Lords Sitting of 22 November 1971

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

EUROPEAN DEFENCE AND BRITISH NUCLEAR EXPERTISE
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether information and expertise on nuclear potential in possession of the United Kingdom is to be made available to the French Government and whether NATO will be consulted.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have received no request from the French Government for information or expertise in the nuclear defence field, nor have we offered to provide any.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, which is satisfactory so far as it goes. I noted that recently the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, engaged in conversations with one of his opposite numbers in Western Europe and there was a suggestion by himself that the Government might have in contemplation the formation of a Western European Defence Organisation. May I ask whether there was any consultation with NATO about that?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, in the conversations I have had with M. Debret no official proposals for the sharing of nuclear secrets have been made or received.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord regards the conversation as quite unofficial, and whether it really meant nothing at all?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, nobody should know better than the noble Lord, between Ministers of Defence are like.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in my experience when I was Minister of Defence or Secretary for War any discussions I had with my opposite numbers were of an official character? Sometimes they were confidential, it is true. But the noble Lord has not, in extenuation of his behaviour, suggested that these conversations with his opposite number were confidential, and therefore I think we are entitled to know what were they all about?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has misunderstood what I said. What I said was that in the conversations that I had with M. Debret no proposals were made, either by him or by me, about the sharing of nuclear secrets.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, were there any conversations about any know-how in our possession being conveyed to the French Government on any occasion? Is not the noble Lord aware that the Prime Minister has been engaged in conversations with M. Pompidou, and are we to understand that this subject of defence has never been mentioned at all?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am too much an admirer of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, not to believe that he has read very carefully what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place about his conversations with M. Pompidou, when he said there had been no discussion about a nuclear defence arrangement.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD SHINWELL: —I am sorry to pursue the matter but it is one of some importance, and the importance increases in view of the answers I have now received. May I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that, while I have some doubts about his policy, I have the highest regard for his ability and I read everything he says; and I regard what he says as being of the utmost seriousness, and that is the point of my question?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am glad.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, will my noble friend inform the House as to the exact position regarding nuclear cooperation between this country and France? If at the moment on a short-term basis such co-operation is not feasible, should we not be playing it on a long-term basis?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I would ask my noble friend to read the answers I have given. I think that the position is quite clear.

FIREARMS: SECURITY PRECAUTIONS AT SCHOOLS
2.40 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is a fact that, as reported in the Press, the gun and ammunition used to murder Detective-Constable Ian Coward at Reading in June, 1971, were stolen from the Whitgift School, South Croydon; and if so what, if any, regulations govern the storage of firearms and live ammunition in schools.]
THE MINISTER or STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, the 22 revolver and ammunition used in this tragic incident were stolen from the armoury of a shooting club at Whitgift School where they were held on the authority of a firearms certificate. Apart from any specific condition which may be imposed by a chief officer of police relating to a particular firearm, certificates are held subject to the general condition that the firearm and ammunition are kept in a secure place when not in actual use. This requirement applies whether the firearm is held in a school Or elsewhere, as do the other provisions of the firearms legislation, including those relating to rifle clubs.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. May I ask him, first of all, whether he is able to say in how many
810
schools live ammunition and weapons are held? Secondly, what steps are taken to see that the conditions of safe keeping required by the firearms certificate are in fact observed in schools? Thirdly, would he not agree that if these weapons and ammunition are necessary for the training of cadet force units, instead of dispersing them throughout the schools of the country, which are not normally occupied at night, it would be better if they were stored at police stations or Army barracks, which are at least manned 24 hours a day and from which they could be issued with proper security as required?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer the first supplementary question, on the number of schools with clubs, without notice. I should make clear that this weapon was not used for Combined Cadet Force purposes. It was owned and used by members of two rifle clubs at Whitgift School, and therefore questions relating to Combined Cadet Forces do not arise. As regards the firearms used by rifle clubs, these are held on the authority of a firearm certificate. The chief constable concerned has responsibility for seeing that such firearms are kept in a secure place, and he will from time to time inspect the conditions in which they are kept.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, may I ask two supplementary questions which I think are relevant to those raised by my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger? First, when the noble Lord said, "a school or elsewhere ", what is meant by "elsewhere "? I ask that question because recently the murder of three French tourists was committed by a man who alleged that he stole his rifle and ammunition from a fairground at (I think he said) Llandudno? My second question is: Why should schoolboys be taught to use firearms in any case?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the reference to "elsewhere "was included because there are rifle clubs which are in schools and rifle clubs which are not attached to schools at all. The number of offences in which firearms were misappropriated or received last year was of the order of 1,800; only about 61 of these involved firearms taken from rifle clubs or military establishments. So the

811
number of firearms which become available for law-breaking from rifle clubs and military establishments is fairly small.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to the responsibility of chief constables for inspecting armouries in which weapons and ammunition are kept in schools; can he give the House any idea of the frequency of inspection, which I think is something of which a great many schools are quite unaware?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the armoury at Whitgift School was last inspected by the police in 1968. The security precautions were increased at that time, and the police believed that the conditions in which the firearms were held were secure. We are asking Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary to pay particular attention to this aspect of firearms control in the course of their inspections of police forces.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how many rifle clubs there are in being up and down the whole of Great Britain? Because I think this information would be tangible and useful for Members of your Lordships' House and of another place.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot provide that information without notice.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords the noble Lord has said that inspection covers rifle clubs. Fs the fairground at Llandudno classified as a rifle club? If not, how is it classified and when was the last inspection? My second question has not been answered at all.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the question of fairgrounds is really outside the terms of the Question on the Order Paper. As for the general question the noble Baroness put about training in the use of firearms at schools, we must accept that rifle and pistol shooting are well established and popular sports. They are included among the Olympic events, and it is desirable that young people interested in these sports should learn to handle firearms in a responsible way under proper supervision.

EIREANN CITIZENS' EMPLOYMENT IN BRITAIN
2.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider revoking the present arrangements whereby citizens of Eire may come and go to and from Great Britain without let or hindrance and obtain employment in this country without a work permit.]
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no plans for altering the existing arrangements.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, although I am far from satisfied with the Minister's reply, may I ask whether he realises that, while I am not motivated by a spirit of vindictiveness, I have a sincere desire to decrease the number of unemployed in this country? Would he not agree that the presence of countless thousands of Irishmen in this country must inevitably add to that total?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the question of unemployment and of the number of Irish people who can come here to seek work without permits is, we think, part of the wider issue of the Common Travel Area arrangements.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask a question, purely for the purpose of gaining information? Though I would not wish to impose any restriction on citizens of Eire coming to this country, can the noble Lord say whether such permission is based on a Treaty? If so, is the Treaty available in the Library so that one can read it?
LORD WINDLESHAM: No, my Lords; these are administrative arrangements. Control can be imposed between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom by means of administrative action.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there is any let or hindrance to any such citizen of Eire joining a rifle club the day he comes over, perhaps acting as instructor?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, that hardly arises out of the Question. The Irish citizen has free access to this country, whether he comes here as a visitor or to work. He can engage in any lawful activities he likes, just as anybody else can.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that thousands of Irishmen from North and South, at times when this country had need of them, have been ready to serve it? May we not reach a pitch of neurosis when we wish to exclude, because of trouble in Northern Ireland, people of Irish nationality? Let us try to escape this neurosis that is running through the world. As a Welshman, I feel a tremor of fear running through my bones that one day it may be propose to exclude us.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it is in our interests and in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland that as friendly relations as possible should be maintained with the Republic of Ireland. To impose control over immigration would make little contribution towards a peaceful settlement, either militarily or politically, in Northern Ireland.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, are another 100,000 workers unemployed not important?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I do not know where the noble Earl gets his figure of 100,000 from. The estimate I have been given is that there are about 25,000 workers from the Republic of Ireland who come to this country to settle and about a further 25,000 casual seasonal workers.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I merely say that I was informed by the Home Office that there are no definite figures.

THE MIDDLE EAST
2.51 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice; namely,
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of President Sadat's Statement that he sees no hope of solving the Middle East crisis peacefully
814
and that a decision has been made, they will take the initiative to call a meeting of the United Nations Security Council to consider further urgent steps to prevent war.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTIHAN): My Lords, we are seriously concerned about the situation in the Middle East. But we shall need to give close study to what President Sadat, and others, have recently been saying before deciding whether there is any action which we might usefully take.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether when that consideration has been given he would bear in mind two alternative proposals? In view of the fact that the United Nations have adopted a resolution for the handling of this matter, would they not be prepared, perhaps through Dr. Jarring, to seek a meeting similar to the Rhodes Conference, where initially the two parties met separately; and secondly, whether they would consider calling a Geneva Conference of all the nations involved, where again the two sides would not have to face each other bilaterally when there is an objection on one side?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, certainly we will give consideration to both the proposals made by the noble Lord. I might inform him that the whole question is, as I understand, to be debated in the General Assembly of the United Nations in the not too distant future and it might be as well to await the expression of views made there before going any further.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is it not the fact that this debate at the United Nations is some three or four weeks away and there is a real feeling that a crisis flashpoint may well shortly be reached? If this matter cannot be taken to the Security Council, would the noble Lord consider whether there should not be further pressure within the Committee of Four, the Four Powers, to give fresh instructions to Dr. Jarring to see if he can find any way in which he could diffuse, at least for a period, what is a growing crisis?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will certainly consider that suggestion. I think the noble Lord is incorrect in saying that the debate is so far ahead. I understand that it is to be in the near future—within the next week or ten days. But one knows what happens at the United Nations, and it may be later. Of course we should welcome any initiative that Dr. Jarring can make, and if there is anything we can do to assist this, Her Majesty's Government will be willing to do so.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is it not a fact that Dr. Jarring, to take the initiative, would need the support of the Four Powers? I am asking the noble Lord to consider whether our Government should not take the initiative within the Four Power group to give fresh instructions to Dr. Jarring.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, as I say, I will certainly consider that suggestion. The other factor to be borne in mind is that the two Powers immediately concerned in this issue must also be willing to accept the initiative of Dr. Jarring.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, in view of the statements that have been made in this Chamber and in another place, that it is understood—and I think it is generally understood—that the two parties themselves should meet to discuss this matter, whether it be directly or through the intervention of another person, as in the Rhodes case, do not the Government feel that they should endeavour to ascertain from the other Governments whether they will press for a similar method of settling this matter? Obviously the Government must realise that the kind of request that is being made of Israel at the present time is one with which she cannot possibly comply. In the circumstances, the only way in which the parties can possibly come to a final settlement is by their meeting.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Certainly, my Lords. And we are prepared to give any support we can to the meeting of the two parties concerned. I think my right honourable friend made this plain in his speech to the Assembly in (I think it was) September.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the two proposals
816
that I made were an effort to meet the difficulty about the immediate meeting of the two sides? That was intended as a bridge. Secondly, may I say to the Minister—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD BROCKWAY: May I ask the Minister this question? Is not history just full of action that has been too late? May not the postponement of urgent action now lead to a situation which will make this terrible war inevitable?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not want to give the noble Lord the impression that I am not aware of his suggestions in this matter: indeed I am, and I know the great interest that he takes in them. I will note carefully what he has said.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, in view of the failure of all the efforts and suggestions that have been made, may I ask the Minister whether it would not be more useful for the Government to press President Sadat to meet the Israelies?—because the Israelis are prepared to meet him.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Janner, just now, the Government would obviously look with complete favour on a meeting between the two sides. In our opinion, this is the way in which this dispute must be settled.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, pending any possibility of the two sides meeting, could not the Government endeavour to use their influence towards a continuation of the existing cease-fire.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, my Lords. I think, without notice of the question, I can give an assurance to that effect.

HEALTH AND PERSONAL SOCIAL SERVICES
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, wan the permission of the House, my noble friend Lord Aberdare will be making a Statement on developments in the health and personal social services at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
2.58 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to select and propose to the House file names of the five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill; and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

M. Willingdon,

E. St. Aldwyn,

E. Swinton,

L. Amulree,

L. Beswick,

L. Chorley,

L. Ogmore,

L. Silkin,

L. Strang:

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD HOY: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl a question. Can he tell me who selected the Select Committee to appoint the Select Committees? According to the Report on Procedure—I do not want to anticipate to-morrow's debate—the greatly increased attendance in this House is attributable to Life Peers. Looking at this particular Committee of ten, I see that there are nine hereditary Peers and one Life Peer. I should like to know whether this regarded as a fair balance. I should also like to know—and I am sure it would interest many Members of your Lordships' House—how this Committee came to be selected.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, this Committee, like other Committees of the House, is appointed by the House, and the names of the Members of the House who are proposed are always submitted to the House for the House to approve. May I suggest to the noble Lord that his comments on the composition of Committees of this House would be welcome to me and to many other noble Lords if he would care to make them during the debate to-morrow.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I do not want to take the point any further, but the Report at least suggests that the considerable new life that has come to this House is a result of the appointment of Life Peers. If these Life Peers have made this contribution, I find it difficult to understand why they have only one-tenth of the representation on this particular Committee.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask further why it is that this Committee has a monopoly of one sex?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords. I can only say that I hope very much that in the course of the debate to-morrow afternoon the noble Baroness will amplify the comment she has just made. That will give an opportunity to any noble Lords and Ladies who wish to speak to express their views about the composition of the Commttiees of the House.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords. may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that, looking at this list, someone appears to have been unfair to the hereditary Peers? At least they are Peers by succession. May I suggest to him, since I know from my experience that the work which this Committee does is onerous and unsung, that my noble friend Lord Hoy is clearly a candidate to participate in its work?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords. I will certainly look very carefully into all that the noble Lord, speaking for the Opposition, has just said.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is not the answer this, that the disproportion as between the hereditary Peers and Life Peers is based completely on ability?
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY My Lords, without questioning the difference between hereditary and Life Peers. to some of us here how these names are put forward is a mystery. We should rather like to know what the procedure is and how the selection is eventu: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness may I say that so far as possible the Committees of the House represent a cross-section of the opinions of the whole of the House. It is not easy to get a precise

