Sitting of 11 July 1957

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ARUNDEL ESTATE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    FINSBURY SQUARE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next at Seven o'clock.
    GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Read a Second time; to be considered Tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES

    Social Services
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what proposals have been made by the Governments of the High Commission Territories for pension or other schemes for old age, disability, and blindness.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the then Under-Secretary of State, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble), to the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) on 25th October of last year.
    Mr. Brockway: Things have happened since then. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Union of South Africa has now introduced pensions for old age, disability and blindness? Cannot we at least do something similar in our British Protectorates?
    Mr. Alport: Her Majesty's Government are anxious to improve the standard of social services in any way that is possible in accordance with the economic conditions of the territories, but, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will admit, it is important that economic development should be the precursor of any elaboration of the social services, because without a basis of economic development it would be impossible to carry them very far.
    Mr. Brockway: I would not admit that.

    Urban Areas, Swaziland (African Settlement)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what provision is made, or planned, for the settlement of Africans in urban areas in Swaziland; and, in particular, what are the housing facilities for Africans in the urban districts of Hlatikulu, Mbabane, and Bremersdorp, respectively.
    Mr. Alport: In Mbabane and Bremersdorp Africans own numerous freehold plots on which they may erect their own buildings. In addition, Africans are permitted to erect temporary buildings free of charge on Government land in Mbabane, Bremersdorp, and Hlatikulu. Housing is provided in urban areas for Africans in Government service. The Resident Commissioner has recently appointed a Committee to advise him on future plans for African settlement in urban areas.
    Mr. Brockway: While I welcome recent advances, can the hon. Gentleman say whether the urban areas are reserved for Europeans, whether there is segregation in locations, and whether Africans are placed in areas which are some distance from their work? Will he look into this matter?
    Mr. Alport: If the hon. Gentleman will table a Question on that subject, I will do my best to answer it in due course.

  FEDERATION OF RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

    Constitution (Conference)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what is the earliest date on which

    515
    the conference, provided for in Article 99 of the Constitution of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, may be convened.
    Mr. Alport: 23rd October, 1960.
    Mr. Brockway: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten Sir Roy Welensky about this, because he has spoken of two and a half years as the period in which amendments to the Constitution can be achieved?
    Mr. Alport: The date to which I have referred is the one which is effective on the basis of the provisions of Article 99 of the Constitution. I am sure that the Prime Minister of the Federation is well aware of it. He may have spoken rather broadly about the time.
    Mr. Callaghan: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if there appears to be any attempt to hasten the conference unduly in order to secure an advantage for some group or community, it will not only increase resentment but make much more difficult the task of those who seek constitutional reform?
    Mr. Alport: The provisions in the Constitution are quite clear on this matter.

  OVERSEAS MIGRATION BOARD (CHILD ALLOWANCE)
  Mr. Fisherasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if the Government will now implement the recommendation of the Oversea Migration Board in their successive annual reports that the child migration allowance of 10s. per week per child to the Fairbridge Society and the Northcote Children's Emigration Trust should be increased to £1 per week per child.
  Mr. Alport: My noble Friend has considered this recommendation but has reached the conclusion that it would not be right to increase the maintenance rates for migrant children on the information at present available to him.
  Mr. Fisher: As my hon. Friend is now Chairman of the Oversea Migration Board, which has twice made this recommendation in successive reports—it was, in fact, a recommendation to him from
  516
  his predecessor—will he use his influence with the Treasury to secure the implementation of such a relatively modest but helpful increase?
  Mr. Alport: If my hon. Friend has any further information which he would like to put before me or would care to discuss the matter with me, I shall be only too glad to go into it with him.

  EDUCATION

    School Meals
    Mr. Lewisasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what protests he has received from the Education Authority of the County Borough of West Ham over the price of school meals; what was the nature of the recent protest, and his reply; and whether he will give details of the fall-off of meals taken at school in West Ham for each of the years from 1951.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): The West Ham Local Education Authority wrote to the Ministry on 22nd March and a reply was sent on 2nd April last; I am sending the hon. Member a copy of these letters. As the answer to the last part of the Question contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Lewis: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that a number of hon. Gentlemen, both on this side of the House and the Government side, would like to know the details of the protest? Will the hon. Gentleman therefore circulate it in HANSARD? Will not the figures which he mentions confirm that each time the price of the meals has gone up there has been a fall-off in the number of children taking school meals? Will he do something to bring down the price of these meals?
    Sir E. Boyle: The figures for West Ham to which this Question relates, while falling sharply between 1952 and 1953, have fluctuated quite a good deal since from year to year. I cannot say what other factors besides the change in the charge may have contributed to this fluctuation.
    Following is the information:
    The annual returns submitted by the West Ham Authority give these figures for a selected day in the autumn of each year:

    Year

    Number of pupils taking the school dinner

    This number as a percentage of the pupils present

    1951

    …

    10,523

    41·2

    1952

    …

    11,260

    42·4

    1953

    …

    9,035

    34·7

    1954

    …

    9,356

    34·1

    1955

    …

    9,825

    36·5

    1956

    …

    9,480

    34·6

    Mrs. Slaterasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education the number of school meals provided for the months of February, March, April, and May for 1956 and 1957, respectively.
    Sir E. Boyle: I regret that this information is not available, as my Department's returns relate to a selected date in the autumn.
    Mrs. Slater: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in almost every area, and particularly in large industrial areas, the number of children taking school meals is dropping and that in Stoke the drop was 7,000 in the month of May? This is largely due to the fact that the school meal has gone up in price. Would the hon. Gentleman take every possible care to get local authorities and teachers to see that no child suffers and that free meals are available if the need arises?
    Sir E. Boyle: It will not be possible to make a valid comparison with 1956 until we have the normal autumn return in the latter part of the year. That will show the full effect of the increase from 10d. to 1s., which took effect in April of this year.
    Dr. Summerskill: Is it not a fact that this miserable economy at the expense of the poorest children must inevitably be reflected in their physique? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the stunted child never recovers, however much food it is given in after years?
    Sir E. Boyle: When the full figures are available at a later stage we can discuss these matters, when I am sure the right hon. Lady will have eloquent remarks to make, including more remarks about physique.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Will the Parliamentary Secretary look at the facts that have been brought out, both arising from this Question and from Question No. 5? Does not it become evident that there is a clear causal connection between rising prices and the falling-off in school meals and that the matter ought to be looked at again?
    Sir E. Boyle: The question specifically relates to
    "February. March, April and May for 1956 and 1957."
    I did suggest that we should suspend judgment until the normal autumn return is available.
    Mr. N. Pannell: Is it not a fact that the children of the poorest parents get these meals free?
    Hon. Members: No.

    Warwickshire
    Mr. Mossasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education if he will estimate the percentage grammar school intake in the area served by the Atherstone Grammar School in the County of Warwick.
    Sir E. Boyle: About 14 per cent.
    Mr. Moss: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that he has given only a nominal percentage and that the effective grammar school intake is more like 10 per cent.? Is he aware that this fall is caused by the deferment of some pupils until September, 1958? Is he further aware that this is also the percentage of selective intake as well as of grammar school intake, and will he ask the county education authority to look at this particular area and then report how he proposes to raise selective education nearer to 20 per cent.?
    Sir E. Boyle: It is worth bearing in mind that extensions to Atherstone Grammar School will be ready by September, 1958, and that the standard of selection in this part of the county is no more severe than in others.
    Mr. Mossasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what staffing deficiencies exist in secondary modern schools at Wilnecote, Kingsbury, Atherstone and Polesworth in the County of Warwick; and what deficiencies are expected in September, 1957.
    Sir E. Boyle: I understand from the Warwickshire Local Education Authority that at present these schools have eight fewer teachers than they would wish. I cannot say what the position will be in september.
    Mr. Moss: Can the Minister confirm whether or not there has been a mistake at Wilnecote for September next, where it appears that the teacher-pupil ratio will be 55 to one? It is 38 at Atherstone, 28 at Polesworth and 27 at Kingsbury. Is he aware that in the Report of the United Nations on the World Social Situation it is stated that the world teacher-pupil ratio is only betwen 35 and 36?
    Sir E. Boyle: The staffing of individual schools is a matter for the local education authority, but if there is one particular detail regarding a particular school perhaps the hon. Gentleman will communicate with me.
    Mr. Mossasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what steps are being taken to make more grammar school places available in the area served by the Atherstone Grammar School in the County of Warwick either by enlargement of the existing grammar school or by the organisation of General Certificate of Education courses at other appropriate secondary schools.
    Sir E. Boyle: Atherstone Grammar School is being extended and a G.C.E. course has been started at Polesworth County Secondary School.
    Mr. Moss: Are not these improvements such as will bring up the grammar intake to 14 per cent. by September, 1958? Is the Minister aware that there will be an inflow of Birmingham overspill population which will require improvements in addition to those he has mentioned?
    Sir E. Boyle: Yes, Sir. In regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I understand that the Warwickshire Local Education Authority is considering the need for providing more places in the selective schools in connection with the possibility of overspill from Birmingham.

