation of 1, 500 vouchers to be spread over a period of six months. The effect of doubling the annual quota is that the rate of entry of voucher holders, together with their dependants, has been raised from about 6,000 to approximately 12,000 a year; and the once-and-for-all allocation of an additional 1, 500 vouchers has enabled our High Commissions to quadruple the rate of arrival during the six months' period.
I can tell your Lordships that these measures have had a marked effect on the waiting list for vouchers. Although fresh applications have continued to come in, the number outstanding has dropped from 8, 655 on January 31 this year to 6,083 by the end of November. This compares with approximately 9,000 12 months before. Not everyone on the waiting list wishes or needs to come here at present: many are still in employment. If we exclude those who are not under notice to leave East Africa and who are not in economic difficulty, the number of people remaining on the list is roughly the equivalent of the new annual quota of 3,000 vouchers, taken together with something under half the once-and-for-all allocation of 1, 500. In other words, it is reasonable to expect these to be admissible to the United Kingdom with their dependants within a period of rather over one year.
I should make clear that this refers only to those people who are in conditions of urgent need; that is, those who have been given notice to leave, or who have been prevented from earning their livelihood or are in conditions of economic hardship. Nor, in the nature of things, can one be certain about fore-casts of this kind. New applications continue to be received and it is significant that they are being made at an in-creased rate since the quota of vouchers was doubled. Some of these will be from people who are under greater pres-sure than some of those who are already on the list. But I hope your Lordships will agree that the position has improved.
May I now deal briefly with one or two of the points which have been made in the course of the short debate. The

1117
noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about United Kingdom passport holders who have gone to East Africa and are now in India. I can confirm that they are eligible for the same vouchers, but of course in many cases the urgency is less than for those who have remained in East Africa.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, asked me about the definition of United Kingdom nationals under the E.E.C., following the statement that was made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster last week and repeated in this House by my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir. It happens that there is a Question on this exact subject down for debate in your Lord-ships' House to-morrow, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and so per-haps I may hold my reply until that time.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is not correct in what he said about citizens from the United Kingdom and Colonies from East Africa who have come to this country with a voucher. He suggested that after a period of five years the Home Secretary would still have discretion as to whether or not they should have free movement of labour conditions. That is not so. Under the Immigration Act 1971 people in that particular category acquire the right of abode automatically after a period of five years. The noble Lord may have had some confusion in his mind with Commonwealth citizens, be-cause it is they who will be registered, at discretion, in the future.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, but before he passes from that subject I should like to ask him whether it is the case that an additional five years will be necessary before they have the right to move about Europe.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it will be five years from the date of admission if they are admitted for settlement. In Clause 2, as the noble Lord will remember from his close scrutiny and knowledge of the Immigration Act, patriality, the right of abode, is automatically extended to citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, for ex-ample United Kingdom passport holders, five years after they have been in this
1118
country. They cannot be registered as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies because they already automatically hold that citizenship.
I return now to the subject of the cases before the Commission on Human Rights, the matter raised in the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. As I said earlier, the Government are currently engaged in confidential discussions with the Commission, and your Lordships will understand my difficulty in commenting on these discussions while they are in progress or in anticipating their outcome. While proceedings of this sort continue cases are, as the noble Earl, Lord Arran, told us, in a sense sub judice, and this prevents me from discussing the merits of the various arguments which have been deployed; but I hope noble Lords will have found the information which I have given the House this evening helpful as a progress report.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords. before the noble Lord sits down may I ask him whether he will take some notice of the suggestions I have made which will not be sub judice, of consultations by Her Majesty's Government with those who are in touch with peoples in Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is not with us, but as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, knows, he is extremely vigilant on procedural matters. But if I may just finish my reply by including something which perhaps I should have included in what I had to say, the Government—other Ministers, and myself in particular—are always accessible to the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. We know of their knowledge and concern in this matter as in other matters concerning the welfare of immigrants, and we are available to them at any time, as indeed we are to anybody else with first-hand knowledge. For example, I was fortunate enough to meet the Reverend David Mason (who I have no doubt is known to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway) both before and after he went recently to East Africa on behalf of the British Council of Churches. But on the substance of the Question the difficulty is that there is a carefully laid I down procedure and we are some way

1119
along the various stages. We are currently discussing the matter with the Commission.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Message from the Commons, That they concur in the Resolution communicated to them on Wednesday last.