819
representation of every point of view, but I try to the best of my ability to collect the views of the Parties and of the independent Members of your Lordships' House in order to try and select for the approval of the House a Committee which will at any rate be a cross-section of the views of the majority of the Members of this House.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that it is perhaps unfortunate that the surgeon's knife which accomplishes this cross-section seems almost always to omit the female sex?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I will certainly note very carefully what the noble Lord has said.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES BILL [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a small, one-page Bill, designed to achieve a very limited object: to give four museums power to charge for entrance because, unlike the other national museums and galleries, it is uncertain whether these four have this power under their existing arrangements. Small the Bill may be, and behind it the money is small—it is really all about 10p. Nevertheless it has aroused very considerable and very welcome interest in museums. I say this because when I entered upon my present responsibilities I knew something about the purposes and needs of our museums and how necessary it was to add a new concern for the general public to the traditional care for the scholar and connoisseur. Now I find that I greatly underestimated what we have to do, and that the size of the problem is very far from being well understood. For this reason the argument over charges is welcome, because it is making people think about museums when they were not thinking about them before.
Now may I turn to the Bill itself? It provides that four museums shall have
820
the power to charge. It does not specify the scale of charges because that is a matter of arrangement between the Government and the museums. The museums accept that charging is now part of the Government's policy. I think I can show in the course of my speech that, however strongly any trustee at first reacted against charges—and that I understand, because there was no time to inform them why we had taken the decision—there are solid reasons for thinking that the introduction of charges will be to the advantage of the museums themselves. I should like to thank the trustees and staffs of the museums for the way in which, after the brusque opening of this affair, they have collaborated with us in working out some very difficult and detailed arrangements for the introduction of charges. I will come later to the reasons why I think this is in their own interests. I wish to say a word first about subsection (2) of Clause 1. This applies to Scotland, and is only necessary because the Charities Act 1960 does not apply to Scotland. If it did, we should not need subsection (2). The Secretary of State would then have the power, which my right honourable friend Mrs. Thatcher has now, to vary the trusts when changed circumstances were seen to justify such action.
Your Lordships will remember that the Nathan Committee was appointed in 1950 to examine the law and practice relating to charitable trusts. The Committee reported that further statutory provision should be made for varying or revoking a trust when circumstances had changed and it was advisable to bring the conditions of the trust into line with the new situation. That recommendation was embodied in the 1960 Act, and the relevant clause is now used every day of the week to overcome difficulties raised by the passage of time.
I have been informed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that there are collections in the Scottish museums in regard to which it can reasonably be maintained that they were given to the institution on the understanding that they would be exhibited free to the public, at least on certain days. These collections are: first, that transferred to the National Gallery of Scotland by the heirs of Sir James Erskine of

821
Torrie in 1845; secondly, the Vaughan collection of Turner drawings received in 1900; and thirdly, a collection transferred to the Royal Scottish Museum in 1855 by the Edinburgh Town Council. This latter collection is scattered all over the Museum and could not now be identified.
Your Lordships may ask what has happened to justify varying the conditions of these trusts. The answer is that in the last hundred years the costs of maintaining and enlarging the museums concerned have increased to such an extent as to bring about what amounts to a new situation. The public is concerned not with these three bequests alone but with the whole of the collections. How are they to be maintained and enlarged? The sums of money required for these two purposes are now so considerable that they have to be compared with other forms of domestic expenditure. The Government do not have a bottomless purse, and therefore we think it reasonable, in circumstances so different from 1845, 1855 and 1900, to ask a small contribution towards the growing expenditure from those who now enjoy the collections as a whole. This is the real issue before us. Do the museums require large new sums of money and, if so, having regard to all the other claims on the Exchequer, and especially the other arts, what is the most sensible and fair way to finance as much as possible all these activities?
I suppose it is common ground between us that a great deal more money could with advantage be devoted to the spread of the arts, not just in London and to our famous companies and institutions of international repute, but also across the whole country and to popular art as well as to the sophisticated and experimental forms which demand large subsidies but cannot be expected to attract a mass audience. With limited resources such as we have the problem is how to pursue a policy of expansion in so many directions at once. In the case of the fine arts, it is accepted that the costs should be shared between the general body of the taxpayers and the users of the particular art in question. No one expects the seats at the Coliseum, the Aldwych or the Festival Hall to be free. No one expects to go round Hampton Court or the Tower of London for nothing. In all such instances it is accepted by the public and
822
by Parliament that the cost should be shared between the taxpayers and the users.
My noble friend Lord Robbins, in all article he wrote on the political economy of the arts, misunderstands the analogy between the fine arts and the museums. Charging has got nothing to do with keeping people out, of equating demand with supply; we want more money to be spent on the arts in general, and one way to get that is to share the rising costs between the general body of the taxpayers and those who use the particular form of art which appeals to them. This is done in the subsidised theatre and opera; it is done at places of historic interest and at many museums. Coming to the national museums and galleries, it may be that if all their services had been considered by all sections of opinion to be adequate, and nothing extra was urgently demanded for gallery space, offices, amenities, equipment and staff, or for acquisitions, then perhaps no Government would have thought it essential to introduce charges. But none of your Lordships would be content with such a complacent and standstill position.
It is only too well known that the museums are drawing bigger crowds every year, and that the urgent problem is how to anticipate the demands of a larger and better informed public. The kind of publicity which is at this moment being given to the British Museum for the first time —and I am glad of it—is bound to be reflected in larger attendances and more demands on the staff. If Sir Mortimer Wheeler had been giving these television talks the queue of people would have stretched from the Tottenham Court Road to the door of the museum, as it did when he gave only three talks on the Temple of Mithras. We have not given publicity to the museums yet: when we do so we shall see the result. But it is no good looking at one museum alone; I must consider the service as a whole. There are two related sets of priorities that have to be resolved. With the help of the best expert advice I can secure I am trying to sort these out and to turn them into long-term programmes with finance and timetables so that my successors can inherit in a better shape than I did the basic materials for their policies.
The problems of priority are, first, how, if we can get more money, should it be

823
spent between buildings, equipment and staff on the one hand, and acquisitions on the other; and secondly, how to be sure that the expenditure will be fair as between London and the Provinces. One would like to be able to do everything at once, but that is not possible. In all the arts the aim must be to continue to subsidise the worthwhile activities which we subsidise now, and then to direct such new resources as become available to the neglected priorities. I have no doubt that in the field of the museums this means putting greater emphasis on buildings, equipment and staff and greater emphasis on the Provinces. Very big sums of money would be involved if we were to underwrite a programme that came anywhere near doing justice to these two neglected priorities.
In spite of this background it may be that some of your Lordships care so much for the principle of not charging at the national museums and galleries that you would be prepared to forgo expansion in building or in major grants for new acquisitions in London and the Provinces. If so, I can only say that that is not the Government's view; we think a more ambitious national policy is urgent, and it appears to us that if the users of museums, like the users of the other arts, make some small contribution towards the rising expenditure it is going to be much easier for us to get new money. The choice, as we see it, is between no charges with no adequate expansion and a modest charge with expansion both in London and the Provinces.
It would be wrong to speak about expansion without saying something more about current costs, which are worrying. In all the arts these are rising fast, partly because the arts are labour-intensive. I should think the costs are rising by at least 10 per cent. a year—just for the arts to stand still where they are now. The prices of the scats at theatres and concerts halls are being raised all round, not to ration the seats as my noble friend Lord Robbins seems to think, but to keep the subsidies down. If we charged the museum visitor the same proportion of the costs which the subsidised theatres and concerts and operas obtain from their public, the museum entrance charge would have to be about 50p. That is one half of the £1 which every visit to a museum now costs the taxpayers.
824
The museums are acutely aware of how the costs of display and security are rising. The special exhibitions which they put on with such skill and imagination are a case in point. Ten years ago the average charge was about half-a-crown. Five years ago it was something like four shillings. Now it is much nearer 30p.
For my part I regret very much that special exhibitions have had to become so expensive and so socially divisive. These temporary displays illustrate some artist or period or theme. They often attract visitors just because they are temporary, and because they convey a sense of life that the permanent collections may lack. They make converts to museums. I hope that in time, when the system of charging is well established, consideration will be given to including entrance to special exhibitions in the charge at the main doors of the museum. I was interested to read in the same article by my noble friend Lord Robbins that when there is any danger of overcrowding at special exhibitions at the National Gallery they never hesitate to charge an entrance fee to keep people out. My Lords, I do not want to keep people out. The object of charging is to make it easier to secure the money to make museums places which more people can visit in comfort.
That brings me to a number of objections to charges, which I should like to anticipate in the closing part of my remarks. Those who are so certain that charging is wrong in principle—
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount but his argument naturally has a very strong intellectual appeal so far as I am concerned. I should like to hear from his lips whether, in the event of the financial situation becoming easier, he would advise the authorities of Covent Garden, where I happen to be Secretary of the Finance Committee, to reduce the charges by 50 per cent.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, Covent Garden is a very special case. It is the one case which obviously the noble Lord knows very well and which is at the back of his article. He there says that the prices at Covent Garden are what they are because otherwise there would be large queues and he much prefers to ration people by the purse. But he does not realise that in the case of (shall we

825
say?) Hampton Court there is always room for thousands more people and yet we have charges. Charges are put on to help bear part of the cost of a rapidly growing institution or company. What Covent Garden should do if the financial position became easier we must see at the time; but I think the noble Lord knows that I am about to consider an enormous bill from Covent Garden for building, and he had better get his building done first before he talks about reducing the price of seats.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, without wishing to enter into an argument, which would be unseemly, with the noble Viscount at this stage, I should like to point out to him that in the article to which he refers I actually inform the readers that charges were made at Hampton Court. I have the article here.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I am very glad the noble Lord did, my Lords; but if he did—as I am sure he did—then that really goes against his general argument, which was that there was no case for a charge where the public could not be described as overcrowded to the point of discomfort. If he thinks about that he will see that a large part of the paper he wrote does not tie up.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, I will deal with that later.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I have got it; I will quote it later if the noble Lord wishes.
It is said that charging will keep away a large number of visitors. We do not know whether that is true or how true it is. The evidence we have is rather the other way. When charges were put on and increased at places such as Apsley House, the National Folk Museum of Wales, the Museum at Norwich, or National Trust properties, the attendances, far from going down, actually rose. I do not pretend to give the House the reasons for that but it is a fact. Last year, for example, the National Trust I think in many cases raised their charges and they had the record number of over 3 million visitors who paid the record sum of well over half a million pounds. So I think the answer to those who fear that some people will be deterred by a charge of 10p is that, unless we spend more on the museums, in a few years
826
much larger numbers will be deterred, at the holiday periods at any rate, by overcrowding.
Then there is a very curious argument that because a picture has been bought with public funds it is wrong to charge future generations to see it. The best answer I can give to that is to congratulate the last Labour Government on finding £386,000 for rebuilding the Jewel House at the Tower of London. The money of course came from public funds. When the building was finished and opened, were the public let in free? Not at all. The Labour Minister doubled the charges compared to what they were before the building was put up. And what happened? Each year the number of visitors has markedly increased. I think this will happen here, too; the attendances will also rise like that when the new extensions to the national galleries and museums are completed, although I hope we shall not imitate our predecessors and promptly double the charge.
Next, there are those who say they would not object to charges if all the museums and galleries offered at least one free day a week. This is a very attractive suggestion. We went into it very carefully and I must ask your Lordships to allow me a moment or two to explain why, with very great regret, we have to turn it down. We all agree that it would be popular to have one free day, especially at the weekend. Of the two reasons why we cannot do this, one the Government share with many of the museums, and the other—the net sum of money we wish to collect, and the tariff of charges for collecting it—falls entirely within the Government's policy.
The museums themselves differ on whether a free day would be acceptable from their angle—that is, from the angle of overcrowding and security. This is not a simple matter at all. There must always be a level at which overcrowding frustrates the purpose of a visit. That level has been reached at some museums, especially at weekends, in the recent summer months, and the Government think that overcrowding is bound to become more frequent. Of course, no one can be absolutely certain about the rate of increase in the number of visitors in the years to come, but the signs are that the rise will not only continue but probably become even sharper than in

827
the past. The tourist trade are in no doubt at all. Look at the number of new hotels being built in London; look at the number of package holidays which are being arranged, and the confident forecasts of the British Travel and Holidays Association. But, even more important, we ourselves, by encouraging schools to take a steadily greater interest in museums, are creating an ever larger attendance. I support those who think that these educational policies, together with the growing interest in foreign cultures, will have a snowball effect upon museum attendances.
I do not know whether any of your Lordships have had the experience in one of our museums of being in a particular room or gallery when it was seriously overcrowded. The discomfort for oneself is of course obvious. I took one of my grandchildren the other day to such a place and she was frightened and I had to take her out. But another result is that the warders cannot see what is happening. The danger of damage or theft is correspondingly increased, and this is a very real problem which we cannot overlook. If on six days of the week a charge were made and the seventh was a free day, it stands to reason that the attendance on the free day would be larger than at present—perhaps even 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. above the average. Kenwood is an example which points very much to an even higher figure. It is precisely this fear which causes some of the museums to think that a free day would not be in the public interest. I support them from practical experience. Nor do I think we could have free days at one museum and not at another, especially if the number of visitors at all museums is going rapidly to increase, which seems now as certain as anything can be.
The second argument against a free day is financial. For reasons I have explained, we have decided to ask the users of the national museums for a contribution of £1 million net a year. On present figures, if there were a free day we could not keep the basic charge for 10 months down to lop for adults and 5p for children and old age pensioners. The basic charge would then have to be 20p, since it is not practicable to charge any sum in between, because that would
828
require machines which handle two coins of different sizes and would be much more complicated. But, my Lords, in a few years' time, when we have the results of the proposed scale of charges, we can look at the case for free days and at all the other variations that have been put up to us. All I can say to-day is that I should not be honest if I did not tell the House that on account of overcrowding and security there is not, and ought not to be, any prospect of a free day at the weekend, unless and until we can enlarge the museums to an extent that will overtake the rise in the number of visitors at peak periods.
My final point is addressed to those who would be content with charges if the proceeds went straight back to the museum. This is what in fact will happen, if not directly, none the less certainly taking the national museums as a group. The annual increase in their vote will have to exceed by a comfortable margin what they collect in charges, and I can assure noble Lords that the introduction of charges will be an effective argument for obtaining more money for their rising requirements.
An example which has been in the news recently is the special grant of £380,000 offered by the Government towards the appeal for the Titian. We hope very much that the appeal will succeed. If it was in order (which I am sure it is not) I would actually be begging for money in your Lordships' House. But the estimated gross revenue from charges at the National Gallery is £150,000 a year. That is less than half the amount of this special grant, and of course the building and maintaining of the extensions which are now authorised to that Gallery will call for much larger sums. All this money has to be provided when charges in the social services are being raised and when the claims of those services might be held by important sections of the public, and of another place, to be even stronger than those of the museums.
This small Bill opens the way to large improvements in the museum service of the country. We are going to join the European Community. Your Lordships may think that this renders it all the more important that our cultural contribution should be as good as we can make it. We all know that the collections in our museums are without rival.