    Milk Tablets
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education in how many schools milk tablets
    520
    are given to scholars in place of fresh or reconstituted milk; and for what reason this choice is made.
    Sir E. Boyle: Fifteen. A satisfactory supply of fresh milk cannot be arranged for these schools, and the children prefer tablets to reconstituted milk.
    Mr. Hastings: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise how much the health of school children depends upon the milk-in-schools scheme? Does he also realise that these abominable milk tablets can never take the place of fresh or reconstituted milk? Has he ever tried to eat ten tablets such as are given to these children, and, if so, how long has it taken him?
    Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir, but I am told that at some of the fifteen schools using tablets pupils who have previously refused to drink reconstituted milk now seem quite to enjoy sucking their tablets. My noble Friend approves the supply of tablets or dried milk only where he is satisfied that satisfactory arrangements cannot be made for the supply of fresh milk.

    Opticians and Dentists
    Mrs. Slaterasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education the number of full-time and part-time opticians and dentists employed in the school medical service of local authorities.
    Sir E. Boyle: So far as I am aware no opticians are employed by local education authorities. Last December the school dental service was staffed by 947 dentists in full-time local authority service and 567 others employed on a sessional basis.
    Mrs. Slater: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in Stoke there are part-time opticians employed at very large fees, that every local authority is having very great difficulty in obtaining full-time dentists, and that this position is having a very detrimental effect on the service which can be given? Is he further aware that many school medical officers are now saying quite definitely that a comprehensive school dental service is impossible? Would he not consult his right hon. and learned Friend to see what inducement and encouragement can be given to dentists to undertake this work?
    Sir E. Boyle: I will consult my right hon. and learned Friend about this, or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Heatlh. It is fair to point out that the staff of the school dental service in England and Wales has risen appreciably during the last five years, although we all recognise that it is still well below optimum requirements.

    Teachers
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what financial help is available from public funds to teachers taking supplementary courses in mathematics.
    Sir E. Boyle: Teachers employed by local education authorities are seconded on salary to supplementary courses in all subjects. Tuition is free. Other expenses are borne by the teacher.
    Mr. Stewart: Has the Parliamentary Secretary considered that this arrangement, while quite suitable for a teacher without any dependants, is not altogether suitable for teachers with families dependent on them? Will he look at the matter in view of the importance of persuading teachers to take up this course?
    Sir E. Boyle: Of course, I will consider any matter the hon. Gentleman likes to bring to my attention. I am writing to him about the particular case he raises.
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education whether he will now introduce the necessary regulations to ensure that all future entrants to the teaching profession shall have received training either in a recognised training college or in a university training department; and whether he will make a statement.
    Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir.
    Mr. Thomas: Whilst thanking the hon. Gentleman for that very full reply, may I ask if he is aware that this Question includes one of the motions which was passed at the recent Conference of the National Union of Teachers and that the profession feels strongly about it? Will he try to give a reasonable reply?
    Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend is fully aware of the strong views of the National Union of Teachers on this
    522
    matter, but he must also take into account all the needs of the schools. We cannot afford to recruit into the maintained schools fewer graduates and other untrained specialists than we do now.
    Miss Baconasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education how many students desirous of entering a teachers' training college in 1956 were unable to gain a place in 1956 and were again refused admission in 1957.
    Sir E. Boyle: I regret that this information is not available.
    Miss Bacon: Will not the hon. Gentleman take steps to get this information? Is he aware that for years past parents have been told that there is this shortage of teachers and they have been encouraged to keep their children at school, but it is pretty hard on those parents if, after keeping their children at school until they are 19, they find the children cannot enter training colleges?
    Sir E. Boyle: There is no central register of applications. In any case, the figure for which the hon. Lady asks would really mean little by itself. It is important to have quality as well as quantity.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that one of the effects of the proposed three-year training as at present conceived will be to reduce the number of places available for people proposing to take up the teaching profession? Would he not accept, therefore, that it is important to get a figure of this kind so that we may know whether we are turning away from the profession people who are qualified to take it up?
    Sir E. Boyle: More students are being admitted in 1957, but at the same time competition is keener than it was in 1956, which I should have thought was not a bad state of affairs.
    Miss Baconasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education if he will devise machinery whereby students who remain at school to become teachers and fail to gain a place in a training college one year are given high priority for the next year.
    Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir. My noble Friend thinks that colleges are right to

    523
    choose the best candidates, without giving priority to those who have made previous applications.
    Miss Bacon: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that if boys or girls are suited to be teachers they ought to be admitted to training college at least in the second year in which they apply, and that if they are not suited to be teachers, they ought to be so informed in order that their parents can arrange another career for them?
    Sir E. Boyle: I really disagree with the hon. Lady on this question. We want quality, and the only way to get that is to get colleges to judge people on their merits. If the would-be teachers improve their academic ability between the first time they apply and the second time they apply, so much the better, but it would be wrong to interfere with the rights of colleges to examine applicants on their merits.
    Mrs. Slater: Does this not raise the question of provision of places in training colleges, because it means that many girls and boys who are unable to get into college in the first year or the second year will give up the idea of teaching altogether? Will the hon. Gentleman look at the whole problem again in the light of freeing all places?
    Sir E. Boyle: That question raises rather wider questions which we discussed in April. At the present time we are getting more students in the colleges; the improvement in quality is not a bad thing.

    Educational Maintenance Allowances (Increases)
    Mr. G. Longdenasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what conclusions he has reached on the Report of the Working Party on Educational Maintenance Allowances; and what action he proposes to take.
    Sir E. Boyle: The Report is being published today. My noble Friend is informing local education authorities that he accepts the Working Party's recommendations that the general level of maintenance allowances should be raised, but he has decided to approve maximum allowances of £40, £55 and £65 a year for pupils aged 15, 16 and 17 respectively, in place of
    524
    the somewhat higher figures recommended by the Working Party.
    Mr. Longden: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate him and my noble Friend upon this advance.

    Smoking and Lung Cancer
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what steps he is taking to ensure that senior pupils in schools are made acquainted with the latest conclusions of the Medical Research Council on the probable relationship between cigarette smoking and cancer of the lung.
    Sir E. Boyle: My noble Friend has sent copies of the statement in the House on 27th June to local education authorities and to all independent schools. My noble Friend considers that it must be left to teachers themselves to decide how to make their senior pupils acquainted with these conclusions. He hopes, however, that they will in any case also encourage young people to use their own judgment on the choice of the best directions in which to spend their money.
    Mr. Hastings: Cannot the Minister go a step further and make direct suggestions to the teachers—suggestions from the Ministry have a great effect on teachers—so that they may make sure that children leaving school at any rate know the up-to-date facts as to the relationship which is believed to exist between cigerette smoking and cancer of the lung and other diseases?
    Sir E. Boyle: I quite agree that teachers should acquaint pupils with the facts, but how they do so is best left as their own responsibility. It would be a mistake for this advice to be too negative. The important thing, surely, is to point out the very wide range of choice which people have in our modern society, and it seems that the wider approach would obviously be the best one.
    Mr. BlenkinsopCould the hon. Gentleman approach the Central Council for Health Education with a view to a rather more lively presentation of the facts, about which it knows a great deal?
    Sir E. Boyle: I will consider that, Chapter 13 of the well-known Handbook on Health Education will be brought up to date before it is reprinted.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Anglo-Argentine Trade
    Mr. Russellasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that our balance of trade with the Argentine Republic has been about four to one by value against the United Kingdom for several years despite the intentions expressed in the agreement of 1955, what steps he proposes to take to bring this trade more into balance.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): I share my hon. Friend's regret that the value of our exports to the Argentine Republic is not more closely related to the value of our imports. But, in assessing the balance, allowance must be made for considerable Argentine purchases of raw materials from other countries in the Commonwealth, and of oil produced and sold by British companies.
    The Agreement of 1955, to which my hon. Friend refers, has been superseded by new arrangements which put Argentine payments and trade with us and most other countries in Europe on a non-discriminatory basis, and I hope that these arrangements will enable our exporters to increase their trade in this important market.
    Mr. Russell: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the trade the Argentine does with the Commonwealth makes up for the lack of exports of ours which she takes? Is it not wrong that we should buy £6 million worth of wheat and £27 million of meat from the Argentine in the first five months of this year in view of this colossal unbalance of trade, bearing in mind that Australia probably would like to sell us both more wheat and more meat?
    Sir D. Eccles: The Argentine purchases from the Commonwealth are very heavy. I shall let my hon. Friend know how nearly they make up the gap. I think we need the Argentine meat, and I would not be in favour of cutting it off.

