§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
§ Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, I had intended to put an Amendment on the Marshalled List, but time did not permit. As it is my intention to bring the matter to your Lordships' attention again on Third Reading, I thought it proper and for the convenience of the House if I said what was in my mind at this stage of your Lordships' proceedings, and that the Minister will convey it to his right honourable friend, or ask him to read it, in the hope that further consideration may be given to what is, after all, an extremely important matter.
My Lords, on Committee stage I moved an Amendment asking that money should be provided by the Government. That of course, was in accord with the policy advocated by the Labour Party when in opposition both in this House and in another place. I was turned down on the grounds that, "we could not possibly afford it; it would be quite wrong at this time of our economic difficulties to give any money at all for a purpose of this kind". Among the other peurile banalities we got from the other side of the Committee it was claimed, "How can we give money for such a purpose? What about the claims on social security, the claims for housing?" One noble Lord said that he hoped your Lordships would oppose my Amendment most strongly because, "What would our allies think of us if on the day we have a cut in defence expenditure we actually gave money in order to help British sport?"
I read with some amazement reports in the Press this morning, and again this afternoon. There have been murmurings over the last few days as to what is happening to the Arts Council. The Arts Council is to get £6 million more. The history is extremely interesting. I want to put these facts on the Record in the hope that the Government, at this eleventh hour, will realise the implications of their policy. In 1963, in the year before the Labour Government came to power, the total amount received by way of taxation, 570 right across the board, from betting and football pools, and so on, was of the order of £33 million. Under the authority of the Prime Minister it has now grown in this current year to be £240 million. At the same time, the Arts Council was getting just over £2 million. In 1972–73 that figure had grown to £13½ million. In the year covered by the last annual report published a few days ago by the Arts Council, the figure grew to £17½ million. In the current year, the Government, who cannot give a penny to anything else, are giving back £750,000 from VAT; an additional grant of £19½ million plus £1¾ million supplementary estimate, making a total of £22 million. Today, the announcement is made that the Council will get a further £6 million. This, from a Government who could not spend a "tosser", not even £500,000, to honour their own word, strikes me as odd. The figure for the Arts Council for 1974–75 is said to be £28 million. I do not think that is very accurate, but the Press never is. I think the figure is probably of the order of £25 million. My noble friend nods his head. I have been talking this morning to the Arts Council and, if my sums are right, without any shadow of doubt, the figure for this year for the Arts Council is £22 million. A jump in a couple of years from £17 million to £22 million is not bad to be going on with.
Therefore I give notice that I propose to put down an Amendment to give the Government a chance for second thoughts. I will not press it. I just want to give notice of the fact. I am not asking for anything from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. All I am asking him to do is to go back to the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary is not the last word. The present Home Secretary was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time when the Report on Football was presented by Sir Norman Chester and his Committee. That powerful Committee, appointed by a Labour Government, recommended that a grant should be given to enable football stadia to be used all the week for social purposes other than the playing of the game on Saturday afternoons. That Committee recommended a levy, but nothing was done about it. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, came along and 571 said that one of the things the Government have in mind is a football levy. But I do not place much hope in that, if a recommendation was made six years ago and nothing has been done about it yet. We have the Departmental colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, saying the matter is complicated and controversial and holding out no hope of piecemeal legislation.
I am asking that British sport should have the same treatment as the Arts. My Amendment will ask for a subvention of £28 million. I frankly admit that I am using sports stadia as a peg on which to hang my argument because basically, in so far as an uncouth creature like myself can ever use the word "culture", we have a bifurcated culture, which is wrong. If we look at the Report of the Arts Council, we find no less than approximately £4¼ million spent on the Royal Opera House, the Saddler's Wells Trust, the National Theatre Board and the Royal Shakespeare Theatre. I do not begrudge a penny of it; I would give more. I go to see Shakespeare plays when I have the time, and when I can afford it. But the number of people attending those four institutions to which we donate a figure of £4¼ million, does not equal the attendance at one moderately successful football club game.
My Lords, I assert to your Lordships—and I am being a Philistine, which is by nature of my upbringing—that I am not opposed to the Arts. Every penny that can be given to the Arts I welcome. But I assert that there is no cultural difference between Pele and Pavlova, or even the Panovs. Pele is an artist, a supreme artist. He is subject to the same spiritual disciplines and the same disciplines in the development of his physique, and when he scores a goal he is expressing the same agility, the same qualities as indeed did Pavlova or as the Panovs do. And, to my mind, those who care to eat fish and chips in the betting shop or go to the bingo hall are just as good as any one of your Lordships. The only difference is that the members of the present Administration—as do your Lordships—all patronise the Arts; therefore, they are quite content to go on subsidising for ever and ever those activities in which they engage. But the activities in which I and my kind are engaged must not have 572 a "tosser", even if it is to make a ground safe. I do not understand. I must confess that with my economics, poor as they are, learned in WEA classes, I just cannot appreciate that if a Government abandon the pricing system, as this Government have done; and rely upon subsidies, we should not all have a right to put our snouts in the trough. It must not be only a concern for those who have Firsts in Modern Greats or Firsts in Aesthetics. We are all entitled to put our snouts in the trough and get our share.