829
The challenge is to secure resources to make their display and the other services and amenities equally outstanding, and to further this objective we are asking the visitors to contribute towards the expenditure, which has to rise if the objective is to be attained. I know that a few people who now visit museums will be unable or unwilling to pay the charge. That will be a loss which I deplore and I am sure all your Lordships deplore, but on the other side of the account we can look forward to the total number of visitors and school parties increasing year by year. Surely this is the end which we must put first, and if anyone still objects to charges it must, I think, be because the full extent of the position of the museums, not only in London but also in the Provinces, has not yet been appreciated.
My Lords, I hope that I have explained what the position in the museum service is and how we believe that this modest Bill will make a real difference to putting it right. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.— (Viscount Eccles.)
3.36 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, it is customary in this House to thank the Minister for explaining a Bill, but I am afraid I am not able to do so on this occasion as the noble Viscount, the Paymaster General, has hardly referred to the Bill before your Lordships at all. I would, however, thank him for explaining to us his policy in general and how he views his responsibilities. I should like, though, to turn to the Bill before us. This is an enabling Bill. As the Long Title says, it is a Bill
"to remove impediments to the making of charges for admission to the national museums and galleries in Great Britain."
In actual fact, the Bill lists only four out of 18 institutions set out in the White Paper. The Government consider, I gather, that they have sufficient legal and financial power to oblige the other 14 institutions, which include the National Gallery of London and the National Museum of Wales, to charge entrance fees, in many ways against their wishes. The noble Viscount has therefore been able to avoid Parliamentary legislation except in the cases of these four. But although the Bill is less than a quarter
830
of the package, we on this side of the House take the strongest exception to it.
It is a mean and contemptible little Bill—a Bill that seeks to evade the issue. We should have thought more of the Government if they had come frankly to Parliament with a Bill that set out the charging scheme in detail, so that this could have been subjected to full examination by both Houses. But no, my Lords; the Government want trustees to shoulder responsibility for this unpopular and regrettable scheme and to pull the chestnuts out of the lire for them. However, for my part I shall not advise my colleagues to divide. There are compelling reasons why we should not divide on the Second Reading of a Government Bill. I realise that the Bill is starting its passage in this House, so we should not be attempting to reject a Bill previously agreed to by the other place. Nevertheless, this House does exercise re-traint in regard to Government Bills. The reason is, of course, that these Bills emanate from the elected Government, and the argument against voting them down is basically the same as the argument against voting down Government Bills that have been passed by the other place. I understand that there has not been a single case since the War when this House has divided on a Government Bill introduced first into the House of Lords. But although we shall not seek to divide the House, this is for constitutional reasons and not because we do not feel very strongly about it.
I should, however, like to give the House notice that at the Committee stage I shall be moving an Amendment which will seek to give a measure of Parliamentary control to these arrangements. This Amendment will require the Government to lay on the Table a statement which will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, specifying the charges in Great Britain and ensuring that none of the museums and galleries can charge until this statement has been before each House of Parliament for 40 days.
I should like to turn now to the four institutions in question. The first is the British Museum, the greatest museum in the world, as the noble Viscount once called it, and rightly, during one of his previous existences. The original Act of 1753 setting up the British Museum

831
stipulated free access, and the Museum has been free through good times and bad for over 200 years—indeed, ever since it first opened at Montague House in 1759. This long tradition of free entry is a very fine one, and it is tragic to think that it is to be ended. I am glad to see the Chairman of the British Museum Trustees, the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, in his place this afternoon. I am not clear whether the Museum's Trustees agree with their colleagues the Trustees of the National Galleries in London and in Edinburgh, who have announced their objections publicly, as the Museum's Trustees have remained silent except to say that they would take the views of Parliament into account, but I venture to think that this must be a sad day for them, as it is indeed for many of us. May I say that I am very much looking forward to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, and also, of course, to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, who is a Trustee of the National Gallery.
The National Galleries of Scotland used to charge on one or two days a week, but the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries recommended that fees should be abolished, and since 1938 they have been free. In their report last March the Trustees of the Gallery in Edinburgh said:
"We believe that the proposed charge cannot but be damaging to the interests which we have been appointed to protect, and that the tradition of free entry is of great value ".
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, spoke about a free day, and to my mind he seemed to contradict himself, because earlier in his speech he had denied that he wished in any way to keep the public out; but then he went on to say that one of the reasons for not having a free day was to restrict attendances. I realise that there may be difficulties in some instances, with security and so on, but surely this is a matter for the trustees of the gallery. If the Government appoint responsible and distinguished men to run these institutions for them, surely they should be allowed as individuals to make the best decisions in the interests of their particular gallery. The Trustees of the National Gallery in their last report said that there should be at least one free day a week, and I believe this view is shared by two other galleries in London
832
and the two Scottish galleries mentioned in the Bill.
I should like to ask about exemptions. First, I make no excuse for putting in a further plea for all old age pensioners. The Government went some way to meet us over this matter when they announced in the other place last June that the charge for retirement pensioners will be 5p at all times, including July and August. The Government also said that they would look into the question of giving free admittance to pensioners receiving supplementary benefits, on production of their pension books. I realise that there are administrative difficulties as there are three books, one for the basic pension, one for the basic and supplementary and one for the supplementary pension only, and that as a matter of policy all books have identical covers. This is surely right, and it has been the policy of successive Governments to ensure that these books are indistinguishable when the pension is collected. But would it not, therefore, be simpler and better and less embarrassing for them to exempt all retirement pensioners? Perhaps the noble Viscount will let us have his views when he replies.
Then there is the question of children. The noble Viscount spoke about school children being allowed in free in prearranged parties, and this of course is welcomed; and he looked forward eagerly to the number of these parties increasing. But not all children want to go in pre-arranged school parties. Indeed, the child who feels most drawn to museums and who probably derives most benefit from them is often the rather individualistic and sensitive child who is happiest visiting them on his own rather than as part of a school crocodile. The charge for children not in organised parties will also deter family visits, especially for the poorer families and for those who live some distance away. When I went to the British Museum last Saturday it was full of people, usually two parents with three, sometimes more, children, and it is going to cost them a lot of money when they have to pay. I therefore urge the Government to think again and to reconsider the children. The sum involved is only about £150,000, and I should have thought that the educational benefits accruing to the nation as a whole from such a concession would

833
be well worth the comparatively small amount involved.
May I also ask the Government whether they could consider exempting disabled people, including crippled children. When my noble friend, Lady Lee of Asheridge, who is going to wind up to-day, raised this point last August, the noble Viscount said he was in correspondence with the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilion. I wonder whether he has any news to show that the Government are not so hardhearted after all.
I should like now to deal briefly with two other arguments of the noble Viscount. First of all, he talked about concerts. This argument is often put forward by supporters of this scheme, but I never think it is a valid one. Of all the three arts, literature can be reproduced and has been able to be reproduced cheaply ever since the invention of printing. Music can be reproduced very well now, with modern inventions, and played in the home. But for the plastic arts there is really no substitute, and although colour printing has advanced very considerably in this century there is absolutely no substitute for the original. Furthermore, the State does not, for the most part, own the concert halls. I think this is quite a different matter. There is also the question of special exhibitions. This argument is often put forward, and here again I think different conditions apply. I personally, and most of the people who are opposed to these charges, have no objection to charges for special exhibitions. They have to be put on and they usually have to be self-financing. They are there only for a short time, and people arc often prepared to go to see them and pay a reasonable amount, because they know that they will not have a chance again. That is quite a different matter from the way that museums and galleries should be treated, which people like to visit often for a short time, to derive inspiration from looking at a few works of art, and then to go away refreshed.
This may be the last year when our national museums and galleries will be free. We on this side of the House have made our views on these charges very plain during two previous debates. There was one debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, in December, and one on an Unstarred Question by my noble
834
friend Lady Lee of Asheridge, in May. I know of no other proposal that has aroused so much hostility. People in the art world are almost unanimous in their condemnation, and I find that opposition to admittance charges is irrespective of Party. Indeed, I find that many of the strongest opponents outside this House are Conservatives. How can the Government and the Minister remain so obstinate? What an epitaph they are earning for themselves: the Government that caused turnstiles to be installed at the entrance to the British Museum, and made people pay to see Magna Carta! I hope that this whole disgraceful policy will be changed by the next Labour Government.

HEALTH AND PERSONAL SOCIAL SERVICES
3.52 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I apologise for interrupting this Second Reading debate, but this may be a convenient moment, if I may have your Lordships' permission, to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is making in another place on Development in the Health and Personal Social Services. The Statement is as follows:
"The Government have decided to allocate a further £118 million to speed progress in improving conditions in sonic of the most vulnerable sectors of the health and personal social services over the next four years. Taking into account the extra £110 million which the Chancellor enabled me to announce in the House of Commons in November last year, this means that since the Government came to office 17 months ago they have made resources totalling some £250 million at present prices available for special improvements in the services over and above, and completely additional to, the cumulative increase of the order of £80 million each year which is included in the expenditure programme for normal development.
"My right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales will be informing the House of

835
their proposals for development of services in those countries. The English share of the latest addition, amounting to £100 mill ion, will in the main be spent on expanding and improving services for the elderly and the mentally ill.
"I envisage that about £45 million of the money will go to the hospital service. The Government intend to improve hospital accommodation for both the elderly and the mentally ill. Some of the money will also be spent on improving the standards of such things as staffing, furnishing and food, and on increasing the number of places for the elderly.
"The extra provision will certainly not enable us to overcome all the problems of these hospitals but it will be enough to secure substantial improvements. In the five years ending in 1975–76 hospital authorities are expected to spend about £150 million over and above the level of expenditure last year on improved services in long-stay hospitals. Of this about two-thirds will come from the special additional allocations.
"About one-third of the latest £100 million has been earmarked for the health and personal social services provided by local authorities. In particular, I am sure that local authorities will wish to join with me in a determined effort to sweep away all the former Poor Law institutions still being used as old people's homes and to replace them with modern buildings. I hope this programme will be completed within the next five years. In this way we should at last dispose of the old workhouse and its Dickensian associations. I also hope that local authorities will be able to go a long way towards replacing the many old and not always satisfactory houses which have been' adapted to accommodate old people, and that they will, in general, make special efforts to provide more and better accommodation for both the elderly and the mentally ill. Additional loan authorisations of £30 million will be available to enable the local authorities to undertake these programmes.
"I am also making provision from the extra money to meet the costs of
836
re-organising the National Health Service. The balance of the money is to be spent on a number of improvements: I intend, for example, to provide for increases in key staff for accident and emergency departments, and I shall have particularly in mind the need to provide more facilities for people with epilepsy, and the need both to develop and to evaluate and spread information about aids and equipment of all kinds for the disabled. Where appropriate, I shall be seeking the co-operation of the voluntary organisations as well as that of public authorities. The response of the hospital authorities in improving arrangements for the younger chronic sick has been such as to exceed the money I set aside from last year's £110 million and I am therefore providing the further sum required from the extra money now available. I shall be making announcements about these, and other developments later.
"Mr. Speaker, the whole House will, I am sure, welcome the Government's allocation of these substantial extra resources and will recognise the importance of the contribution they will make. to improving the health and personal social services."
3.56 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for his usual courtesy in repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. I am sure that I shall be expressing the view of the whole House in saying that we all warmly welcome the allocation of additional money to improve existing services both in the hospital and in the local authority field, particularly in the areas of greatest deprivation. I must first ask the noble Lord to confirm that this is new money and is not, and will not need to be, met either in whole or in part from increased charges now that the iniquitous and totally impracticable proposal to introduce cost-related prescription charges has had to be dropped.
With regard to the allocation of hospital monies which, as I read in the Statement, are to be spent primarily on improving hospital accommodation for the elderly and the mentally ill, I would enter a special plea and urge the noble Lord and his right honourable friend to see

837
that some of this money is spent on improving facilities for children in our long-stay hospitals for the mentally handicapped as well. For these children the hospital is their home, and, in some cases, school as well. I very much hope that I have the support of the whole House in urging that, in addition to improving hospital living conditions for the elderly, we shall also spend some of this additional money on our long-stay children who are in hospital for long periods during their most formative years.
With regard to the section of the Statement dealing with additional money for local authorities, which will be warmly welcomed by all concerned, to develop the personal social services they provide, I should like the noble Lord to clarify one point. The Statement refers to one-third of this latest allocation of £100 million in England. The end of the paragraph concludes with a reference to additional loan authorisations of £30 million to enable local authorities to undertake these programmes. Am I right in thinking that the £30 million that is referred to at the end of that paragraph is in fact the one-third of the £100 million? Am I also right in thinking that the £30 million for loan sanction means that in the field of the local authority personal social services the additional monies will be capital monies only, channelled into new buildings and improving existing ones? If this is so, I would ask the noble Lord to consider whether some of this money can be used for the maintenance of the services. It is not enough for local authorities to build, provide and adapt; these are high labour-intensive services, and unless local authorities are given additional money specially earmarked for staffing the services they cannot run the homes the capital allocation provides. We need people to care for people, and I would urge the Government to allow some of the local authority allocation to be used to improve staffing levels in the services for the elderly, for the mentally ill and the mentally-handicapped, and for children in their care.
Finally, may I thank the noble Lord and his right honourable friend for a most welcome Statement, and particularly for the references towards the end of it indicating their interest in and concern for the special groups who need additional help—the epileptics and the
838
younger chronic sick and the disabled, in particular.
VISCOUNT NORWICH: My Lords, five minutes ago my noble friend Lord Amulree was called away to render his own personal health service to someone (I am not quite sure who) in this House who has been taken ill. It therefore falls upon me to welcome most warmly, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, the Statement which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has just made.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am most grateful to both the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, and the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, for their kind welcome of this Statement. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, who I know has a very deep interest in these matters. I would straightaway confirm that this is indeed new money and is in no way dependent on increased charges. I naturally take very much to heart what she had to say about children in hospitals for the long-stay mentally handicapped. Indeed, this is very much a sector of the Health Services where we certainly ought to do our best to provide improved facilities. As the noble Baroness is aware, in the recent White Paper on the mentally handicapped it is stated that we hope that more and more of these children will not have to be provided for in hospitals and that provision will be made for them to be cared for in the community. The £30 million mentioned, which is about one-third of £100 million, is indeed the loan sanction for the local authorities. I take the point the noble Baroness made about the need for additional revenue resources, but this particular effort is directed towards the plan for clearing away once and for all the old workhouses and some of the unsuitable buildings, and in this instance is capital money only. But I am very grateful for the noble Baroness's kind reception of this Statement.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I am sure we all welcome the Statement of the Minister, but I listened in vain for those very important words "domiciliary services ". I am one of those people who believe that old people should be kept in their own homes as long as possible, and if we had adequate domiciliary services then so many more could have a happy end to their lives

839
among their own bits and pieces and not in an institution. But the noble Lord did not mention these. Am I to understand that this money is all earmarked for institutions, or are the local authorities to have a free hand to use it for domiciliary services if they so wish'?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this money that we are allocating to local authorities is indeed capital only, and is intended to sweep away the old workhouses. But, like the noble Baroness, we are all fully convinced of the need for keeping old people in their homes as long as possible; and, indeed, our policies in other directions are directed to this end. We have already made money available in the last rate-support grant negotiations for local authority extra revenue expenditure.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: It is very disappointing.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware how pleased noble Lords in every part of the House will be at the announcement which he has made this afternoon, and how pleased I think we shall all be in general with the allocation of the grants to the objects he has mentioned, with the additional object, I hope, of the one which the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, has just brought to his notice. May I ask my noble friend whether he knows to what extent plans are in hand to cover improvements of this sort? I say that because it seems so very desirable, in view of the distressing level of unemployment in the country, that these efforts should be turned into actual expenditure at the earliest possible moment.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his kind remarks. As a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will realise how hard we fought for this extra allocation of money. I think I can say that it has been the policy of successive Governments to remove these ex-workhouses, and one therefore hopes that there are plans for extra expenditure to clear them away. There are at the moment about 120 in use for old people, with some 13.000 places in them, and we are hoping that with this
840
concerted effort and with this extra money, we shall be able to clear them away in about five years.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, may I follow up the question which has been put to the noble Lord by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory? Can the noble Lord say a word about the likely employment consequences of the announcement which he has made, and can he give any estimate of when the expenditure indicated in his announcement may start to have an effect in employment terms?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I should like to make it clear straight away that this Statement has nothing whatever to do with the employment difficulties at the present moment, for which, as the noble Lord knows, there is a special programme of infrastructure works in which, again, the hospital service will be playing a part. This particular allocation is specifically for the development of the health and welfare services and, particularly, to improve them where we feel they are weakest. It may well take a year for the programme to get fully under way.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that Statement which, in any case, is in keep ing with his gracious self? Without sounding churlish, may I draw his attention to the fact that there was a Royal Statement the other day which drew attention to the lack of general practitioners? If it is not out of order on this Statement, may I ask whether the noble Lord will draw the attention of the Department to this fact and to the fact that the time has now come to look again at the Willink Report, which did not give a broad enough base for the general practitioner? Finally, may I say that the base of this magnificent service is the general practitioner and, if he can be given the time, he can have a psychosematic effect upon a patient through giving him some serenity and confidence in himself. Quite often, this can save the time of the hospitals and other people, and the useless sale of unnecessary drugs.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. Certainly we attach the very greatest importance to