    European Free Trade Area Products (Gelatine)
    Mr. Marquandasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, during international discussions concerning a European Free Trade Area, he will seek
    526
    to secure general recognition that edible gelatine is a food product.
    Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir. The tariff arrangements for the European Free Trade Area will be based on the Brussels Nomenclature, and the experts who drafted this Nomenclature classified all types of gelatine along with chemicals and allied products.
    Mr. MarquandIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that all the materials from which edible gelatine is made are included already within Chapters 1 to 24 and that edible gelatine, which is undoubtedly a food product, the only true one, is not included in Chapters 1 to 24? As it is so simple and does not include any other product, would not the right hon. Gentleman try to get an agreement at O.E.E.C. or elsewhere to include this one product?
    Sir D. Eccles: No. Sir. I am told that the situation is not simple. Gelatine and glue are substantially the same thing. They are used very largely for industrial purposes, particularly in the plastics industry. The distinction the right hon. Gentleman asks for would be rather difficult to make.
    Mr. Marquand: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this product is made in two factories only in this country, with the aid of assistance under the Development Areas scheme, that it is produced entirely from bones from this country or imported from India, and is a valuable Commonwealth trade? Ought he not at least to make one effort to see if he can help it under these new arrangements?
    Sir D. Eccles: My information is that the industry in this country is not at all unanimous about this and that some of them would like to go into the Free Trade Area.

    Apples
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the imports of Italian apples for the five months ended 31st May, 1957, exceeded those of the comparable period in 1956 by 5,600 tons; and what steps he is taking to ensure that the quota is not again exceeded in the full year, in view of the value of these imports already being £100,000 worth in excess of the comparable figure last year.
    Sir D. Eccles: There is no separate quota for Italian apples. They are imported under a quota which applies generally to countries in Western Europe and most other non-dollar countries outside the Sterling Area. The quota was in fact under-used by more than £150,000 in 1956, and the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's Question does not, therefore, arise.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Whilst fully appreciating the point made by my right hon. Friend about the O.E.E.C. countries being covered by the quota and not Italy separately, may I ask him to bear in mind that there is a very serious aspect of this matter in that the volume goes on increasing although the monetary quota stays the same? Could he so devise some way by which we should limit the volume each year rather than basing it purely on the value?
    Sir D. Eccles: I will look at that.
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the President of the Board of Trade why, despite the monetary quota for imports of apples from the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation countries having been set at £3 million in both 1954 and in 1956, the volume of such imports has increased by nearly 25 per cent. in both the January to June and the July to December periods; and what action he proposes taking to safeguard the British grower, bearing in mind that the official wholesaler-to-retailer prices for 1956 show that the value of Italian apples alone exceeded £4 million on the home market.
    Sir D. Eccles: The volume of imports appears to have increased because the quota has been more fully used and there has been a bigger proportion of cheaper apples. I do not think that the published wholesale prices for 1956 justify the conclusion which my hon. and gallant Friend draws from them, and I have no reason to believe that the value limit of £3 million under the quota was exceeded.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern amongst British growers that the quota is being abused? Will he make it quite clear to importers that if it is abused the quota will be reduced in subsequent years?
    Sir D. Eccles: I have no evidence of under-invoicing, but if my hon. and gallant Friend would like to bring any to my notice, I will look at it. If the quota is exceeded, we shall certainly have to take appropriate action.
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the value and quantity of imported apples has risen from 143,350 tons at a cost of £10,997,662 in 1954 to 189,037 tons at a cost of £14,240,962 in 1956; and whether, in view of the fact that United Kingdom growers have, with Government encouragement, recently increased their production, he will state what is now his policy on this matter.
    Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir. Nearly a third of the increase was due to higher imports under the open general licence from sterling Commonwealth countries and the balance mainly to imports from Canada and the United States of America which were not resumed until late in 1954. It remains the Government's policy to place no restrictions on imports of apples from Commonwealth countries in the sterling area. Those from other areas continue to be restricted by quotas.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that as a result of encouragement given by Government after Government since the war, and particularly by the Government of 1945–50, home growers increased their production and a great many trees were planted in that period which are now coming into full fruit? It is, therefore, important, in order to implement the Tory Party's pledge to the growers, that he should see that non-Commonwealth imports are kept under very careful supervision.
    Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir. We are constantly under pressure to increase these quotas and we have not yielded to that pressure.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Is the Minister aware that if the orchards in the constituency of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) are as bare of apples as is my garden, we shall need all the apples we can get from overseas?

    Norwegian Barter Arrangement (Motor Cars)
    . Sir D. Robertsonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied that it is in the best interests of the British motor car industry that their cars should be exported to Norway under a barter arrangement in exchange for sprats; and if he will take steps to bring this type of international trading to an end.
    Sir D. Eccles: Multilateral trading is certainly preferable to barter deals, but private traders are free to make export and import arrangements which do not contravene our licensing system or the exchange control.
    Sir D. Robertson: How can it be in the interests of the motor car industry and of the nation for us to export high-grade engineering products and in exchange to accept low-grade sprats?
    Sir D. Eccles: I have no evidence on the grade of the sprats.
    Mr. Jay: Even if we do not want open general licences for motor car imports, has not the Scottish fishing industry a genuine grievance here, and what does the President intend to do about it?
    Sir D. Eccles: I intend to keep canned sild on open general licence.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that trade with Norway in engineering goods is very closely restricted by Norwegian quotas? Is he further aware that the home manufacturers thought that they were doing a good job for the United Kingdom by opening up some trade, even if only on a barter basis?
    Sir D. Robertson: Is it right for the nation to use dollars for steel for manufacturing cars and then to exchange the cars for sprats?

    Tobacco
    Mr. Hunterasked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of tobacco leaf imports from the United States of America for the year 1956; and the total value of tobacco leaf imports from the Commonwealth countries for the same year.
    Sir D. Eccles: The figures are £42 million and £33·3 million, respectively.
    Mr. Hunter: In order to save dollars and to help the balance of payments, will the Minister encourage greater purchases of the better leaf from the Commonwealth countries instead of from the United States?
    Sir D. Eccles: I do, but it is a fact that the manufacturers here are already buying all the good-qualify leaf which they can get from the Commonwealth.

    Anglo-Canadian Trade
    Mr. Russellasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the plan officially announced by the Prime Minister of Canada to divert 15 per cent. of Canada's imports from the United States of America to imports from Great Britain; what steps he proposes to take to encourage British exporters to take advantage of this plan; and if, in return, he will encourage the purchase of more wheat from Canada in order to help to dispose of her wheat surplus.
    Sir D. Eccles: We all welcome the statement of the Prime Minister of Canada that his Government aim to divert 15 per cent. of Canadian imports from the United States of America to this country. We shall study urgently any proposals the Canadian Government may care to send us. In the meantime, the prospects from this end are being examined. We have good hopes that British industry can supply what Canada wants.
    Mr. Russell: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he agrees that we ought also to give encouragement to Canada by buying more from her? Could we not buy more wheat from Canada and less from the United States, in view of the fact that we bought £22 million worth from Canada in the first five months of this year and £40 million worth from the United States?
    Sir D. Eccles: We buy our wheat on open general licence and there is, therefore, nothing to stop Canada selling us more than she is selling us now. In order to divert purchases of wheat we should have to adopt methods which my hon. Friend might think objectionable.
    Mr. de Freitas: Dealing with exports to Canada, will the right hon. Gentleman look seriously to see whether the quality and the quantity of the staffs of our trade

    531
    commissioners in Canada are good enough to give our exporters the help which they need?
    Sir D. Eccles: I have been looking at that and I have been much encouraged by the testimony from British industry to the quality of those staffs. I agree with the hon. Member that we must continually keep it under review.