I will not detain your Lordships any further, except to say that I propose to raise this matter again on Thursday afternoon. I shall be entirely satisfied if the Government, through the mouth of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will say, "Well, of course, this is complicated and it is difficult, but we promise to go away, without prejudice, and look at the problem and see what can be done". If he does not do it, the campaign will be carried on at every opportunity that is given both in this House and another place, on every platform open to us, because those who think like me assert that the Arts are important, and so is sport; they are all part of our national endeavour, and if the Government are to support one they should support the lot.
§ 4.33 p.m.
§ Lord FORBESMy Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has said in respect of more money for sport. But before I say anything more, I should declare an interest in that I am Chairman of the National Playing Fields Association in Scotland. This Government and all other Governments must understand that the future of this country depends not just on people but on people of character, and to achieve this we must have playing fields and recreational facilities so that young people have the opportunity to let off steam and build character.
I travelled down from Aberdeen to Edinburgh last Saturday. There had just been a football match in Aberdeen, and the train was full of young people returning from the match. Incidentally a lot of them started breaking up the train. There were four of them in my carriage, aged between 17 and 19. I asked them whether they ever played any games. They said they were all very keen on playing. They 573 had played a lot at school, but since leaving school they found it extremely difficult to find anywhere to play. I think that it is really disgraceful when young people in this country cannot find somewhere to play. We know that sport is something that goes a long way to build character. Governments spend money on hospitals to keep people alive and to repair the body, but yet they seem to do very little towards trying to develop the characters of people. It is the characters of people that will count and which will enable this country to get out of its present mire, if anything will.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, recognised when he spoke that I had had virtually no notice of the point he intended to make, and, therefore, I will, if I may, deal with the matter when the Bill comes up on Third Reading.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ Clause 3 [Applications for certificates]:
§
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 21, leave out "the building authority and the fire authority" and insert "and the building authority".
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment to Clause 3, it may be for the convenience of the House if I also deal with the Amendments to Clause 4, the Amendments to page 5 in Clause 5, and the Amendments to Clauses 11 and 16.
§ I foreshadowed these Amendments in my speech during the Committee stage of the Bill. Their purpose is to delete the present references in the Bill to the fire authority. When the Bill was originally introduced, there were in existence in England and Wales one or two combined fire authorities which were not the same as the local authorities in the Bill. Accordingly provision was made for the fire authority, if it was not itself the local authority, to be consulted about matters relating to safety certificates, so that the fire service point of view would not be overlooked. I remind your Lordships that the Government hope that the service will be the principal agent of the local authorities in enforcing the provisions of the Bill. However, with the reorganisation of local government, there 574 are no longer any combined fire authorities and the need for this provision has consequently disappeared. My Lords, I beg to move.
§ Earl COWLEYMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for expanding the reasons which he gave at Committee stage for these Amendments. We have no grounds to oppose them.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 4 [Amendment etc. of certificates]:
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 15, leave out "the building authority and the fire authority "and insert" and the building authority "—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
§
Amendment moved—
line 18, leave out "the building authority and the fire authority "and insert" and the building authority".—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 5 [Appeals]:
§ 4.37 p.m.
§
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 4.
line 39, after "appellant" insert", the local authority".
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I now move the Amendments to page 4 in Clause 5, and it may be for the convenience of the House if I also deal with the Amendments to Clause 10. The main purposes of this group of Amendments are, first, to ensure that a local authority, in common with the appellant and other interested parties, have the right to be heard when an appeal against any of their requirements or decisions is being considered by the Secretary of State under the provisions of Clause 5; and, secondly, to ensure that a local authority, in common with other interested parties, have a right of appeal to the Crown Court against an order by a magistrates' court under the provisions of Clause 10.
§ I should perhaps add this. In addition, in the case of a sports ground which is 575 not the subject of a designation order, the management have no right of appeal at present because they do not qualify under Clause 5(5)(a) or (b). Obviously, they should have a right of appeal, and the new subsection (4) provides for this. The new subsection (5) makes a similar provision for Scotland. I foreshadowed the earlier points when I spoke at Committee stage, and I think I will probably carry the noble Earl with me on the latter points. My Lords, I beg to move.
§ Earl COWLEYMy Lords, could the noble Lord expand on the problem of costs? Who would pay the costs of local authority's appearance, or does that depend on the individual case concerned?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, is the noble Earl referring to the first point I mentioned, rather than the second?
§ Earl COWLEYYes, my Lords.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, it is a question of the right of appeal that we are talking about. This matter was not recognised by the Government; it was, I believe, brought to our attention by the Greater London Council. It is remarkable that, given the fact that the Bill has now come here three times, there was at least this one point which had not previously been considered. It is an appeal right rather than anything else.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
§
Amendment moved—
Line 40, after "appellant" insert ", to the local authority".—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 7, at end insert (" and ").—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
§
Amendment moved—
Line 8, leave out from "authority" to end of line 9.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 10 [Emergency procedure]:
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 8, line 15, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
(4) In England and Wales any of the following persons may appeal to the Crown Court against an order under subsection (1) or (2) above or the refusal of an application for such an order, namely—
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 8, line 18, at end insert:
(5) In Scotland, it shall be competent for any of the following persons to appeal against an order made on an application under this section or the refusal of such an application, namely—
notwithstanding that that person was not party to the proceedings on that application."—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 11 [Powers of entry and inspection]:
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 22, leave out paragraph (c).—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 16 [Interpretation]:
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 11, leave out lines 29 to 31.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.