841
the development of the general practitioner services. There is some allocation within this money for the development of more health centres, and this in turn will assist the operations of the general practitioner.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, we want more in the universities now.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, may I add an additional word of welcome to the Statement which we have just heard? May I also ask the noble Lord whether he can give some indication of when the later announcement will be made and whether it will include rather more specific allocations to the various heads which he mentioned in his Statement? In particular, may I ask whether some announcement can be made of the building expenditure intended for mentally handicapped children as an alternative to their institutionalisation in hospital, and also whether the additional maintenance requirements will be fully met, in addition to this intended building allocation?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think these are rather detailed matters for me to go into at the moment. May I write to the noble Lord and give him some answers on the questions he has asked?
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, the Statement made by my noble friend will be welcomed not only by this House but by the country as a whole. My noble friend knows of my interest in the house committee of a mental hospital, and many of my noble friends and other noble Lords have the same interest. May I press my noble friend on this question of mentally handicapped children? Is he aware that there are still many cases of subnormal children, particularly boys, being kept in adult wards of mental hospitals, and can he give an assurance that these much-needed and very welcome funds will be allocated very carefully, with special priority being given to cases where this occurs, particularly in areas where there is already a desperate need for new hospital building and for an increase in staff?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this particular allocation of money is especially concerned with provision for the old and the mentally ill, but I sympathise
842
with the points which have been made by my noble friend. It is our policy that mentally handicapped children should not be in the same wards as mentally handicapped adults, and if my noble friend has any particular case in mind, and he will let me know the details, I will certainly go into it.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what may be a minor question off the major stream of his Statement? It relates to these purpose-built new homes for old people. Will they be homes to accommodate 50 or 60 people, which seems to have bean the fashion at the Ministry during the last twenty years or so, and, if they are not, will he pay some attention to the advantages which that size of home carries with it? It enables people to be fed on a fine scale, to he accommodated on a decent scale and also—which is most important—to be able, out of 50 or 60 people, to find friends while they are in that home, because in a small home they often cannot find friends and as a result are very lonely.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord has said. These homes, of course, are built by the local authorities, and I am sure that they will take into account the sort of considerations the noble Lord has put forward.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it so happens that one of these homes to take in some of these aged people has been opened within my own village only this week, and that it will give accommodation to about 36 people? But I have been looking at the figures of the cost per inmate so far as these homes are concerned, and I find that the maximum is £14 per week, coming down to a minimum of about £4 a week. I take it that this allocation is made in accordance with the financial circumstances of the individual. I wonder if the Minister is in a position to say whether this operates on a national basis. Does it differ from one area to another, or is it a basis that has been laid down nationally by his Ministry?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think this is rather outside the scope of the Statement. Perhaps I could let the noble Lord know privately the answer to his question.

MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES BILL [H.L.]
4.14 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, we have just had a very welcome Statement from the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, about buildings for health purposes: now we turn back to the Second Reading of a Bill which, we understand from my noble friend the Minister, may provide more buildings for the Arts. Before I make one or two points about the Bill, may I make it clear that I am speaking in a personal capacity and not, for example, as a member of the Council of the Victoria and Albert Museum. Like, I believe, many of your Lordships, when I heard initially of the proposal which is given form in this Bill—namely, that there were to be charges for admission to museums—my instinct was one of dismay, and I was against it; and we all know that many of the governing bodies of the museums, and indeed many other people who care earnestly about these things, felt the same way. But, my Lords, the more I think about it, the more I wonder whether my instinct is right.
The first reason why I wonder whether my instinct is right is when I think of the position with regard to many of the other Arts, be it music, be it the theatre, be it television or the cinema (because they sometimes are in the artistic field) or be it the written word, poetry or prose. In all those cases, those who participate invariably have to pay, and indeed expect to pay, I think, in one way or another. What is it that gives the visual Arts the special right not to have to pay? My Lords, I cannot really find any good reason. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, was talking about the National Gallery, and he said that for over 200 years no payment had been demanded. That, I know, is in a sense a good reason—
LORD STRABOLGI: I am sorry, my Lords; I did not want to interrupt the noble Earl. I was talking about the British Museum.
THE EARL or PERTH: My Lords, my point is the same. I am sorry if I said the National Gallery; I should have said the British Museum. I can well understand that there is a traditional reason
844
why people mind. But, my Lords, tradition or custom are only wise if they continue to be sound, and I think that in this case tradition is no longer sound. We have heard from the noble Viscount the Minister that there is a great need for the expansion of museums, be it by way of new buildings, be it by improvements in existing buildings, be it by help for the Provinces or be it help for travelling exhibitions—for all the things which we know are greatly needed. But those things take money, and we have also heard—and we all know this—that costs have gone up greatly.
Now what is it that allows us to say, "Very well, but the visual Arts should be free; the museums and galleries are exempt from this "? My Lords, I cannot find the answer. Indeed, I should like to think of it in a much more positive way: not as an excuse, but positively to welcome this enabling Bill if it means that the sort of things which I care about and which many of those who visit the museums care about are going to happen: that we are going to see better museums and are going to have more certainty that the treasures which might otherwise leave this country will remain here. I also understand the difficulty that Ministers may have when they are fighting a battle against others who have claims on the Treasury. We all know the difficulties that any Ministry has in trying to get its share of the cake. Suppose, my Lords, the Treasury said, "For the Arts, certainly, we are very ready to increase the amount that is available—for the theatre, for music and for others of the Arts. But since the visual Arts do not seem to care very much and are not prepared to pay, we are going to leave that Vote where it is". That sort of consideration surely indicates the importance of those who participate making some payment.
It has been suggested that we might get around the difficulty by some form of voluntary subscription. I should like to tell your Lordships of an experience which happened to my wife and me a few weeks ago, when we were in America. One day my wife visited the Metropolitan Museum in New York—and we had often heard that this was a very good example of how the Americans work these things voluntarily. Before my wife had gone very far she was stopped by

845
an attendant who said, "You have not got a badge ". She said, "A badge? I do not understand. What is a badge for?". He answered: "You have to get a badge. You have to make a payment, otherwise you cannot come in. "Then she went to where she had to make the payment and asked, "How much?." The reply was, "Well, it is voluntary; but the usual thing is about one dollar. "Now if my arithmetic is right, one dollar is worth about 40p and what I gather the Minister is proposing at the present time is 10p. I went a little later; I went about 4.30 in the afternoon and I was expecting the same experience. It did not happen. Nobody stopped me. I do not think that I was so dressed as to make them think that I could not make a voluntary subscription. I suspect that the reason was a simple one: it was that it was 4.30 p.m. We must remember that the museums close at 5 p.m., and the people simply thought that it was not then worth trying to get people to pay because of the short time remaining before the museum closed.
That brings me to a suggestion that I should like to put to the Minister. Could he not adopt the same practice here? Could he not allow entrance to be free from, say, half an hour before closing time? I am sure that the attendants, who probably have many other duties, would welcome the fact that they would no longer have to worry about turnstiles. It would go some way to ensure that those who wanted to go, and who really cared, would have a chance to do so. I should have thought that, in practice, there was a lot to be said for this idea; and the principle of free entrance would be in some small degree retained. I hope that my noble friend will think about that and perhaps will even be able to say that it is a "starter."
My Lords, I know that I have not talked about the Bill as such; but I do not think that ordinarily it is expected that speakers, other than Ministers, in a Second Reading debate should do anything more than talk in rather general terms in relation to the Bill. I am worried about its possible relation to Scotland and particularly in relation to the National Gallery there and the Torrie pictures. When the gift was made costs were very different and the requirements of museums were very different.
846
I wonder whether the donor would have expected the same rule to apply to-day when people are very much better off and when, by and large, they can afford to pay. I am sure that if I were a trustee I should feel that it was not breaking faith to acknowledge that there should be some payment for seeing those pictures. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who said that this was a sad day because it was the beginning of a time when museums were going to charge. I think my view would be that, if it means better things for museums, it is not a sad day. I think it is a day when I shall be glad because it means that things which I want to see happen will come about.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down may I ask him to face this fact: that museums do not exist for trustees; that they exist to enable those who are very poor (as I once was) to get an idea of culture and imagination? My visits to the museums gave me a new inspiration. Does he not think therefore that if you are going to make an entrance charge that such people will not go to them—as I would not have gone? Does not that fact make this a sad day? Does it not make this a sad day for the noble Earl that I might not have gone?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I do not quite know how to answer the noble Lord. From his point of view it might have been very sad; but I wonder whether, really and truly, he would not somehow have—
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: Not a possibility, my Lords!
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, if he could have gone with a school party, which is allowed to go in free—he shakes his head. Perhaps he would not have wanted to go.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, it was not possible.
THE EARL OF PERTH: But, my Lords, the opportunity would be there to-day; and we are talking of to-day and not of the past.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I do not want to take up the noble Earl's time but I have always regarded him as a man of gentle feelings.

847
Is it not rather strange that he should say that people are so much better off to-day when we have this background of a million unemployed? Is he forgetting them?
TIME EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I do not think that that is a point which is relevant to this discussion. Like all noble Lords, I deeply regret the unemployment figures. On Wednesday we are to have a debate on the Scottish economy when I shall hope to be able to throw out some ideas on that; but I think that that subject is not related to this Bill.
My Lords, I will finish in this way. While I regret that Lord George-Brown, as he said, would not have gone to any museum, I think that if this step means better museums up and down the country, and better opportunities for people to see them, then on balance that will be the best thing.
4.27 p.m.
LORD BETHELL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in opposing this Second Reading pointed out, correctly I think, that there are very few measures which this Government are proposing to which the Opposition have such strong hostility and objection. This is a surprising state of affairs; and I hope this afternoon to say a few words to try to clear up in my own mind, and perhaps in some others, why this is and whether it is correct. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, raised the point about the poor, because this is something which bears directly on the principle behind this Bill. It is something which worried me in the beginning, something which I think can be solved and about which I should like to make one or two suggestions. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, when he introduced his Motion last autumn also expressed his worries about people no longer being able to "pop in for half an hour "to the galleries and the British Museum. This is another worry. These are points of detail which perhaps will be cleared up when, after the Bill has become law, a little time has elapsed and we have been able to see how it works.
First, the problem of the poor who visit the galleries, who find in them inspiration and who, some people are afraid, will not be able to do so in the
848
future. A large number of these are students. Students, I imagine, make up a large proportion of the poor, nowadays. Their income is very low and the £1 which it will cost to buy a season ticket is a large sum of money to them. I am wondering whether something more could not be done for students. I know that a scheme is under way providing for them to go round in organised parties and I hope that my noble friend the Paymaster General will be able to answer one question which interests me about whether students and schoolchildren can find some means of going round museums and galleries on their own. I am told—and I hope that the Paymaster General will be able to put me right on this point—that it is possible, or that it may be possible, for students and schoolchildren to go to their teacher and say, "I am interested in going to the British Museum "—or to the National Gallery or to some local authority museum—"frequently. Could you please write me a note to enable me to gain admittance?" I am sure that teachers would be only too pleased to do so.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would like me to answer straight away. Yes, of course that is going to be allowed, in exactly the same way as a student wishing to get a reader's ticket to the British Museum or the Victoria and Albert Reading Room gets a chit; and they come all the time. I think that is a very satisfactory process because the staff then know whether the young person has a serious interest in the museum and they are more likely to help.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, continues his speech, may I say that I think he has raised a very important point. The noble Viscount the Paymaster General says, "Yes, they can get chits ". I am not interested in whether their teacher knows that young people are interested; I am interested in how much it is going to cost to provide all these exemptions. At the end of the day how much do we get out of it, and would not it be better just to encourage children to go all the time free?
LORD BETHELL: Well, my Lords, as I understand it, the Government are obviously doing their best to keep down

849
the cost of administering the scheme. It is made clear in the White Paper that the Government do not expect the cost of administration to be more than 10 per cent. of the receipts. I am glad to say that the Paymaster General has confirmed my impression that some sort of scheme about chits can be, and will be, arranged. I think that this could be done within the range of the 10 per cent. administration costs, and that would be excellent. I trust that such a scheme will work well.
The problem about people visiting a museum for half an hour is, I think, a real one. I often spend periods of even less than half an hour in the National Gallery. I shall buy a season ticket when it becomes necessary to do so and I shall not be discouraged from going there. The only thing that might discourage me—here again I think this is a point which the Paymaster General might answer later if he is able to do so—is a small matter but one which frequently arises. What happens if I have left my season ticket at home? Do I have to pay? My Lords, I am a member of the Marylebone Cricket Club and I frequently drop in there for half an hour. Sometimes I do not have my ticket with me. If that happens, I am invited by the attendant to sign a book and declare that I am a member and entitled to free entry. Would it be possible to have a book available for people to sign when they attend without their tickets? Otherwise there may be some people who wish to visit a museum for half an hour but would not do so.
The other main category of the poor are the old-age pensioners. I am delighted to hear that they will be admitted for only 5p the whole year round. I wonder whether it might not be simpler to let them in entirely free. I cannot think of any reason why not, although there may be an administrative reason. If there is, I hope that my noble friend the Paymaster General will be able to tell your Lordships about it. One of the problems of this scheme, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, is that we need to keep the administrative costs as low as possible, and this bedevils all the exemptions which noble Lords would like to see introduced. It is a question of striking a balance between a
850
whole range of possible exemptions and a prohibitive cost of administration.
The other main objection to the Government scheme is that fewer people will visit museums. I have not seen much convincing evidence that this will happen. That objection has been raised airily, and facts have been quoted about the number of people who attend at New York museums on non-paying days compared with the number who attend on paying days. I am not sure that that is very relevant. On the other side, some very convincing evidence has been provided about increases in charges to visit the Tower of London and the Jewel House. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, if it is her impression that these charges will in general reduce attendances, will be able to give the House her reasons and we shall see whether noble Lords are convinced by her argument.
BARONESS LEE or ASHERIDGE: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to answer that question straight away. I think that the general increase in interest in museums, the teaching that goes on in schools and the rest of it, will mean that the forward flow of attendance will increase. That does not alter the fact that some people will be excluded.
LORD BETHELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and I agree that some people will be excluded. My noble friend admitted that. He said that a few people would be either unwilling or unable to pay. Again we are reducing the question to one of striking a balance. My noble friend does not believe that the number of such people will be very great and neither do I, especially if the Government are able to work out one or two further exemptions to enable the poor to attend museums and galleries as frequently as they would like.
My personal view, with which I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, seems to agree, is that when charges are introduced initially attendances may dip very slightly but will soon pick up and increase, probably at the same rate as at present, which is very fast indeed. If that does not happen I shall be very surprised and I shall eat my words. If the scheme is modified after two or three years, which may