    United States Tariff Quota (Wool Cloth)
    Mr. Hirstasked the President of the Board of Trade what answer he has received from the Government of the United States of America following the representations made by Her Majesty's Government in the interests of the wool textile industry with reference to the imposition of further restrictions upon imports of wool fabrics into the United States by means of a tariff quota of only 14 million lbs.; and whether he will make a statement.
    Sir D. Eccles: No answer has been received, and I am not in a position to add to the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State in answer to Questions on 4th June.
    Mr. Hirst: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the acute concern about this in the wool textile industry? Will he do what he can to get the American Government to give a sympathetic answer in this problem? Is he aware that there is a feeling that the industry is being used as a whipping boy, when I am sure he knows that there are quite different reasons for the fall in production amongst American producers?
    Sir D. Eccles: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and I have made very strong representations to the United States.
    Mr. Wade: In view of the urgency of this matter and of the fact that valuable dollar-earning contracts are being lost as a consequence of this tariff quota, would the Minister be prepared to make further representations, even if only to get the date postponed when the increased tariff will come into effect?
    Sir D. Eccles: I think we had better await the reply to our note.
    Mr. Kershaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this tariff quota is almost prohibitive in the high-class woollen trade of this country and that it is no protection of the American domestic trade, because none exists in this quality? Is it, therefore, not an infringement of the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade?
    Sir D. Eccles: I think it is right to say that the American Government are within their legal rights in doing what they have done, but it certainly injures our trade and has a particularly bad effect, as my hon. Friend says, on the high-quality cloth.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Estate Duty (Collection)
    . Sir F. Medlicottasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the difficulty caused to many executors through their having to pay Estate Duty on the delivery of the Inland Revenue affidavit; and if the arrangement can now be revised so that the duty will not be payable until probate has been granted and the executors placed in a position to deal with the assets of the estate.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): The present law provides an essential safeguard for collection of duty; but if my hon. Friend has in mind a particular case where difficulty has arisen, I should be pleased to look into it.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is a little unfair for executors to have to borrow money and to commit themselves in other ways before they are legally in a position to deal with an estate? Is he further aware that the almost indecent haste with which Estate Duty has to be paid often forces executors to realise assets not at their best value?
    Mr. Powell: It has been the case ever since this duty existed that it has been payable before probate, and I understand that few cases of real difficulty arise. I am, however, anxious to look into any which my hon. Friend will bring to my attention.
    Mr. Gower: Apart from individual cases, may I ask whether my hon. Friend considers that the fact simply that it has always been done in the past is a good reason to maintain it if it inflicts general hardship?
    Mr. Powell: I am inclined to think that, in general, the reason is good. It has been looked at time after time and has always been considered to be a necessary safeguard of the revenue.

    National Savings Certificates (Encashment)
    . Sir F. Medlicottasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that British subjects who bought National Savings certificates in Egypt during the war are now unable to cash these certificates in England; if he is aware of the inconvenience and concern which this ruling is causing; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Powell: All applications for repayment of certificates which have been received by the Post Office have been met in full; but my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General will examine any particular cases which my hon. Friend has in mind.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that there is, in fact, no question at all but that these certificates are freely and readily encashable, as, indeed, all securities issued by the Brutish Government should be at all times and in all places?
    Mr. Powell: Certainly.

    Premium Savings Bonds
    . Sir F. Medlicottasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost of the Premium Bonds scheme up to the present time, distinguishing between prizes and advertising and administrative costs; and what is the ratio between the total expense incurred and the amount of money invested.
    Dr. Kingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount lent to the Government in Premium Bonds; the amount paid out as prizes; and the administrative and advertising costs of the scheme for the latest available date.
    Mr. Powell: The amount remaining invested in Premium Savings Bonds at
    534
    the end of June was about £82½1 million. The total prize money in the first two draws was slightly below £1¼ million, and administrative and advertising costs up to the end of the second draw are estimated at £1,650,000. The ratio between the total expenses incurred and the amount invested is about 1 to 28.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that he is not having to pay rather heavily for the money that is being raised in this particular way?
    Mr. Powell: This is a most welcome addition to National Savings. The recent results have been very promising indeed, and so far it has been well worth the investment.
    Dr. King: Can the Financial Secretary give any estimate of the new money included in the figures which would not have been lent to him under old schemes? Is he really of the opinion that the very heavy expenses he has mentioned warrant the new scheme, having in mind the money which would have been subscribed under the ordinary system?
    Mr. Powell: The hon. Member must bear in mind that National Savings generally, as well as the Premium Bond scheme within National Savings, did extremely well last year, and are doing very well this year.
    Mr. Jay: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the diversion of all this money from the gilt-edged market is one of the causes of the fall in gilt-edged prices?
    Mr. Powell: Not a large part of what is bought in ones and twos and small denominations is likely to be diverted from the gilt-edged market.
    Mr. Grimond: Can the hon. Gentleman say how the administrative expenses compare with the administrative expenses of other forms of National Savings; and whether the use of the automatic machine is an economy?
    Mr. Powell: I think the question of the automatic machine is one for my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General to answer. Of course, there is no other form of National Savings which has been so recently launched and on which, therefore, the initial publicity cost is so high.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Would not my hon. Friend agree that a great number of

    535
    people who invest in this particular type of bond would never otherwise put their money into savings?
    Mr. Powell: I am quite certain of that.
    Mr. Shinwell: Can the Financial Secretary say how many right hon. and hon. Members have invested in Premium Bonds?
    Mr. Powell: It would not be proper for those names to be discosed.

    £ Sterling (Value)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the value of the £ sterling in 1911 compared with today.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nigel Birch): It is estimated that £1 in 1911 had the equivalent purchasing power of £4 7s. 7d. in May, 1957.
    Mr. Jay: Is the Economic Secretary aware that so far the effects of the Chancellor's speech in the City yesterday have been, first, a further fall in the price of War Loan, and secondly, a rumour that there is to be an autumn Budget? Even if the Chancellor cannot prevent a fall in gilt-edged, can we at least have an assurance that there is not to be an autumn Budget?
    Mr. Birch: The right hon. Gentleman must not confuse the interest rates with the credit of the country. When our long-term rates were 2½ per cent. our currency was weaker than ever it has been before or since.
    Mr. Jay: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman at least give a plain assurance that there will be no autumn Budget this year?
    Mr. Birch: There will be no autumn Budget.
    Mr. Speaker: The supplementary question seems very remote from the value of the £ in 1911.

