HL Deb 01 February 1972 vol 327 cc700-4

4.4 p.m.

BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE

My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.

Moved. That the Report be now received.—(Baroness Lee of Asheridge.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 2 [Restriction on the hours of plays on Sundays]:

BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 21, leave out ("opened and").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related. Their purpose is to clarify the agreement reached with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester at Committee stage, that when the Bill refers to the opening hour of a theatre it means the hour at which the public is admitted, not the hour when the performance begins. These two Amendments are simply drafting. My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE moved Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 7, at end insert: (3) For the purposes of this section premises shall be deemed to be used for the public performance of a play at any time during which members of the public are present in the auditorium of the premises in connection with such a public performance.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as I have said this Amendment is related to Amendment No. 1 and clarifies the same point. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 3: After Clause 3 insert the following new clause:

Provisions as to contracts of employment

".—(1) It shall not be lawful to include in any contract of employment to perform in any play, a provision requiring a person to take part in a public performance of that play on more than six days in any week.

(2) In this section the expression 'week' means any period of seven consecutive days."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, your Lordships will observe that this is the new clause which I introduced earlier, the purpose of which was to make it unlawful to include in any contract of employment a provision requiring a person to take part in the public performance of a play on more than six days in any week. On the surface, this seems straightforward and utterly reasonable, but a great deal of work has been done to clarify precisely what is meant. I am most grateful to the Home Office, to my colleague the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and, although this is a Private Bill and is not a Government measure, to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who has been more than helpful.

There is no doubt at all about our intentions. We do not want anyone, whether performers or technicians, to be compelled against his will to work seven days at a stretch in a theatre. But when we consulted the unions—Equity and the technicians' union—and individual artistes, we found that they were really anxious not to be forbidden to work on the seventh day. It was pointed out to us that the theatre is different from most other occupations. Sometimes there will be a long run of a play, and sometimes there will be only a very short run. There is also a great deal of seasonal work, particularly in the commercial theatre. So many complications were raised, pointing out all the different terms of contract, the different circumstances, the different needs, that finally even I was convinced—and I took a great deal of convincing—that it was impossible to get a simple form of words which could be included in the Statute to cover all that we intended.

Fortunately, the commercial theatre, and the theatre for which the Arts Council and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, are responsible, have agreed to exchange letters with both Equity and the technicians' union, so that the terms of employment will be decided directly between the unions, the men's representatives, and the employers, whether they are working on the commercial side of the theatre or at the State-subsidised end of it. If the unions had objected to this procedure, then I should have felt very uneasy. But as all the people who are most knowledgeable about the enormous complications and different circumstances involved have agreed on this exchange of letters. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the Question is that the Amendment be, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has not yet actually put the Question. I do not see how the Amendment can be withdrawn until he has put the Question. But I am sure that the noble and learned Lord —

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the noble Lord is right, but I do not think the noble Baroness had moved the Amendment. So perhaps what I ought to have done was to—

BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE

My Lords, may I explain? The only way in which it was possible to raise this matter again at Report stage in your Lordships' House was to put down the Amendment, and then ask your Lordships' permission afterwards to withdraw it.

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, before the noble Baroness withdraws the Amendment, one or two other Members of your Lordships' House may like to contribute to the debate. I am well aware that it was the noble Baroness's intention to put down this same Amendment again, in order to provide an opportunity for further debate, and that it was her intention then to withdraw it.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, may I say, with the greatest respect, that, acting in the absence of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, the noble Lord is absolutely right. It seems to me impossible for a noble Lord or Baroness to speak to an Amendment which he or she has not moved. It could be, of course—and I say this with the greatest respect to my noble friend—that it might be very unfair to other noble Lords, because one could get up and say the most frightful things (though nothing my noble friend has said was other than very acceptable) and then, before anybody could reply, nip out of sight. So, with the greatest respect, I would suggest that the Amendment should be moved and that the Question should be put, and, then, if no noble Lord wishes to speak, that would be the moment for my noble friend to withdraw her Amendment.

BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE

I am sorry, my Lords. I tried to save time. I beg to move the Amendment.

THE LORD BISHOP OF PORTSMOUTH

My Lords, I had been going to speak, partly on my own behalf but more particularly on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, who was concerned at the Committee stage but who sends his apologies for unfortunately not being able to be here to-day. But as the indication has been given that this Amendment will be withdrawn, I will say merely that I am perfectly happy to accept the lead which the noble Baroness has given.

BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE

Then I ask leave of your Lordships to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 [Short Title and extent]:

BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4.

Amendment moved—

Page 2, line 32, at end insert— ("(3) This Act shall come into force at the expiration of a period of one month beginning with the date of its passing.")—(Baroness Lee of Asheridge.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.