851
happen because my noble friend the Paymaster General has not ruled out that possibility—he is not being dogmatic and is prepared to consider suggestions for modifications as and when it seems necessary—and should it emerge that the attendances drop, I would support a radical modification in the whole principle. But I do not think that will happen and I am glad that the noble Baroness seems to take the same view.
The expression "matter of principle" has cropped up frequently in the three debates that we have had on this question as also has the term "ideology". I think that is right: it is a question of principle and of ideology. The noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, suggested last autumn that the Paymaster General was committing"ideological hara kiri". I would agree with the noble Baroness that if she were a Member of a Government and introducing such a scheme, it would be ideological hara kiri;. it would be contrary to the ideology of her Party. But it seems to me that for the Paymaster General, a member of the Conservative Party, to do so is the very opposite; if you like, it is ideological resurrection.
The Government could have approached this problem of providing the necessary better facilities in our museums and galleries by allocating the taxpayers' money purely and simply where it was necessary. But from our ideology there are objections to that. One, of course, is that, on the face of it, it is unfair to most taxpayers who do not want to visit museums. Against that, of course, we have to balance the need of education and the cultural needs of the community.
Noble Lords on both sides of the House rightly take the view that subsidies out of general taxation are necessary to serve the minority which takes a particular interest in culture. But the present Government have taken rather the way of compromise. They have taken an approach very similar to that adopted by successive Governments towards university education. University education is the right of all who can attain the necessary qualifications and obtain a place at a university. If one obtains a place, one is expected, if one can afford it, to pay a contribution. If one cannot afford it, one does not pay a contribution. Ideo
852
logically this is totally consistent with the views of this Government and of the Party which forms the Government in the scheme by which users of museums and galleries will pay a small contribution—one-tenth of what we are told is the cost of every visit, on what I imagine is a rough-and-ready computation.
It seems to me only fair that the consumer should pay for an experience which is not only educational but also entertaining and generally worth while in every way, if he can afford it. If he cannot, then he should obtain it free, as he obtains other necessary social services free. This is pure Conservative thinking. Finally, since to my mind the Opposition have failed to show that the proposed charges will put visits to museums and galleries beyond the pockets of a significant number of the public, and since they have failed to show up to now that attendances will decrease, I will support the Second Reading of the Bill.
4.42 p.m.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, I must say that I was fascinated by the suggestion of the noble Lord who just sat down that the system of gallery charges should be placed on the same footing as university finance. My imagination boggles at the thought of administering a scheme whereby people with an income over a limit of £1,500 a year or something of that sort pay and the rest get in free. I doubt whether the Paymaster General, with his accustomed ingenuity, will be able to get round that one.
LORD BETHELL: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I was not suggesting that this scheme should be put on the same administrative footing at all. I was saying that the idological principle was similar.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, I think that I ought to declare an interest in this matter. I am, and have been for many years, I am lucky to say, a trustee of the National Gallery. That is to say, I belong to that sociological classification which the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, I notice, alludes to frequently, sometimes I am sorry to say with evident distaste, as the"artistic establishment". In plain English, we are a body of persons appointed by Her Majesty's Government, who according to their lights, no doubt very dim in the estimation of the noble

853
Viscount, spend a good deal of their spare time trying to preserve and improve the galleries and museums which are the heritage of the people of this country.
I dare say that we do not always put our case very well. Obviously we have totally failed to impress the noble Viscount. But certainly we, too, have the concern which I know personally the noble Viscount has, for the quality of life of the ordinary people. I must say that it saddens me a little to think that the noble Viscount, whose achievements I admire and whose intentions I respect should habitually speak of us, as he did in last Saturday's Times, as a sort of esoteric, self-admiration society, out of touch with life and incapable of rational argument or comprehension. But all that is by way of a declaration of interest.
On the main subject of the debate, I should like to say at once that I do not rise to rehearse once again all the arguments against the principle of charging. In common with my friends at the National Gallery, I greatly regret what we are being compelled to do—that, of course, is the plain fact of the matter. But I personally agree that there are arguments in favour of charges which reasonable men can discuss among themselves without bitterness. Certainly I think that the noble Viscount is right when he argues that what is done so widely elsewhere and also sometimes at home—I was glad that my article reminded him that charges were made at Hampton Court and that he has also let your Lordships into the secret that charges have been made at the Tower of London—cannot be regarded as one of the major social outrages. I agree with him, too, though some noble Lords may not agree with me on this, that it cannot be regarded as being a tremendous financial burden on the majority I say "the majority" and not all—of the users of the galleries.
I cannot, of course, agree with the noble Viscount's funny argument, lumping the National Gallery with the Royal Opera House. I should prefer to lump the National Gallery with St. James's Park, both State supported institutions which are not overcrowded at a zero price. But I really fail to understand the noble Viscount on the question of overcrowding. At one time he seemed to be
854
in favour of charges to prevent overcrowding and at other times he declared his scorn for any such argument.
Leaving that rather esoteric point apart, I regret the disappearance of a freedom of which we were all proud, which was envied by the curators of and visitors to galleries abroad where no such freedom exists—that is to say, the freedom of all citizens, both dustmen and dukes, to enjoy together the delights of a great spiritual heritage given or bequeathed, chiefly by private donors, for exactly that purpose. It is not only a case of one or two Scottish bequests, important as they are, which fall into that category. More than three-quarters of the pictures in the National Gallery have been given to and not bought by the nation. And although, of course, it is a foolish game to argue too much about the intentions of the dead, I think I would stick my neck out and say that most of them, from J. W. M. Turner downwards, hoped that all at large would be free to enjoy the riches that they were leaving behind them. That has gone.
As trustees, we were not consulted before the charge was announced. I read in The Times that there were procedural reasons, though not revealed beforehand to members of the National Gallery, even if they had been public servants, why no hint could be given before the production of the mini-Budget; though it has occurred to me, going back to my recollection as a public servant, that feelers can be put out without indiscretion, so as to give Ministers the benefit of the opinion of those most closely in touch. However, we were not consulted. We made private representations to the noble Viscount and we made public statements, I hope always of a respectful and not unfriendly nature. While, as the noble Viscount protested, beating his breast, so to speak, to The Times interviewer, that he would listen to us, I am certainly not aware that this had the slightest effect on his resolution. So we have had to capitulate. As the noble Viscount said on a former occasion to your Lordships' House, we get our money from the Government; and because we think that there are even more important things at stake on which we have to protect the interests of the public, we have submitted. We are doing what the noble Viscount has ordered us to do.

855
But, my Lords, as I said, my purpose in rising is not to go over all that again in detail. I rather want to make a plea to the noble Viscount for some greater degree of flexibility in the system that he is imposing on us. I want still, at this late hour, to plead for greater liberty; to plead for greater flexibility in administration: and, in particular, I want to plead for permission for those boards who wish it to allow a free day in this system —one day on which the charge is not imposed. I am not asking for a general rule. I am not at all sure that all boards would wish to do so. And—may I anticipate what the noble Viscount may say in his comment?—I can easily conceive conditions in which I myself, given the fact of charges, would not be prepared to run the risks of a free day. But I am arguing simply for elbow room; I am arguing simply for some degree of discretion. I doubt whether even the noble Viscount can regard this situation as a totally outrageous one. He has often, in public and elsewhere, adduced as an argument for his policy the policy of Continental galleries, but he cannot use this argument against what I am pleading for at the moment, for the simple reason that, rightly or wrongly, some of the Continental galleries, at any rate, have precisely this safety valve. If the noble Viscount is thinking that what is good enough for the French is good enough for us, then he cannot object, on principle at any rate, to this degree of flexibility, whatever he may have to say by way of administrative convenience.
I wonder whether the noble Viscount appreciates how strong an argument on principle can be mustered in favour of this flexibility, where it is practicable. Let me concede to him what so far he has not been prepared to concede to anybody: that whether or not to charge for day-to-day enjoyment is a matter about which reasonable men may hold different views; it is not a matter of fundamental dogma. It is a question of how to pay for common enjoyment. Surely we may agree to differ about that without forfeiting mutual friendship and respect. But—and this is the point—the galleries exist to provide not only enjoyment but also education: education in the means of enjoyment; education in the means of a full life later on. While
856
it is true that the noble Viscount is facilitating collective tours and so on, what his system cannot do is to provide for the individual who needs to be tempted to discover his own potentialities. I do not think that the noble Viscount's 10p, which is less than the price of a pint of some kinds of beer or a packet of cigarettes, is going to deter even many of the poorer people who already love the arts and value the quality of life which contact with the arts engenders, but I am sure that it will deter quite a number of persons who, on a free day, might stroll in experimentally, so to speak, and so discover the life-enhancing stimulus which this sort of interest confers. I personally do not want them to be deterred.
At the National Gallery, at least, we think that we can handle the greater crowding of one free day a week; and we believe that we could better discharge our function of bringing art to all and sundry if the noble Viscount were to allow us to do so; but hitherto he has been quite unrelenting about this. The loss to the Revenue, he thinks, would be too great. To make it good he would have to charge 20p all the year round. In a past existence I was an economist. I used to be referred to sometimes (very wrongly) as a hard-faced economist. Even now, in my old age, I am not indifferent to considerations of cost. But I confess that when I hear the noble Viscount talking in these grave tones about the orders of magnitude involved, I am reminded, if I may quote poetry in your Lordships' House, of the couplet of the poet Pope which runs:
"Why has not man a microscopic eye?
For this plain reason: man is not a fly."
The total amount that the new system is expected to yield is miniscule in relation to the national finances. Is it really the case that this minor concession for which I am pleading—I am not talking about charges in general—on the part of those galleries which think they can manage it is going to impose such a burden that, in relation to the extra happiness and education that it would involve, it must be regarded as totally insupportable? I seem to remember reading somewhere of tribes which are so poor that they buy sugar by the lump rather than by the ¼lb. Are we really so badly off as that under this Government? I repeat

857
that I am not asking for a general rule to be laid down in this respect. What I am pleading for—and here I am sure I speak not only for the group that the noble Viscount calls the "art establishment", but for all sorts and conditions of ordinary people—is just a little more flexibility and imagination in the administration of this innovation.
May I conclude with an appeal to the noble Viscount? I am not asking him—and I am sorry that I am not—to abandon his whole policy at this moment. I am a realist in this respect: I realise that, like Macbeth, he is
" … in blood stepped in so far that … Returning were as tedious as go o'er."
I am only asking for some sweetening of what, for many people with whom I believe he shares fundamentally many hopes and fears, is a very bitter pill to swallow—the sacrifice of a freedom we have prized and regarded as a national glory. I personally have a great admiration for what the noble Viscount has done both for learning and for culture. He helped save the British Museum and he is actively involved in imaginative schemes for developing it. I must say that it would be a very great comfort to me to be able to say to my friends: "Well, we do not agree with the policy, but we must admit that not all we have said has fallen on deaf ears and at least he has done his best to meet our more modest supplications."
5.4 p.m.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is perfectly right when he says that this is really an enabling Bill. That is exactly what it is, and during the course of the debate this afternoon we have travelled round palaces, the Royal Opera House and the Coliseum. I see the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, sitting on the Cross Benches. I so often think of the debates we have had in this House on the film industry, which, after all, is another part of the Arts; and we have juggled round talking about the Film Finance Corporation, the question of the unions, the pool of scriptwriters and all the problems involved in trying to raise more money for the British film industry, which is potentially one of the finest industries in the world.
I spoke on this subject during the last debate on the galleries and museums, and
858
I stated then that I personally thought it was necessary and right, on what the Paymaster General had said, to impose these charges. I must honestly say, that after hearing the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, this afternoon on the subject, talking about when he was a young man, and after what the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has said, I am severely shaken; but I wish we could come to some form of compromise either over a free day or concerning the last half-hour, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, mentioned. I think this is important. I am certain that it is difficult to administer, but I wish the Paymaster General would have another look at this question to see whether some way can be found so that people who are really keen on seeing the collections in galleries and museums can do so completely free, even if it is only for a short period.
There are not a great many points I want to make. The Paymaster General said this afternoon that the charges will be accepted as Exchequer monies. I think this is a pity, because I feel that the Road Fund has served as a warning over many many years. But there it is: obviously the Treasury have a great say in these matters and the noble Viscount has not been able to win the day.
May I now put a few points to the Minister concerning small practical problems? Take, for example, the problem of the Victoria and Albert and the British Museums. If a scholar wishes to go to the Art Library in the Victoria and Albert, which I think is accepted generally as the finest in the world, he is issued with a pass. The library being situated in the centre of the museum, will he or she be able to wander around in other parts of the museum? It seems to me that it will be very difficult to stop this happening. I feel that this is the sort of point that should be looked into. Is it possible for the Paymaster General to give us any idea how many turnstiles will have to be erected in the bigger museums? There are many different entrances, and I think we should have an idea about these things.
Now, if I may, I should like to turn to a totally different point and say no more about the charges which, in principle, I agree with. Perhaps one of these days the Paymaster General will be able

859
to look into the question of Somerset House and see whether or not we shall be able to get this magnificent building as a museum, which it certainly should be. If it were to be a museum, I think it would be far finer than the Louvre in Paris.
5.8 p.m.
LORD PLAIT: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, I do not intend to go over all the arguments once again. I liked the words he used: that at the end of all the arguments, when they have been deployed, we still feel that we are losing a freedom which we are all proud of. I realise that the noble Viscount, Lord. Eccles, cannot be in his place the whole time, but I am a little sorry that he is absent just at this moment because I was going to question the meaning of this Bill. It seems to me there is something extremely sinister here. The Bill says—and this is really all it says—that,
" … the trustees or other governing body of any of the other institutions mentioned below may make such charges for admission to any museum or gallery as they may determine."
From what the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has just told us, it seems to me that this is not the intention at all. The Bill should have been worded that the governing bodies,
" … will make such charges as the Paymaster General for the time being shall determine",
if they are not even to be allowed to make experiments concerning such things as a free day per week. This is not implied in this Bill at all, and I hope that, for this reason alone, at the Committee stage those words will be questioned and the Bill will perhaps be turned out on those words.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I have taken a note of what the noble Lord has just said, and I will see that my noble friend Lord Eccles gets it.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, having said that, I would add that my real concern (and I know that I have said this before in this House) is for what I may call the lower-income, middle classes: the school teacher types, the junior civil servants, the married students. These are the people who are going to come off badly, yet among them are the people whom we
860
surely want to favour most, the people who can make use of higher education and cultural opportunities. They have not had any concession from the Government, and they are not on an income level where a reduction in income tax means anything to them. The price of their food rises week by week; the cost of the fares they have to pay to go to work rises week by week. These are the people whom I am worried about and who are going to be hit by this Bill. There are also the people who pay numerous short visits, although they may be accommodated by season tickets. The sum of £1 is a great deal too much to pay for a season ticket. A season ticket should be something to show that you are a frequent visitor. You should be able to purchase a season ticket for not more than twice or, at the most, three times the cost of entering the museum.
I am somewhat influenced by the argument that abroad people have to pay to go into most—not all—galleries and museums, and that we have enormous numbers of tourists, many of whom could perfectly well afford to pay, and we are losing considerable income to the nation. We must not think of all the tourists in that sense. Many are students and are of the class that I have been describing. One of my grandsons recently hitch-hiked to Istanbul and spent six weeks abroad for less than £50. Many of the tourists who come to this country have done that and are touring cheaply. I wonder whether the noble Viscount listened to the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, in the first debate that we had on this matter, that there should be a trial period, trying other methods than the imposition of a charge. There could be a trial period where a voluntary charge might be imposed, or the raising of more funds through many kinds of methods: selling reproductions of pictures, postcards and so forth, development of the commercial side. The goal is such a small one—a target of a million pounds—from which there will be the cost of administration to be deducted, and the balance will go straight into Treasury funds. I could not follow the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who seemed to be arguing that this was a small price to pay for getting a million pounds for the museums: but we have been told in quite distinct terms by the noble Viscount that that is not where the money will go. He has told us that