    Cost of Living
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the appointment of a Select Committee of the House or a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject of inflation and the cost of living.
    Mr. Birch: No, Sir.
    Mr. Shinwell: As the Economic Secretary does not know how to solve the problem of inflation and the high cost of living, and neither does the Chancellor, nor, apparently, the Prime Minister or the Government—and some others sitting beside me do not seem to know what the solution is either—would it not be desirable to refer it either to a Select Committee or to a Royal Commission in the hope that they will be able to provide a solution, or are the Government to do nothing about it?
    Mr. Birch: As the right hon. Gentleman already knows, there is already a Royal Commission on Monetary Policy, which is a very important aspect of this problem, but I do not think that what he mentions is an aspect of policy which would be suitable for reference.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is it, in any case, necessary to hold an inquiry of this nature, when everyone knows that one of the chief reasons for the rise in the cost of living is the failure of the nationalised industries, which produce less at increased cost? How can we as a nation ever solve this problem when power and transport, on which the production of everything depends, keep rising in price?
    Mr. H. Morrison: Can the Economic Secretary say whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer realises that this really is a most serious and grave matter? One can hardly open a newspaper without seeing signs of a steadily developing inflation which, if it continues, will put the country in a very serious condition. When are the Government going to take hold of the problem, together with the employers and the trade union leaders on a genuine basis of co-operation, instead of drifting along, with this inflationary process going on all the time, which will ultimately land the country in a state of ruin?
    Mr. Birch: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can have studied with attention my right hon. Friend's speech yesterday. He is also making an important speech tomorrow to the National Production Advisory Council.
    Hon. Members: What about the House?
    Mr. H. Wilson: But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor's speech yesterday, while very grave in tone, produced no answer to the problem but represented a posture of complete abdication—unfortunately, not resignation? Is he aware, also, that the Radcliffe Committee—which, incidentally, is not a Royal Commission—is not likely to report for two years? Are we to have no economic or financial policy during that time?
    Mr. Birch: We have an admirable economic and financial policy.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the speech of the Chancellor yesterday did not propound a solution, and he did not pretend that he had one; nor will his speech tomorrow or on any other day provide one. Speeches cannot solve the problem. In view of the fact that the Radcliffe Committee is lot looking all round the wicket on the subject of inflation and the cost of living, but is confining itself to monetary policy, would it not be wise—I appeal to the Prime Minister now—if he were to consider the appointment either of a Committee of this House, which would deal with the matter impartially, or a Royal Commission?
    Mr. Birch: As I said before, I do not think either a Royal Commission or a Select Committee can really deal with these matters which cut across every possible line of Government policy.

    Tax Office, West Hartlepool
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Secretary to the Treasury what reply he has given to the representations he has received from the West Hartlepool Corporation about the proposed closure of the tax office in the town.
    Mr. Powell: The town clerk of West Hartlepool wrote to the regional collector on 5th July. The Board of Inland Revenue has today replied, explaining that the new arrangements will cause little inconvenience to residents of West Hartlepool, but will make a substantial contribution to economy and efficiency.
    Mr. Jones: Is the Financial Secretary not aware that within five miles of this tax collector's office live more than 100,000 people? If this office closes it
    538
    will mean that the nearest office will be either in Durham, twenty miles away, or in Stockton, twelve miles away. Does he expect even the decent citizens of West Hartlepool to pay their taxes if he makes it as awkward as possible for them to do so?
    Mr. Powell: The vast majority, of course, pay them not by going to the collector's office but through the post. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that poundage-free postal and money orders are available for that purpose.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Commonwealth Transfers
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements exist for established civil servants to transfer to the Civil Service of another member of the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Powell: United Kingdom Departments do all they can to meet Commonwealth requests for the loan of staff with particular experience and qualifications. These loans are usually for short periods. There are also arrangements for the interchange of staff employed on similar work in different countries, for example, between the Ministry of Labour in this country and its counterpart in Australia. In addition to these organised transfers, if an established civil servant obtains a post in the Civil Service of a Commonwealth country, he normally retains his claim to pension entitlement in respect of United Kingdom Civil Service.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some time ago the Home Secretary, answering on behalf of the Prime Minister, gave me to understand that some new arrangements were being made for broadening the service, and can he say what those new arrangements are? Is he aware that since then there appears to be considerable confusion between his Department, the Department of Commonwealth Relations and the Colonial Office on this matter, including lost correspondence between the three Departments?
    Mr. Powell: I am not aware of any confusion. I will look at any case the right hon. Gentleman brings to my attention, but the arrangements about which I have informed the House have been increasingly used in recent years.

    Administrative Class (Candidates)
    Mr. Malcolm MacPhersonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what long-term policy he proposes in order to secure enough candidates of the right quality for appointment to the administrative class of the Civil Service and the senior branch of the Foreign Service.
    Mr. Powell: Applications this year are substantially greater than last, but it is still too early to gauge the effect of the recent improvements in pay and conditions, or of the new arrangements for publicising these careers among university students.
    Mr. MacPherson: When the hon. Gentleman says that applications this year are substantially greater than they were last year, has he any prospect that the one-third of places which were not filled last year in the administrative class and the nearly one-half places not filled in the senior branch of the Foreign Service are likely to be filled in addition to the new vacancies this year? In spite of increased salaries, does he not consider that the root cause of the shortage, namely, competition from industry, is something which needs a broader long-term policy?
    Mr. Powell: The relation between conditions and pay of the Civil Service and of outside industry has, of course, recently and most authoritatively been examined. As regards the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the results of this year's competition are not yet available.
    Mr. M. Lindsay: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the fact that this year there were 226 candidates for 12 vacancies in the senior branch of the Foreign Service shows that there is really not very much to be anxious about?

  FIJI ISLANDS

    Constitution
    . Sir L. Plummerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals have been made by the Government of the Fiji Islands for constitutional reform.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): The Government of Fiji have the question of constitutional reform under review, but
    540
    no proposals for change have been submitted to me.
    Sir L. Plummer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is growing tension in the Colony because of the hostility of native-born Fijians to native-born Indians living in the Colony, and, as the matter can become aggravated, will he not make representations to his right hon. Friend that the Governor should be called upon urgently to produce the sort of scheme which would prevent this happening?
    Mr. Profumo: I do not think that is necessary. In the Governor's address to the Legislative Council in November last year, he said that he was carefully considering the resolution of the Council of Chiefs regarding the election of Fijian members, together with other aspects of electoral reform. My right hon. Friend still awaits specific proposals from the Governor.

  CYPRUS

    Discussions
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his discussions with Sir John Harding about the future of Cyprus.
    Mr. Profumo: The Governor arrived in this country on the 6th July for discussions on current matters relating to Cyprus. I have no further statement to make.
    Mr. Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House when we can expect a further statement on the matter, and will he say whether, in the meantime, the question of direct consultation with representatives of the Cypriot people is under consideration, and also whether or not it is the intention that Sir John Harding shall return to Cyprus at the end of his leave?
    Mr. Profumo: With regard to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, it is certainly the intention that Sir John Harding shall return to his post as soon as these meetings have come to an end, perhaps after a short spell of leave. The second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary does not arise directly from the Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Callaghan: But may we take it that Sir John Harding's visit means that at last the Government are throwing off their unjustifiable slothfulness in this matter? Is the Under-Secretary aware, and is the Prime Minister, who seems to find this so amusing, aware, that in the opinion of the country the time is long overdue for the Government to take a new political initiative in order to further constitutional progress in Cyprus?
    Mr. Profumo: I have told the hon. Gentleman before that I simply do not accept that sort of statement. I have answered the Question on the Order Paper, and that is as far as I am prepared to go.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the Government undertake to inform this House fully of any new proposals they may have in mind for the future of Cyprus—judging from recent newspaper reports, it rather looks as if there may be some—and will the Government undertake to do that before there is any question at all of opening negotiations with foreign Powers?
    Mr. Profumo: My right hon. Friend will, of course, inform the House, as he always does, whenever there is any development of which the House would wish to be informed.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Telephone Communications (Interception)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on how many occasions during the past six years he or his predecessors have given permission for telephone conversations to be tapped; for what purposes these conversations were intercepted; and what was the last date when such action was taken; and
    (2) on how many occasions during the past six years he has given his permission for telephone calls of shop stewards and trade unionists connected with industrial disputes to be intercepted; and whether he will give the dates of such interceptions.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): As I have made clear in previous replies, it has always been
    542
    the practice, in the public interest, not to disclose the extent to which the power to issue warrants authorising the recording of telephone conversations has been used, or to divulge information as to its exercise in particular cases or classes of cases. I am not prepared to depart from that practice.
    Mr. Lewis: But can the Home Secretary give any logical reason why the details in these Questions cannot be given, and, further, can he say why he will not make a statement as to the last date on which such action was taken and on how many occasions trade union officials and executives have had their phones tapped? Surely, that does not interfere with the security of the State. Will he not answer those questions?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I am following precedents set by my predecessors in this matter, and I am not prepared to go further than my Answer.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Would the right hon. Gentleman nevertheless confirm that his statement does not in any way debar the Committee of Privy Councillors now considering this matter from publishing what they think to be necessary in this matter?
    Mr. Butler: The Privy Councillors have very wide terms of reference, of which, I understand, they are taking full advantage. I would expect them to publish what they think is right.
    Mr. Silverman: On a point of order. Might I ask for your guidance in this matter, Mr. Speaker? I understand that the Government claim that their power to give these warrants and permissions and exercise this power is derived from a prerogative, and one assumes that that is a Royal prerogative, now exercised according to our constitutional practice on the advice of Ministers. The Ministers are responsible Ministers, responsible to this House for the advice which they give to the Crown. Is it, therefore, proper for a Minister exercising a prerogative power, when he is asked by a Member of the House what he has done, to refuse to say what he has done?
    Mr. Speaker: The rule with regard to Questions, laid down, I think, in Erskine May, is that matters in themselves secret cannot be the subject of Parliamentary

    543
    Questions. If a matter is of itself secret, as this appears to be, it seems to be debarred as a subject for questioning.
    Mr. Silverman: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, that does not quite cover the point I raised. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) has not asked for any secret information about the details of persons or occasions. He has asked for numbers, and only for numbers.
    Mr. Speaker: I think that hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, if he has a constitutional point of that complexity to raise, had better give me notice about it and I will try to do what I can with it. At the moment, it is not a point of order. If the hon. Member thinks that the Home Secretary is acting unjustifiably, he has his normal Parliamentary remedy.

  EUROPEAN FREE TRADE AREA
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the effect which the proposed entry of Britain into the European Free Trade Area will have upon the British fishing and shipbuilding industries; and if he will give an assurance that no binding agreement in this matter will be entered into until the representatives of all the elements in those industries shall have been consulted and given their assent.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): We have made it clear from the outset that our proposals for a Free Trade Area do not extend to food. British fishing would not, therefore, be affected. The shipbuilding industry is not, for the most part, protected by a duty. Nevertheless, the Departments concerned are in close touch with representatives of this industry.
  Mr. Hughes: Does the Prime Minister realise that these industries will be very glad to have the declaration that they will not be in any way prejudiced by this novel plan?
  Mr. Osborne: Does my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon that food will not be affected by these proposals contradict the statement made at the meeting he addressed only two nights ago, when a European statesman said that agriculture would have to be a matter of compromise?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. In the proposals which were put forward by Her Majesty's Government for trying to create a European Free Trade Area, it was made clear from the beginning that it was not to include a whole range of products, broadly the products of the soil.

  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Prime Minister if, as a result of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in London just concluded, he will formulate his policy relating to Commonwealth and Empire investment, development, and trade; and if he will indicate the nature of the investments, developments, and trades affected and the extent of the agreed participation in each by the respective members of the Commonwealth.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the communiqué issued at the end of the recent meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. As there stated, the United Kingdom will continue to play its leading role in furthering economic development in the countries of the Commonwealth. We shall also continue to seek to expand our trade with other Commonwealth countries to the maximum possible extent. As regards investment, we hope to publish a White Paper shortly reviewing the position.
  Mr. Hughes: Does the Prime Minister agree that in these important matters the solidarity of the Commonwealth should be the primary consideration?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very rapidly changing nature of the sterling area, particularly as regards the sterling balances of Ghana, Malaya and other areas, and is he also aware that in the country there is more than a suspicion that the Government spokesmen at this Conference were more active in selling the idea of their European Free Trade Area proposals than in developing new and dynamic Commonwealth trade policies to deal with this very serious position in the sterling area?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think that is a fair picture of what took place in the Commonwealth Conference, and it is certainly not the picture which has been given by those who attended it.
  Mr. Grimond: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the recent restriction on the acquisition of Canadian securities was discussed with the Canadian Prime Minister?
  The Prime Minister: I should like notice of that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the business for next week?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 15TH JULY—Supply [21st Allotted Day]: Committee.
Debate on Cyprus.
Consideration of the Motion relating to Immunities and Privileges of the International Tin Council.
TUESDAY, 16TH JULY—Report stage of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 17TH JULY—It is proposed to conclude the Report stage of the Finance Bill by 7 o'clock.
We shall then consider the opposed Private Business which has been set down by the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, for which it will be necessary to suspend the Ten o'clock Rule.
Second Reading of the Road Transport Lighting Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation Measure.
THURSDAY, 18TH JULY—Supply [22nd Allotted Day]: Committee.
Debate on Industry in Scotland.
Consideration of the Motions to approve the Draft Agriculture Safety Regulations.
FRIDAY, 19TH JULY—Third Reading of the Finance Bill, which it is hoped to obtain by 2 o'clock.
Committee and remaining stages of the Federation of Malaya Independence Bill,
546
the Geneva Conventions Bill [Lords], and of the Road Transport Lighting Bill
[Lords].
Mr. Gaitskell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the White Paper on disarmament will be published?
Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend hopes that it may be published next week, probably later rather than earlier next week.
Mr. Peyton: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the House of Commons should have an opportunity, before the Recess, for discussing the wider aspects of our industrial affairs, with particular reference to the relationship between wage demands and productivity, since that relationship lies at the root of our inflationary problem?
Mr. Butler: It is always very difficult to fit in debates at this time of the year. There is a number of Supply days and beyond that I cannot give any undertaking in view of the number of days that are left and the nature of the business which it is desired to fit in.
Mr. Hoy: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we shall have a statement from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the new subsidies for the fishing industry, in view of the fact that The Scotsman, on Tuesday of this week, contained a report of a private meeting, addressed by the Minister and one of the Joint Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland at which they informed the fishing group of the Tory Party what these new subsidies were to be?
Mr. Butler: It is always interesting to obtain from the Press accounts of party meetings on either side; but I cannot give an actual date for any action which the Minister desires to take. I will, however, inform the hon. Gentleman after acquainting myself of the Minister's intentions.
Mr. Hoy: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to look into this point, because I am assured that the meeting took place and was addressed by the Minister a Joint Under-Secretary of State? Surely it is a little discourteous to the House that information should be given to a private meeting of a political party before it is given to hon. Members of this House?
Mr. Butler: I will certainly look into it, but I am not aware that any decisions were announced at that meeting at all. All I can do, not having been apprised of the statement in The Scotsman, is to look into the matter.
Mr. Hoy: We are very concerned about this. I am willing to send the newspaper to the right hon. Gentleman.
Dame Irene Ward: As the Litter Bill of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) is due to go to Standing Committee on Wednesday morning, would my right hon. Friend, as one of the Ministers responsible, and the Minister of Housing and Local Government, see that the appropriate Amendments that the Ministries want are in the hands of hon. Members before the Committee sits? Further, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that the Government will not drag their feet on this Bill, which the whole of the House wants?
Mr. Butler: This is a matter which is in the hands of the private Member responsible for the Bill. So far as I am concerned, I must not interfere with the discretion of the hon. Member.
Mr. H. Wilson: Since the whole House will obviously want to insist that there must be a debate on the grave developments of the inflationary situation before we adjourn for the Recess, will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in a position, by the time that debate takes place, to announce positive policies for dealing with inflation, instead of just washing his hands of the matter as he did in his speech yesterday?
Mr. Butler: I cannot accept the interpretation given by the right hon. Gentleman of the speech delivered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think we may be perfectly satisfied that the Chancellor knows what he is doing.
Mr. Ramsden: Can my right hon. Friend say whether we shall have an opportunity for a debate on local government before the House rises, in view of the fact that there are three White Papers now upon which the House has not yet had an opportunity of expressing an opinion?
Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. It is hoped to have a comprehensive debate on local government and its various aspects, which have already been put before the House, before we rise for the Summer Recess.
Mr. S. Silverman: While sympathising with the right hon. Gentleman in the difficulties which he must have in trying to accommodate all the hon. Members who want him to find time for debates between now and the end of the Session, may I ask him whether he has noticed upon the Order Paper a Motion, fairly substantially signed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, relating to the case of one humble individual, Alfred George Hinds, and, if so, whether he is aware that there are a great many Members of the House who have paid some attention to this case and think that there are, in the case itself, quite apart from the man's own great courage and determination, a number of disquieting features which, in the public interest, should be further investigated?
Does he think that it may be possible to find a short time on a day between now and the end of the Session when this matter might be further explored?
[That this House calls the attention of the Home Secretary to the case of Alfred George Hinds, now serving a long sentence of imprisonment, who has always protested his innocence of the offence of which he was convicted, who has twice escaped from prison and who is now on hunger-strike, and urges him in the public interest to set up a Select Committee or some other appropriate form of public inquiry to investigate all the circumstances and report whether there has been a miscarriage of justice in this case.]
Mr. Butler: I am, of course, aware that there is anxiety about this case. I have now had an opportunity of looking at it myself, although I have not given it the full study which it deserves. If we cannot find an occasion for a debate, that does not estop hon. Members from putting to me any points that they want to put. I think that they should take that opportunity if they so wish; but I will certainly pay attention to the request of the hon. Member.
Mr. Osborne: May I ask my right hon. Friend why he has decided to give a whole day, Thursday, to a debate on