861
he is going to spend more money on museums, galleries and so on, but there is no direct relationship between paying this charge and getting a return in that way. In fact the relationship is, "If you do not pay it we shall not look after you".
My Lords, one last word. A good deal has been said about music. In the first place, it is a different matter. An artist, connoisseur or collector can give to a museum, art gallery or a nation, for all time, a work of art, a picture, sculpture or some objet d'art. But he cannot give to the nation for all time a performance of Beethoven's Seventh Symphony, so they are not one and the same thing. In any case the main argument is that we have had this freedom in England and we are now going to lose it. Almost every home has a radio set, and you can hear great music free of charge—and even free of tax now—on the radio every day of your life.
5.14 p.m.
LORD TREVELYAN: My Lords, I have a special interest as Chairman of the British Museum trustees, but I am speaking personally. There are about 25 trustees (I should know the exact number) who, naturally, do not all think alike. I cannot speak for any of them: each of us has an equal voice in our affairs. I am afraid that the noble Lord. Lord Strabolgi, will be disappointed: I have spoken once on this subject but have nothing of great moment to say today, though I have a few practical points to raise.
I agree with the noble Viscount that a great deal of money is required for the building and staff of the British Museum. I hope that the money will be forthcoming and wish him every success in his efforts. I personally do not see any important principle involved either way—perhaps I have not got any principles. But compared with the amounts to which reference has been made in the Government's Statement this afternoon (very large sums indeed) the amounts involved here are relatively small, and I should judge it questionable, to say the least, whether it is worth while to collect this money in view of the strong emotions aroused among many distinguished people, and of the inevitable administra
862
tive clutter, complications and delays which are inevitable if charges are to be imposed. I have a predilection for administrative simplicity. I should have preferred it had we been able to try the system of the Metropolitan Museum, to which reference has been made by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, whereby one has to pay something, but one is asked to pay what one thinks fit. I like the variation which I believe is seriously being considered, that you should pay on your way out, when your generosity has been stimulated either by the glories that you have seen or by the fact that your feet hurt so much that you want to get out at any price.
I am glad that the charges are modest. That is important. I hope that we shall not see them doubled annually. I agree with the noble Viscount that the idea that the charges should go directly to the museums is pointless under our financial system. If that was to be, presumably the Government would cut an equivalent amount off something else. On the free day question, there are fairly good administrative reasons against this, but I have no very decided view either way. One important point is that students should get their concessionary rate on individual presentation of a recognised student's card as at the Queen's Gallery. I should be grateful if the noble Viscount could say something on this.
My noble friend Lord Robbins made a plea for flexibility and discretion. In the present circumstances I would rather say that if charges are to be imposed we may need, in the light of experience, to make some changes in all or perhaps some of the museums and galleries. I do not think it will necessarily be desirable in the future for every museum and gallery to be treated alike in every particular, since they are so different in character.
I should like to give my own view on the position of the British Museum which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I emphasise again that this is my personal view. The Museum is not at present concerned, since the trustees are not permitted by law to charge. They have neither accepted nor rejected anything. But the trustees derive their powers from Parliament. If Parliament amends the Act in a way which clearly indicates that they want the trustees to charge, the

863
trustees must take into account Parliament's wishes. They must then decide the question in accordance with their views about the balance of advantage to the Museum's visitors; scholars, students and the general public. I cannot anticipate their decision.
5.20 p.m.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I speak here, as a non-hereditary Peer, for the hereditary section of this nation: the dispossessed, the non-possessing. I have listened to the debate this afternoon. I listened to trustees; I listened to connoisseurs, people with their own private art galleries. May I put in just a word for the mass of our people who are not students, not teachers or lecturers, who are not graduates, and who do not have their own private art galleries?
The noble Lord, Lord St. Just, was kind enough to say that he was slightly moved when he thought I said that I spoke for the poor. I do not speak for the poor in terms of money; I tried to speak for the poor in terms of dispossession. It may be that money is more easily available to people now than it was when I was young; it may be that one should multiply by a factor of four or five to obtain a true comparison. What I do know is this great city here—and the position may be even worse in East Anglia, or Nottinghamshire, or anywhere else. I speak for this great city, where there are millions of young people wandering about, not knowing, where to go. And I speak for myself. I just ended up visiting a museum. It was not because I was, in the words of one noble Lord who has just spoken, led to want to see nice things; I just ended up there. But because nobody doe's the noble Lord wish to interrupt?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I do not, my Lords.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: Because, my Lords, this is a very serious matter, and if noble Lords on the other side do not understand this they will get this country into a real mess. As I was saying, I ended up in a museum. I first saw a picture, I first read something, simply because nobody got in my way. If I had been asked to go from Black-friars to the National Gallery and pay a certain sum of money to go in, I should
864
not have gone. But, wandering around this great city, I went and I found; I began to look, began to listen and began to read.
Leave out all the nonsense about students. My children have been students. My children are now teachers, but they have become teachers because I began where I began. Many people are not there yet. Leave out that nonsense. There are still very many children in this great city who ought to find their way in, without any obstructions at all, and it is for this great hereditary class that I make my non-hereditary appeal.
What is the argument? Why do we not leave these places open? The noble Viscount is a great connoisseur of the Arts and has his own personal gallery. What is his argument? He says that he will get £1 million. Ask Mr. Barber, in relation to what he has to raise and what he is going to give away, what £1 million represents. If it is any help to the noble Viscount, I may add that I have been through this exercise. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says,"I must have x hundred and 99 million pounds and I have only x hundred and 98 million pounds. so from whom can I take the last million? We will get the noble Viscount to explain to the House of Lords that we can take it out of the museums."
The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, puts up a case for a particular kind of exemption. The noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, puts up a case for another kind of exemption. If I were on the same terms with the noble Viscount the Paymaster General as those two noble Lords are, I could put up a case for another kind of exemption. By the time the noble Viscount has accommodated all these cases for exemption, what is left? It is the barrier to the boy who might wander into a museum, and this surely is the worst thing of all. Our museums, our musical places, even Hampton Court and even Kenwood where they play music in the evenings, are all places where it is just possible somebody wanders in, somebody looks or listens, and the quality of life of that person is changed. We cannot charge for that. It cannot be evaluated. My Lords, we simply cannot put a price tag on that.
I wanted to say to your Lordships' House simply that I feel as I felt when

865
the Labour Government would not put up the school leaving age on the day we had decided that it should be done, but postponed it. This House, like the Labour Cabinet then, is—let us face it —full of people who have had advantages. I did not like people who had been to secondary schools, grammar schools, public schools, universities, deciding that kids who had had none of those advantages could not stay at school for another year. I did not like that. I should have resigned, but I did not. I do not like being in a situation where everybody here has been able to buy these advantages since they began, but starts putting little bits of problems, little bits of obstruction, in the way of those who have never had these things and yet who might find their way into these places.
The amount involved is only £1 million to-day, minus all the exemptions that we give. It will cost more to give the exemptions, but it is an enabling Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, asked whether the figure would go up. Of course it will go up. Once give the Treasury (and I see the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, in the House) their way in, and the figure will go up. I beg this House really not to impose these charges. Every single one of us, myself included, can walk round these places, as I often do now, and enjoy the beauties they have to offer. Many people cannot do so. I was once one of them. It is for them I speak; it is for them I appeal. It honestly is not worth it. If we want a democratic society, if we want to be able to say that we do some things which other people do not do, it is bad that we should do this. I know the constitutional position about the Opposition, but if anybody could be found to divide the House with me, I should be very willing to divide the House to-night, my Lords, on something I regard as not just retrogressive in political terms but a very, very bad thing to do.
5.30 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I should like to raise one point arising out of this Bill; I understood the Minister to say in his opening observation that if there were to be any increase in the lop basic charge it would have to be doubled to 20p because of the difficulty of having machines capable of handling two coins
866
of different denominations. But we see in the White Paper that the proposal is that children shall he charged half-price —that is to say, 5p—and this means that the turnstiles will have to be equipped to deal with 5p pieces in large numbers. Therefore surely it would be possible in the tourist season to have a general charge not of 20p but of 15p. When I speak of tourists I am not speaking about the wealthy American tourists; I am thinking particularly of working-class tourists who come to London from the Provinces. I think they might take with a good heart an extra 5p charge, paying 15p during the tourist season instead of 10p, but I believe that people of this sort will strongly resent being expected to pay double the charge that is to be levied on people whom they regard as the prosperous Londoners throughout the whole of the other ten months of the year.
5.32 p.m.
LORD BIRKETT: My Lords, before the closing stage of this debate I have one suggestion to put to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. I have listened with great interest to the debate, but I cannot say that I have been able to make up my mind. I can see clearly, with the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, that it should be possible for people to enter free; I can also see very clearly with the noble Viscount that we need the money. One thing, however, surprised me. Until this afternoon I had always thought that a million pounds was a considerable sum of money. Suddenly I find that it is a"fleabite", scarcely worth squabbling over. Since, however, a squabble there is, may I put one suggestion to the noble Viscount?
We have heard that the money is to be used to house and to exhibit better the treasures that we have in our museums—something of vital importance, since it is known that we possess three times as much as is actually on view. May I also beg him to do one further thing; namely, to bring all the influence he can to bear upon the museums to make sure that what we have is preserved, restored and does not deteriorate. I ask him to do this before it is too late and before his building programme catches up with it. The noble Viscount has been roundly accused this afternoon on all sides of being autocratic. May I now beg him

867
to be a little autocratic in this direction: that he will insist upon the preservation of our treasures—almost, perhaps, before he and his friends buy another Titian.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, may I, as an old Treasury man, beg the noble Viscount to believe that a million pounds is a very large sum.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, may I be permitted to intervene to assure the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, that at the National Gallery there are not three times the number of pictures not on view, as he seems to suppose. All the pictures at the National Gallery are on view, except those which are lent to the Provinces, to Ministers, and a few which are in the conservation studio.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: And they are beautifully shown, my Lords.
LORD TREVELYAN: My Lords, may I assure the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, that the British Museum has the best conservation laboratory in Europe?
LORD BIRKETT: My Lords, I was not thinking of these two distinguished museums alone. As the noble Viscount well knows, there are many museums which are not in such a fortunate position. However, I am most reassured to hear that £1 million is after all a valuable sum.
5.35 p.m.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I have listened to every word spoken in this debate and have had ample time to ask myself whether we have lost all sense of proportion. Here we are, in the cloistered comfort of your Lordships' House, discussing a matter affecting museum and gallery charges. We are doing it in a world where we are all too conscious of great menacing problems coming at us on every side. I mentioned incidentally to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that he must not forget that we have a million unemployed in this country, and it might be asked what we are doing this afternoon—fiddling while Rome burns? We are discussing something of very great importance indeed. I have had to ask myself that about myself and about others—the many of us who care fervently about the issues we are discussing this afternoon.
868
Why do we care? What is it that the Paymaster General has done to create opposition which must be unrivalled in so many different quarters? A little earlier my noble friend Lord George-Brown made a splendid contribution to this debate. It is no secret that the noble Lord and myself have not always agreed on every issue. There are Parties that have often disagreed on many issues, but we can thank the noble Viscount for the fact that we have a completely united Labour Party—Right, Left, Centre, old and young—united in our opposition to those charges. The noble Viscount must also take into consideration the fact that there is a completely united trade union movement, under Mr. Vic Feather. In Mr. Feather we have a General Secretary who, in his own person, has been deeply interested in the arts. He is not a rich man and he has not a rich man's collection, but he has a splendid collection of pictures and sculptures; the little"bits and pieces"that a poorish man has been able to pick up; and he was my close friend and ally when, for six years, I had responsibility for the Arts. So does it matter nothing to the Paymaster General that there is total opposition on behalf of the Labour Party, the trade union movement and the Co-operative Party, and that we are united, old and young? We may differ on some things, but We are absolutely united in our opposition to these charges. I wish I could speak for the Liberal Party, but I am not sure about them. I think that in the main they are with us. I should like to be able to say that we had united the Liberal Party as well as the Labour Party.
I could not help recalling, while listening to some of the arguments that have been brought forward, that we have not heard so much to-day about people not appreciating what they do not pay for. The logic of that, of course, is to charge for libraries and for schools—and historically this is not so far away. The Liberal Party has fallen on evil days, but at the beginning of the century and in my grandfather's young days it was the great, dominating Gladstone Party in Scotland. It was the Liberal Party to the"Grandee"—my grandfather; "Grandee"in a child's eyes, but not in wealth. He was a miner, victimised from pit to pit, not because he was lazy or weak but because he was trying to form a trade union movement. The Tory Party