549
Scottish industries—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—and only half a day on Friday to the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, which affects the whole of Great Britain? Since Scotland is only a small part of Great Britain, is it not possible to have a switch round and give the whole day on Thursday to the Finance Bill and the half day on Friday to Scotland?
Mr. Butler: First, this is Opposition time and must be defended as one of our constitutional usages and, secondly, it is customary at this time of the year to have two days to discuss Scottish affairs. It is very important, therefore, that this debate should take place and the needs of Scotland be considered.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Reverting to the Hinds case, does the Home Secretary remember that he told me, in Answer to a Question the other day, that there is no means whereby a person in the position of Hinds, who is dissatisfied with the result of a disciplinary tribunal, can have his case reheard, adduce evidence and be represented by counsel or next friend? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that a great injustice may be done to this man unless his case is reconsidered and dealt with before the Recess?
Mr. Butler: I do not think the Recess makes any difference. It depends very much on the consideration given to this matter by the Secretary of State. If the hon. and learned Member wishes to put any point before me, he is at liberty to do so at any time of the year, whether the House is sitting or not.
Mr. Hughes: I thank the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Braine: During Question time, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to a possible White Paper on investment and development in the Commonwealth. Can my right hon. Friend say when this White Paper will be available to hon. Members?
Mr. Butler: We hope that it will be published before the end of the Session. I will let my hon. Friend know the sort of date that we have in mind.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).[Mr. R. A. Butler.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EXCHEQUER AND AUDIT DEPARTMENTS [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision as to the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General, it is expedient to authorise the charging on and issuing out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required to be so charged and issued under or in consequence of any provision of that Act and the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums so payable under section sixty-two of the Superannuation Act. 1949, as applied by subsection (3) of section three of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1950.
  Resolution agreed to.

  EXCHEQUER AND AUDIT DEPARTMENTS BILL
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

  JUDICIAL OFFICES SALARIES AND PENSIONS) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for increasing the salaries of the recorders of Liverpool and Manchester, of county court judges and of metropolitan police magistrates, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) any increase in the sums payable out of the Consolidated Fund which may be directly or indirectly attributable to any provisions of the said Act providing for—

  (i) increases, as from any date not earlier than the eighteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven, in the salaries of the said recorders, judges and magistrates;

  (ii) the calculation of the pensions payable to the said recorders by reference to their increased salaries;

  (b) any increase attributable to any provisions of the said Act in the sums payable into the Exchequer under subsection (2) of section ten of the Criminal Justice Administration Act. 1956.

  Resolution agreed to.

  JUDICIAL OFFICES SALARIES AND PENSIONS) BILL
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

  MINISTERIAL SALARIES [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the salaries of certain Ministers and of the Leader of the Opposition, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament and the charging on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums payable out of moneys so provided or chargeable on and payable out of that Fund, as the case may be, by virtue of the provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

  (a) increasing as from the first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven, the amount or maximum amount of the annual salaries authorised to be paid under the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937, and other enactments regulating the salaries of the holders of Ministerial office, where that amount does not exceed three thousand pounds;

  (b) removing, as from that date, certain restrictions imposed by the said Act of 1937 (as amended by subsequent enactments) upon the receipt of salaries or allowances in respect of membership of the House of Commons, and upon the payment of pensions under section four of that Act to persons who are in receipt of such salaries or allowances;

  (c) applying to persons holding office in Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom the provisions of section forty-one of the Superannuation Act, 1949.

  Resolution agreed to.

  MINISTERIAL SALARIES BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

  MINISTERIAL SALARIES BILL

    Clause 1.—(OFFICIAL SALARY OF CERTAIN MINISTERS AND OF THE LEADER OF TIME OPPOSITION.)
    3.45 p.m.
    Mr. Julian Snow (Lichfield and Tam-worth): I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, at the end, to insert:
    (4) The maximum amount of the annual salary authorised by subsection (4) of section one of the Ministerial Salaries Act, 1946, to be paid to the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household is hereby increased to two thousand two hundred and fifty pounds.
    I do not propose to detain the Committee very long. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and I tabled this Amendment because we thought we should draw attention to the work carried out by the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household. This

    553
    appointment is always considered most unimportant and I do not think the Committee generally realises the amount of work that has to be done. The compilation every day of a report to Her Majesty, which has to include personal impressions and a lot of thought, is done by the Vice-Chamberlain, who has certain other duties to which I need not refer here.
    I understand that the view is held that other duties of the Vice-Chamberlain in connection with the Whips' Office is a matter for different party practice. Nevertheless, the fact remains that because he has to do this work in the afternoon, he therefore is not able to apply himself to other responsibilities which fall to his lot as a Member of Parliament.
    There are in this Chamber at the moment, I believe, four hon. Members who have held this position. I should like to think that they agree with me that although the Amendment comes from the Opposition, the present holder of the office is carrying out his job in the best tradition of the Vice-Chamberlain's office and that, apart from personalities, the position as such should receive some recognition from the House.
    Mr. Michael Stewart: If I may add a word in support of the Amendment, it is only to say this. In the whole arrangement of salaries, from those paid to the most eminent Members of the House to those paid to the back bencher, there is always a gradation. The steps are so arranged to fit the different degrees of responsibility. There are the salaries of the Prime Minister, of senior Ministers, of junior Ministers, and of various types of intermediate Minister.
    The Amendment relates to a Member of the House whose main duties are those of being a Government Whip, but who has, in addition, the other duties referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow). Those other duties carry a certain amount of responsibility and consume a considerable amount of time. There is, therefore, a substantial difference in that respect between him and the other Household officials, and it seems to be in conformity with our general plan of salaries that that difference should be reflected in a moderate difference of salary. This is a matter to which the
    554
    Government might reasonably give attention while the Bill is under discussion.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): I must advise the Committee that for the very reasons of gradation which the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has mentioned, it would be quite impracticable to make this alteration within the scope of the Bill. The Amendment proposes to give to the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household a salary of £2,250, but the Bill, taken in conjunction with the Ministerial Salaries Act, 1946, provides for one of the Ministers who are commonly referred to as Whips the salary of £2,200 while applying a salary of £2,000 to the rest.
    The effect of this Amendment would, therefore, be to give the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household a larger salary than that which is payable to the person who is, in effect, by practice the deputy Chief Whip. Thus a much more extensive regrading than is involved in the Bill would be necessary if anything of the sort which the hon. Member is arguing were to be done. I would, therefore, suggest to the Committee that this alteration lies outside the scope of what the Bill seeks to do.
    Mr. W. A. Wilkins: Even if, as the Financial Secretary says, this Amendment is outside the scope of what the Bill seeks to do, the Committee nevertheless should consider some other aspects of the responsibilities which devolve upon the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household. Those who have served in the Whips' Office—Government Whips' or the Opposition Whips' for that matter —know quite well that the responsibilities of the Vice-Chamberlain are probably much in excess of those which devolve upon other Whips.
    One of my hon. Friends dissents, I understand, but I hold firmly to the view that the Vice-Chamberlain has many additional responsibilities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) has pointed out, the Vice-Chamberlain is specially closely tied to service in this Chamber. If we cannot remunerate the Vice-Chamberlain in accordance with the work he is called upon to do we can still make a clear and justifiable case, even though it may not be possible to implement it through the Bill, to improve his lot. I should like