869
tried to stop it, as it has tried to stop progress on so many other fronts, but with the Keir Hardies and the Bob Smillies of that generation the movement went forward.
My home county in Scotland—Fife—was the first county in Scotland where the children got free books, and they got them because there was an alliance between the Liberals and the Beginnings"—the few pioneer members who, from being Gladstone Liberals were becoming the Keir Hardie Socialists. But at the beginning of the century the Tories in Scotland used precisely the same arguments that I have been hearing to-day: that if the children got something for nothing they would not appreciate it. What an extraordinary argument—something for nothing! And here to-day we have a rich man's Government; a Government that could hand back 6d. on the income tax as one of its first acts, and, as we all know, that meant not a single penny to people below the level of paying income tax, and it worked out on the good old Tory principle of "the more you have the more you get". Nobody can deny that, in terms of their priorities, this was one of the first things done by the present Government. Only the other day Mrs. Thatcher announced that she was going to give £2 million to grant-aided schools. This is another case of priorities, because we cannot chop it up and say that there is so much for education, so much for the Arts, so much for defence. We know perfectly well that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must do an addition sum, and the allocation of funds between Departments and within Departments is a matter of priorities. Sometimes, my Lords, you can understand the quality of an individual or a Government more by the small things they do than by the big things.
What pleasure does it give the Paymaster General, as a well-to-do man, to embarrass poor people—because it is an embarrassment? We are told that old-age pensioners will get in for half price. I do not know how many of your Lordships' House mean to take advantage of that principle; but straightaway, of course, we are made aware of the fact that this is a broad, crude process: it is not according to means, rich or poor. If you are very young or very old, you can go in for half price, but if you are in
870
the middle years you have to pay the full amount. There is no sense in this.
When we think in terms of exemptions, of course the individual child ought to have no impediments put in his way; my noble friend made that point eloquently in his opening speech. Of course it is a good thing that children should be taken in groups from schools, and we know how unwilling some are to go. We have heard again talk of concern for the special ones. Is it not a rather special youngster who wants to go along on his own or with a pal? Are not we putting impediments in his way? It is so mean, so ignoble.
The question has been raised whether this is a matter of principle. I will say what I consider to be one principle involved. If we in this country cannot go forward at least do not let us go backwards. As the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, said so eloquently, free access to our great museums and galleries is a gracious thing, something that was admired and envied by many countries. Many of us have been in Rome and have seen the galleries crowded to suffocation on the free day when the natives could go in. I know the spirit in which from many parts of the House a plea has been made for a free day. As a compromise measure even that is better than nothing at all. But is it not undignified to think that our own people have to crowd in on the free day? Would it not make you feel uncomfortable that you go in when there is leisure and space because you can afford it? There is no criteria of merit or need in any of this; it is simply a brash, crude application of the kind of Tory policy that many of us had hoped belonged to the past.
After the 1914–18 War we had what was called a Government of hard-faced businessmen. We know what happened then. We remember our returning soldiers begging in the streets. But even in those awful between-war years we did not feel that we were so badly off, as apparently we are under the present Government, that we had to scrape the bottom of the barrel in this ignoble fashion. After the Second World War we had a different kind of Government. I mention that for this reason: it must not be assumed that in times of exceptional financial stress we have to cut into our cultural opportunities, because

871
exactly the opposite is the truth. During the Second World War, when the bombs were raining on our cities, ENSA flowered and we had the best talent from the whole of the world of the arts giving its services. Men and women who were serving at home and abroad have said that they heard great music, listened to lectures, had opportunities during the War which they had never had before.
It would have been such an easy argument, and some people would have thought a very logical one, if in 1945 with our industries demolished—they had to be reassembled; blitzed homes had to be rebuilt—the Government of the day had behaved like hard faced businessmen and had said, "There is no place in our priorities for the things of the mind and the things of the spirit". But they did no such thing. Sir Stafford Cripps, who was abused so often for his austerity, found £11 million for the Festival of Britain. I have mentioned that before in your Lordships' House, and I make no apology for mentioning it again, because I think it keeps the historical perspective. Aneurin Bevan, whom you might think had enough to attend to at that time—he was both Minister of Health and Minister of Housing—nevertheless fought for the principle of local authorities being enabled to spend sixpence of the rates. Did he do it because he was indifferent to the homeless or to people without hospital beds? What hypocrisy! Governments must go forward on all fronts.
I mentioned the early years of the century, the beginning of the Labour Movement. Some of us in this House are third or fourth generation. I know that on the Government Benches there are many noble Lords who have a great feeling for tradition. I, too, have a great feeling for tradition. I feel that you are doing something intolerable to everything that not only the present generation of the Labour Movement have fought for but that our fathers and grandfathers before us fought for. They never fought for bread alone. It would have been easy for an unemployed man or a vicitimised miner walking from pit to pit to think that all that mattered was hunger or his belly or physical things. But he would never have had the stamina to fight the people who did not want the Labour
872
Movement or the trade union movement to come into existence if he were lighting for bread alone.
Of course, the whole tradition of our Labour Movement goes back far beyond William Morris and Ruskin, back to the days of John Ball or that poor working man William Blake who has become fashionable. Let us talk about philosophy. Our philosophy is deeply based on the fact that a good Government and a good society must attend to the things of the mind and the spirit as well as to material things. In the main, noble Lords on the Government Benches have had more opportunities than most of my colleagues. Are they proud that they should be picking on the most sensitive, the poorest among us—because it does not matter if you are rich and insensitive—to do this ignoble thing?
Now I have to qualify what I have been saying. This type of measure embarrasses not only the very poor; it embarrasses some very fine people who are well-endowed with worldly goods. They feel that it is a little indecent, ungentlemanly; they are embarrassed to think that this matters nothing to them in terms of their economy. Then, to come to the practical side. I checked only this morning to make quite sure of my facts, but I thought I remembered that Mr. Hugh Leggatt had loaned the portrait of the Third Duke of Richmond to the National Picture Gallery of Scotland. He has loaned it for the past eight years. I asked for an estimate of how much it was worth, and I am told that it may be, roughly, £100,000. This picture is very interesting apart from its artistic merits, because not only was the third Duke of Richmond a great patron of the arts, but he was something more: lie was a great champion of the independence of the American Colonies. Therefore there are quite a number of American dealers who are anxious to get this picture. What kind of encouragement is there for a patron of the Arts who wants to give specifically in the great tradition that what is given—as my noble friend Lord George-Brown and some other noble Lord said—should be equally available to Duke and dustman, whoever wants it? What incentive is there to give?
Have the Government taken into consideration how much they may be losing? We shall be talking about £1 million.

873
I do not think that the Government are going to get £1 million out of these charges. I am trying to get the Paymaster General out of his office, and need not try very hard as he will not be there much longer. But I should be very grateful if, when he comes to reply, he could give us an estimate of the cost of the turnstiles. Some of the poor, embarrassed trustees and curators are trying to put in desks instead of turnstiles, as being a little less unwelcoming. Does the noble Viscount know, for instance, that the Tate Gallery will require an extra staff of six? In fact, it has been given an extra staff of six in order to collect those odd pennies, but it possesses a lorry without a driver, so that at the moment it is not able to take pictures not in use to safe keeping away from the Gallery.
Of course the fabric of our museums and galleries is important, but the contents are more important; and the people are more important still. It is quite true, as the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. said. that some of our great national galleries have a wonderful conservation service, but it is also true that there is a great need. If the Government can afford to supply additional manpower, I can suggest better ways of using it in conservation, and on educational ways and means in our galleries. Six men are being added to the payroll of the Tate. How much is that going to cost? I am told that 14 are being added to the staff of the Victoria and Albert Museum. I am quite certain that the noble Viscount has the figures. Will he tell us how much is needed for the British Museum and the other museums? It would be very interesting if he could give us a sum. All those extra staff have to be paid to collect this ignoble money. Yes, my Lords, I said" ignoble money"; and it is ignoble money. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, was perfectly correct when he said that, compared with the scale of a great nation's expenditure, it is a fleabite. If we had any proper sense of proportion of the true values of life, we should see that we are doing something which is not worth while.
I want to say one more thing and if I may have talked this afternoon in straight Party terms, please remember, my Lords, that for six years I never once, when I had responsibility for the Arts, made a Party speech; I never once made a
874
political appointment. I was sometimes criticised by close friends in my own Party that I did not make Party capital out of it. That was not my philosophy. I believe that there is a field of public life which belongs to the world of consensus. There is a humanistic field, and surely this is something that your Lordships care and know about. Because you have done a good job dealing with humanistic issues such as capital punishment, homosexuality, and all sorts of issues which the other place sometimes found too hot for them to handle. In your Lordships' House such subjects were dealt with seriously by people from all quarters who had knowledge and who had compassion. I tried to extend this field to the Arts. I went to local councils, large and small, and said, "Don't make the arts a football between the two sides. Fight the barbarians on both sides. We need all the recruits we can get. "I am sure now that I could not have done my job if it had not been for the superb support I received from men and women of all Parties.
I owe a special debt to the trustees, directors, and curators of our great museums and galleries. When I was appointed in 1964 many of them were scared stiff. They believed what they had read in the papers. They believed that Members opposite represented the gentlemen's Party" about the Arts, and that a crude Socialist was coming in with thick boots to trample over their rights. But once they realised that, not just individually but as a Party, we did care, I had the most superb help. I was completely moved by the dedication and the knowledge of our trustees and directors. I cannot imagine myself being so arrogant and I am not an unduly humble person as to think that I could pit my personal judgment against the collective wisdom, experience, and advice of those to whom we had delegated the care of our museums and galleries. As the noble Viscount knows, when his fellow Trustees in the British Museum suggested that he became their chairman I at once agreed, and I had full delegated responsibility from my Prime Minister. I consulted nobody. I did it straight away, because he had been working with the Trustees and the Trustees thought that he was the right man for the job. Politics did not enter into it for me, and indeed I

875
agreed with the suggestion because I knew that the noble Viscount cared a great deal about the British Museum. In fact, he cared so much that he took over the scheme that my right honourable friend Mr. Ted Short, as Minister of Education and Science, was able to get through the Labour Cabinet towards the end of the last Parliament. I was delighted that he did so, and that he cared so much.
What is the present relationship between political Ministers and our trustees? Are we going to have a situation in which the Arts reflect the views of the noble Viscount to-day, reflected my views yesterday, and will reflect somebody else's views to-morrow? We cannot have that; it is contrary to our entire tradition and way of working. There arc very few countries in the world that could do something so liberal and sophisticated as to have money coming from Government sources but responsibility delegated to men and women of great experience and dedication, and the judgment as to how best the money should be allocated left in their hands.
What has the noble Viscount done? He has not only antagonised the whole of the Opposition—we have never been so united on anything as on this; we could not possibly be more united and at one—he has also performed another miracle. I found that for six years there was often a great tension between the so-called "establishment" in the Arts and the "young crowd", the avant garde, the young experimental people, but they are shoulder to shoulder now from David Hockney and Bridget Riley to Henry Moore, Francis Bacon, and the noble Lords, Lord Robbins and Lord Trevelyan, too. It has been made quite clear in this House that our trustees are not co-operating willingly; they are being blackmailed. They are in a situation in which their dignity as trustees is being tampered with; in which they are being told that they do not know best, but that the political Minister, of the day knows best. What a situation when you have trustees of the eminence of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, and others here, pleading with a political Minister to give them just a little bit of freedom so that, according to the special circumstances of their institutions, they might be allowed to have even one free day.
876
In conclusion, may I say that I am very sad and very distressed that the noble Viscount, who could have had such a wonderful reputation and who of course means so well, should have tarnished his reputation by this mean little Bill. He has shown great courage in standing up to practically everybody who knows and cares in this very special world. But what is he being courageous about? He is being courageous about humiliating poor people—because that is what this comes down to—because some of them do not want to go in at half price, and some of them will not go in at all. Therefore, I say that I regret this very much indeed. This is a matter on which we should have had a free vote. I am no Latter Day convert to the free vote. I have always believed in it, and I believe that on certain great issues the other place was refreshed when Members could speak and vote freely. But the Government have their Whips assembled. There is not much point in voting to-night as the Government will get this measure through. The Government may think that this is a small matter, but it is not. It cuts very deep in areas that are important and I am quite sure that the Government will live to regret it deeply.
6.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, there is one part of the speech of the noble Baroness with which I absolutely agree, her description of herself as a good Minister for the Arts. I think I have said before—and I shall go on saying it —that she was an extraordinarily successful Minister for the Arts. I am not going to be tempted to enter into the political parts of her speech, especially those that went backwards, but I understand that if you have great talent on the platform and for six years you deny yourself making any political speeches at all, it is really only fair that when you leave the other place you should be allowed to go back to those subjects which are, in their way, passionate interests.
I should like to turn to the speeches that have been made. I thought it was quite a coincidence that my noble friend Lord Aberdare should be announcing that very large sum of money, over £100 million, for the Health Service, particularly when he mentioned the mental hospitals, which of course are a part of

877
the Health Service and which, with all their care for other people which the noble Baroness told us about, the last Government appeared unable to put right. The fact is that these are enormous sums of money; and as the Arts want enormous sums of money, so I must somehow do my best to get a slice of the cake which will enable my right honourable and noble friends in the Government to do a great many things which we think are as much in need of fresh resources as things in the Health Service or raising the school-leaving age to 16. That is really the purpose of the whole exercise, which looks very small; but then a key often looks small in comparison with the door which it may open.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked me a number of questions. I was rather interested in what he said about free entry for 200 years to the British Museum. If my memory serves me right about the original charters of the British Museum, it is perfectly true that no-one had to pay, but the director was enjoined to admit only 10 people every three hours. That was the way, at the beginning of the British Museum, that they restrained people from coming in. But I quite agree that there is a departure from a tradition that has gone on for a very considerable time.
The noble Lord asked about old age pensioners, as did my noble friend Lord Bethel]. Of course one would like to make more exceptions, but I think this is just a matter of balanced judgment. We think it would be best to start this scheme off with the basic charge for 10 months in the year of 10p only, and half for children. If our calculations are right on the estimated number of attendances by categories—and of course there is a certain amount of doubt in the calculations—we shall get just the million, which is the figure we have set ourselves. I was asked about the cost. The gross takings would be about £1·2 million, the cost of the machines would be £55,000 for the 18 museums, and the cost of running would be 10 per cent. of the £1·2 million, or fractionally over. I cannot be absolutely sure at the present moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, asked, Could you not allow more concessions but put up the basis charge to 15p?"
878
He also asked about the machines. The point is that a machine which handles only one coin is apparently very much easier and does not break so often as a machine which handles two coins of different sizes. So you would have one separate machine for the children and the old age pensioners, and another machine for the people who have to pay 10p. It is said by the experts that people would not want to dodge from one machine to the other, which they would have to do if they were paying 15p. I am afraid that this is rather a technical matter, but I have gone into it quite carefully and I am advised that I cannot really recommend anything between 10p and 20p.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, my plea was for a 15p charge during the tourist season, leaving the 10p charge for the other 10 months.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I quite understand the noble Lord's point, but if we had a 15p charge at any season we should have to have machines all the year round to deal with it. Several noble Lords raised the matter of children not in parties. Of course some children are "carried in arms", which I understand is the technical term, and I believe that means children under the age of 3. Of course they will be allowed in free, just as they are allowed to travel free on British Railways. But as regards children over that age, it does not appear to those whom we have consulted that there are many children nowadays who do not have pocket money. We have looked at this aspect and this is the difference between the childhood of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown—and the time when I, too, was a child—and the present day. I do not know what was the average pocket money then, but we are now told that children between the ages of 0 and 15 have £125 million a year, £24 million of which they spend on sweets. Furthermore, the state of the toy industry is strikingly different from when the noble Lord and I were children. Last year £190 million was spent by parents on toys. All I am saying is that I think it would be wrong to imagine that children to-day have the same very small amount of pocket money a week, or none at all, as happened before the war.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I do not want to go into the difference between the noble Viscount's childhood and mine, but did he say that up to 3 they are regarded as being babies in arms? I shall be very surprised if that is true, but I just want to get it quite clear that that is what he said so that the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, can operate on that basis. Did he also say that when they are no longer babies in arms, and are between the ages of 3 and 15, they have £125 million a year to spend? Is that what the noble Viscount is saying?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I said between 0 and 15.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: Between 0 and 15? There must be less between 0 and 3. How much between 3 and 15? It is absolute rubbish!
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I think it is not rubbish. The noble Lord, if he likes, can check what I think are called the household budget statistics, where he will find these things. I am merely making the point that it is not the case that children are now so poor; and if you go to the Science Museum, where the child proportion of the total number of visitors is the highest, and talk to the people there, you hear some very interesting things about the children and what they have to spend.
On the disabled, my Lords, I ought to have reported to your Lordships' House that I told the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that we had difficulties in defining a disabled person, but that if that disabled person were in a chair then of course the attendant would be exempt, so that there would be only one instead of the two entrance charges to pay.
BARONESS LEE of ASFIERIDGE: My Lords, have I got that quite clear? The noble Viscount would exempt whoever might be wheeling the chair, but not the cripple?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: Or the other way round. It could be the other way round: nothing for the cripple and—
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: Why not both?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: It is thought it might then be abused to some extent. My noble friend Lord Perth made the very interesting suggestion that during the last half hour the public should be admitted free. I think that that point would need consideration. I do not know what the attendants would say about that, but, anyhow, it could be one of the matters looked at after the charges have been established for a certain time. I think I could tell my noble friend that, in my own view, if we ever can make a concession there I am rather in favour of a free period in the dead of winter, because when one looks at the graph of the attendances one sees how extraordinarily similar it is in all those places, and how in the very dead of winter—let us say between Christmas and the middle of January, or even between Christmas and the end of January—it falls right off.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I have been pondering what the noble Viscount has just said about when a cripple is being pushed by an attendant. How can he possibly justify charging an attendant who is rendering the cripple a service?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I do not know, but I believe there are various precedents. I will look into that point again, my Lords. My noble friend Lord Bethell said that he might lose his season ticket, and he asked whether he could then sign a book, as at the M.C.C. The M.C.C. is a very limited club, and I have no doubt that my noble friend is well recognised on arrival at the M.C.C. But it would be rather different, I think, at one of the national galleries; and I expect that if he does not have his season ticket he will find that he will have to pay the ordinary charge.
Coming now to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, I should like to give him the flexibility that he asked for, but in regard to the National Gallery I am in some confusion. He says that the Trustees of the National Gallery would very much favour a free day; in other words, that they are not apprehensive about overcrowding. But we have recently had a survey made by the Department of Education called Museums in Education, drawn up by, I think, Her Majesty's

881
Inspectors, and this is what they say about the National Gallery at the present time:
"The Gallery gives every encouragement to schools which show an interest in visiting. One such a policy is a booklet",
and it goes on to describe the booklet. It continues:
"However, with an average daily attendance of 5,000 from October to Easter, rising to between 10,000 and 20,000 in spring and summer, there is reluctance to undertake any additional publicity which might result in such overcrowding as to diminish the pleasure of visitors."
I asked about that statement, and what it means, of course, is that the National Gallery feel they have enough schoolchildren at the present time in the summer. This is what they told the inspectors. I want many more schoolchildren to go, and I have no doubt that if we do our publicity well, and if the museums have more space than they have now for giving instruction to teachers as to how best to take children round museums, we shall get a very large increase; and that is exactly why the National Gallery even now, with no question of there being the bunching up on a free day, do not want any more publicity for schoolchildren. I think that when this is what they tell us in this matter, we should be very careful before saying that a free day can be safely introduced.
I think, my Lords, this is where I really differ from the average trustee and, I believe, from quite a number of noble Lords on the other side. I am absolutely convinced that if we stimulate the demand to go to museums, if we produce or write literature, if we get on television the right help, we are going to see a very large increase in the attendance. After all, it takes a long time for a change in teaching in the maintained schools to come through in the adult population, as in the case, for example, of a change in taste or a different level of information. This is now beginning to happen; and, as we all want to stimulate it still more, we cannot wait for the overcrowding; we cannot wait until there have been semi-scandals. We surely ought to prepare for this now. I am quite prepared to talk to the Trustees on this matter, but I seriously doubt whether they would be wise to take the view that there should be a free day at the National
882
Gallery. Of course, one would not dare risk it except in the middle of the week, and then one comes up against the objections which the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, has pointed out; that not everybody really wants a free day.
I know that the noble;Lord, Lord Robbins, is one of those who say, more or less,"The money is so little; why do you worry about it?"My noble friend Lord Amory gave him the right answer. It is not very much money compared to what we need. I have just been looking, at this season of the year, at the Estimates which I should like to get through. It is not very much money, and no doubt I shall get what I want; but it is something that will help when all these other claims for domestic expenditure of one kind or another have to be put one against the other; and, unpopular though it is, I believe that I shall do better this way than by giving in.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, I just want to get the Record straight. I do not wish to enter into an argument at this stage as to whether a million pounds is or is not a large sum of money. I made my remark in relation to the reduction in the net revenue which would arise from the introduction of a free day at the National Gallery.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord the figures for that, if he likes. There is an estimate going round, given by Mr. Hugh Leggatt, which is not accurate. It may be that this has been drawn to the noble Lord's attention. The present estimate of the amount of money which the National Gallery collects in a year is £150,000. I suppose that if we had a free day, and assuming that one-fifth of the total weekly attendance will go on that free day, it means (and this is being very favourable to Lord Robbins) that the amount we should lose is £30,000. But as a result of free days we might have to raise the basic charge, because I am not prepared to see it happening in one museum and not in another to start with. We have of course other museums and more forward-looking ideas of the increase in the attendances. We might lose one-fifth of £1 million; that is, £200,000 a year. It is that which I cannot do and keep charges down to 10p. I think that is worth it. It may prove not to be worth

883
it in a few years' time, but it is worth it in starting the scheme.
My noble friend Lord St. Just also wanted a free day. I took notice of that. Any reader in the Library in the British Museum while still in the British Museum will get a benefit, in that he will be able to wander round the Museum without having paid an entrance fee. I could not ask them to pay just to go down the passage. The noble Lord asked how many turnstiles. I am afraid I cannot tell him precisely. We think the total cost will be £55,000 for the machines and the erection. The noble Lord, Lord Platt wanted a change in the wording of the Bill. That would be unusual but I am quite willing to consider it. I should say to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, that I have never been influenced by what happens in any foreign country. I do not care what they do in France, Germany or Italy. What we are doing here is I think in the best interests of the British museum service. I think I have never been found to quote an example from overseas.
The noble Lord, Lord Platt, also suggested the voluntary charge, but my noble friend Lord Perth dealt with that. I hardly think the voluntary collection. either on going in or on going out, would really suit the British public. I do not think they are quite like the American public. I am very doubtful whether, if you said that you ought to get £25,000, it would work. I was grateful for what Lord Trevelyan said and, as always, we will try to work with the Trustees of the British Museum.
Lord George-Brown spoke about the very poor people. He did not come when I was speaking before and he is not here when I am speaking now, but perhaps I may be allowed to refer to him. What interested me was that it is precisely these people who are not now museum-goers and who have perhaps lost out a bit in education whom I wish to attract; and they will not be attracted in very great numbers until the museums are enlarged to take care of them. You need all kinds of devices, such as particular rooms where you can have a discussion and where they can go and handle objects and that kind of thing. It is because our museums are not capable
884
at the present time of handling large numbers of exactly the sort of people that Lord George-Brown cares about—and so do I—that I want a big programme of expansion, if we can get it. Lord Birkett said that the Bill should pay attention to preservation. That is very necessary outside London. Most of the great galleries in London have admirable conservation departments, but it is not so in the Provinces.
My Lords, I hope that I have answered the questions that have been asked of me. I realise that this is a very hard thing to take for those who are accustomed to free entry and who think it is a great liberty. I think that what I am asking the House to consider is how much do we want to put the museums in a much better order, and have we really begun to make them what they should be if everybody—particularly those whose education begins and ends in our maintained schools—is to have a reasonable chance of going in and, when he gets there, of getting the amenities and information and so on. We have a tremendous way to go before that is possible. I should like to give it a small start, and this Bill is designed for that purpose. I commend it to the House.
On Question. Bill read 2ª and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LEGAL AID (EXTENSION OF PROCEEDINGS) REGULATIONS 1971
6.28 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I rise to move the first Motion standing in my name. I can say very little about this one, although I may have to make a slightly longer speech in respect of the second, and I rather trust that the Scottish Motion which is associated with each, perhaps with the consent of the House and to its greater convenience, may be dealt with at the same time, because so far as I know they are identical, mutatis mutandis.
This particular Statutory Instrument, the Legal Aid (Extension Proceedings) Regulations 1971, simply gives effect to my undertaking to the House at the request of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, on May 27 last (column 1318 of the

885
OFFICIAL REPORT) to apply legal aid to proceedings before the Industrial Court. There are many controversial matters in the Industrial Relations Act, in relation both to the Industrial Court and to other provisions, but I think that this promise of mine did not meet with any kind of controversy. Therefore, unless there is some particular aspect of it that I can deal with at the request of noble Lords, I will just: move it with those words, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) Regulations 1971 be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL AID (SCOTLAND) (EXTEN SION OF PROCEEDINGS) (No. 2) REGULATIONS 1971
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRIJMALBYN): My Lords, as my noble and learned friend has said, this Statutory Instrument is in identical terms, mutatis mutandis. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Extension of Proceedings (No. 2) Regulations 1971 be approved.—(Lord Drunialbyn.)
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, all I rise to say is that I noted the mutates which has done the mutandis and I agree.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL COURT (APPEALS) ORDER 1971
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR rose to move, That the Draft Industrial Court (Appeals) Order 1971 laid before the House on November 3 be approved. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the second Motion standing my name, and again I think that the Scottish Motion raises exactly the same points and that it may be for the convenience of the House if the two are dealt with together. Again I hope that this Order will give rise to no controversy. One of the few sections of the Industrial Relations Act which virtually excited none in this House was Section 114. The
886
purpose of this Motion is to activate Section 114, except in one respect to which I will come in a moment.
Section 114 enables the Lord Chancellor, in respect of England and Wales, to transfer to the Industrial Court the appellate jurisdiction now exercised by the High Court in appeals from the industrial tribunals in so far as these relate to the relationship of employer and employed. The remaining appeals are to continue to be heard by the High Court as now—that is to say, those not dealt with in the Order, being those under the Industrial Training Act 1964, the Docks and Harbours Act 1966, and the Selective Employment Payments Act 1966. The appeals which are referred to in the Order are those arising under the Contracts of Employment Act 1963, the Redundancy Payments Act 1965, the Equal Pay Act 1970, and those under the Industrial Relations Act 1971, which relate to unfair dismissal proposals.
The jurisdiction for the industrial tribunals to hear cases of common law wrongful dismissal (that is, Section 113 of the Act) is not to be activated at the moment. It follows that it is not necessary to make provision for appeals, and I have not therefore activated Section 113 ("Appeals") in this Order. Industrial tribunals are already hearing complaints under the Contracts of Employment Act and the Redundancy Payments Act. Complaints under the Equal Pay Act have not yet been activated, so for some time there will be no appeals under this Act to add to the workload of the Industrial Court. Complaints regarding unfair dismissal under the Act of 1971 will begin early in the New Year when that part of the Act is commenced by order of my right honourable friend.
My Lords, the House will recall that appeals of this type are limited to questions of law. The Industrial Court is already fully constituted since, on my recommendation, Mr. Justice Donaldson has already been appointed to the Presidency of the Court in England and my right honourable friend has made a similar Scottish appointment; and nine lay members have been appointed on the recommendation of my right honourable friend the Secretary for Employment. There will of course be further appointments if the workload justifies it.
If I may now come from the general to the particular, the operative paragraph of the Order is Paragraph 3, the first two being purely formal. Paragraph 4 is designed to exclude overlapping of jurisdiction with the High Court. Paragraph 5 is transitional, and under Paragraph 5 current appeals, except those on the hearing of which the High Court has already acted, are transferred. As regards pending appeals transferred, the Industrial Court will have the same power over costs as the High Court at present enjoys; that is, to preserve existing rights. My Lords, I think that that really covers the clauses, and I therefore beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Industrial Court (Appeals) Order 1971 laid before the House on November 3, be approved. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
6.32 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I think that all that I need to do is to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having explained this Order so fully. Our own views as to those matters affecting this Order which are embodied in the Act itself were made very clear during the discussion of the Act, and there is no point in extending that argument on this occasion. Once the Act has been passed, it follows that the Government proceed to bring it into operation in this way; and having had the benefit of advice on the legal technicalities from my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, all I need do is again to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his explanation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL COURT (APPEALS) (SCOTLAND) ORDER 1971
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie I think it would be appropriate if I moved this Order formally. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Industrial Court (Appeals) (Scotland) Order, 1971 laid before the House on November 3, be approved.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

METER READING: USE OF AUTOMATIC EQUIPMENT
LORD CROOK LORD CROOK asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Department of Trade and Industry will now publish the report by Messrs. W. S. Atkins & Partners of their study, made on behalf of the Department, as to domestic meter reading and the possible application of automatic equipment in the meter-reading function.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Subject to the agreement of our partners in this study the report will be published as soon as possible. These partners include the Post Office Corporation and the Livingston Development Corporation.

PROPERTY DAMAGE BY AIRCRAFT: COMPENSATION RIGHTS
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN asked Her Majesty's Government:
What remedies in law exist against damage to property from vibration caused by aircraft.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Section 40(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1949 provides that where material loss or damage is caused to any person or property on land or water by a civil aircraft, damages shall be recoverable without proof of negligence from the owner of the aircraft. No remedies exist in law against any military aircraft flying by virtue of the Royal Prerogative for the purpose of the defence of the realm or of training or of maintaining the efficiency of any of the armed forces of the Crown. The Claims Commission of the Ministry of Defence will, however, pay compensation on an ex gratia basis if satisfied that the damage has been caused by a military aircraft.

WEATHER FORECASTS AND TEMPERATURE SCALES
LORD CLITHEROE LORD CLITHEROE asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in view of the fact that Parliament has not made any decision on

889
the use of Centigrade rather than Fahrenheit, they will arrange for the Meteorological Office to give in their weather bulletins the temperatures in Fahrenheit as well as in Centigrade, seeing that the latter is not meaningful to many people in the English speaking world.
LORD CARRINGTON: Since 1961 the Celsius scale, better known in this country as the Centigrade scale, has been the internationally agreed scale for the measurement of temperatures in meteorological work.
The Centigrade scale was first introduced into public weather forecasts issued by the Meteorological Office in 1962 and until recently the Fahrenheit equivalent was always given. The use and acceptance of the Centigrade scale is however increasing all the time. During 1970 recorded forecasts for the Automatic
890
Telephone Weather Service and weather presentations of a number of independent television companies went over exclusively to degrees Centigrade. More recently the B.B.C., in consultation with the Meteorological Office, decided to omit certain of the Fahrenheit equivalents in their radio forecasts; the charts used for television forecasts also use only the Centigrade scale.
It seems likely that the Fahrenheit scale will eventually fall into disuse and it would be confusing to attempt to reverse this trend. There are obvious disadvantages in having two scales of temperature but the Meteorological Office will always give enquirers, on request, temperatures in the Fahrenheit scale as well as in the Centigrade scale.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.