    555
    to have the attention of the deputy Chief Whip for this, for it may be possible for him to make representations about it.
    What I suggest is that the duties which reside in the Vice-Chamberlain should be reconsidered. Surely we have reached a time when they could be. Is it really necessary now to have to send every evening a message to the Palace detailing the work of the House of Commons up to a comparatively early hour? It can be a record of only a very limited amount of work done up to, say, half-past six or seven o'clock. I wonder whether, instead of a daily report, there could not be a weekly statement. It would not be so arduous a job to produce a weekly statement, and it would contain a report of the main work of the House of Commons during that week.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins). Is it really necessary that the Vice-Chamberlain should have the enormous responsibility of sending a communication to Her Majesty which Her Majesty probably will not read? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] I am only saying "probably" I would not be dogmatic about that. If Her Majesty reads this document my sympathy extends to Her Majesty as well as to the Vice-Chamberlain. The responsibilities of the Vice-Chamberlain could easily be lightened by sending a marked copy of HANSARD to Her Majesty instead of the daily message.
    Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) has raised this matter with the very best of intentions, but I think it is unfortunate that the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) should have been made. I fully expected the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to make such remarks as he did.
    This work which the Vice-Chamberlain does is traditional, and it has gone on for a great many years. It is quite wrong for anybody in the Committee—and I include myself—to suggest that the practice should be altered. It is not for us to say that it should be. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Vice-Chamberlain is himself unable to speak on the matter,
    556
    because I know quite well what he would say on the whole subject if he did speak upon it. I think we should be well advised to leave the matter as it is.
    Mr. Wilkins: I did not raise this matter in any frivolous spirit. I emphasised what I myself noted when I saw hon. Friends of mine at work, and that is the arduous character of the work involved in the office of the Vice-Chamberlain. My suggestion was a very serious one. If we cannot adequately remunerate the Vice-Chamberlain through this Bill for the work he is called upon to do, I think that we ought to try to relieve him of some of his responsibilities.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: I had not intended to intervene in this discussion, and I should not have done so had it not been for the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey). What he is asking the Committee to do is to come to a decision on the basis of what he, apparently, knows the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household would say if he were to speak, when, so far, he has not spoken. If the Committee is asked to come to a decision on that basis, then, in all fairness to the Committee, the Vice-Chamberlain ought to tell us what it is that his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield thinks he would tell us, or, failing that, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield, since he knows what is in the mind of that silent functionary, himself should inform the Committee what that is.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I am sorry that we are having this debate. The Amendment is about the remuneration of the Vice-Chamberlain, not his duties, and I do not understand how the duties have come into the discussion. I should think that the answer to the complaint, if complaint there really is, that these duties are so arduous—and I am sure they are arduous—is that a sensible Whips' Office would so arrange the duties of the Whips, including those of the Vice-Chamberlain, that the Vice-Chamberlain would be relieved of some of his duties other than that duty which has been specifically mentioned—some whipping duties, perhaps.
    I have never been a Whip, I am thankful to say. I do not think I have the temperament to be a Whip. I would

    557
    never dare to speak disrespectfully of any Whip. I think that a Whip must be of a rather curious temperament. Still, a Whip's life must be a very arduous one. I am sure it is a very arduous one, and I do not believe that the labours of the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household need be any more arduous than those of other Whips. I was joking when I said I never dare to speak disrespectfully of the Whips. I often do, but I do not believe that the Vice-Chamberlain need be overworked if the duties of the Whips are properly arranged.
    Mr. George Jeger: Like my hon. Friends, I also wonder why it is necessary that a manuscript recording the proceedings of the House of Commons up to a certain time of day should have to be sent to the Palace when a copy of the accurate record which is kept could he made available instead. I am told by those who have held this office that the message which is sent to the Palace is not merely an objective account of what has happened in the House, but contains a number of personal comments upon what has happened, and the names of personalities to whom things have happened or remarks have been addressed, and from whom they have emanated. If we are asked to vote a higher remuneration to the Vice-Chamberlain, I see no reason why the Members concerned should not know exactly what is contained in these messages when they are compiled and sent.
    The Deputy-Chairman: It is out of order to discuss the contents of the messages.
    Mr. Jeger: I was trying to suggest that if we are to be asked to increase the salary or emoluments of the Vice-Chamberlain the extra work for which it is suggested that he should be remunerated should be made available to us here in Parliament. I am sure we should all be very interested to know exactly what the contents are of these messages, and to see whether they are really worth the extra remuneration that it is suggested should be paid.
    Mr. Snow: I hope it will not be believed that those messages to Her Majesty are not read. Those of us who have held the position of Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household have
    558
    the best of all possible reasons for knowing that, in fact, they are read.
    This tradition of sending these messages is of very ancient historical origins. The job was at one time a personal responsibility of the Prime Minister, and it was given to the Vice-Chamberlain because of the pressure of work on the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) introduced his characteristic humour into the debate, but I would point out to him that the Vice-Chamberlain has the personal responsibility of giving to Her Majesty his impressions of what goes on in this Chamber.
    Mr, Emrys Hughes: Does my hon. Friend really think that next week's debate on Scottish trade and industry will be duly chronicled and faithfully read by Her Majesty?
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. Snow: I sincerely hope not. I understood that the function of the Vice-Chamberlain, and I hope that I shall be supported by those who have held the position, was to give certain impressions to Her Majesty which might enable Her to paint a mental picture of what went on. The job might we well or badly done, but until it is abolished the Vice-Chamberlain ought to be paid the rate for the job. I ask the Committee to consider this matter a little seriously.
    I rather deplored the line of argument put forward by the Financial Secretary, who appeared to rule the Amendment out of order because it would make the Vice-Chamberlain £50 better off than the deputy Chief Whip. Assuming that that is a valid argument, surely the Financial Secretary could have suggested that he would consider the matter and formulate a Government Amendment to regularise that position. I do not think that the Financial Secretary's argument was a very pleasant one, and I hope that the Government will think again.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 2 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment read the Third time and passed.

  ELECTRICITY BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  ELECTRICITY BILL

    Clause 3.—(ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTITU TION AND FUNCTIONS OF ELECTRICITY COUNCIL.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 24, leave out "of other persons,".
    4.3 p.m.
    The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    I suggest that with this Amendment we should also consider the Amendment in line 25.
    It has been urged by the Opposition, both in this House and in another place, that special provision should be made in the composition of the Electricity Council for a representative of the trade unions. That is a claim to which the Government have felt unable to agree, because we think that it is necessary to have the maximum flexibility in the appointment of people to the Council and that if we appoint a person to represent one interest we shall find ourselves committed to agreeing to the appointment of persons to represent other interests as well.
    The Amendment from another place proposes that in appointing a maximum of three independent members of the Electricity Council, the qualifications to which the Minister should have regard shall be the qualifications set out in Clause 2 (3) for the Generating Board, which refers to people who have experience of, and have shown capacity in
    "the generation or supply of electricity, industrial, commercial or financial matters, applied science, administration, or the organisation of workers."
    Therefore, it is made quite clear that in considering these three independent appointments, or as many of them as he decides to make, the Minister shall have regard to candidates having experience of many things, including the organisation of workers. I suggest that the record of this and of the previous Government has shown, and continues to show, that we have a proper appreciation of the service that trade union leaders can render to the country in these matters.
    Sir Frank Soskice: We on this side of the House certainly welcome the change which the Minister proposes, so far as it goes. In giving the reasons for not going the whole length that the Opposition wish to go, the right hon. Gentleman said that if he went that length the Measure would not have sufficient flexibility. The term "flexibility" is flexible in itself and does not mean very much. Whilst we would not oppose the change now suggested, I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would elaborate what he means by flexibility.
    Putting the question bluntly and squarely, why cannot we have a person who is a trade union member, experienced in trade union affairs and in Labour relationships? Why, if there were to be provision for such a member, is the measure of flexibility required not sufficient? It seems to me that the Minister has taken refuge in a somewhat woolly term not infrequently employed on both sides of the House and by Ministers of both political persuasions. I should be grateful if he would elaborate the matter a little more, if he now has the necessary information.
    Mr. Maudling: If I may speak again by leave of the House, I quite agree that the word "flexible" is grossly over-used in this House. I once referred to the Bank Rate as a flexible weapon, and I was reprimanded by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), who said that it was like knocking in a nail with a rubber hammer, which probably was quite true. If we specify that one member of the Electricity Council should represent a particular interest, there are a number of other particular interests, possibly not, in the view of hon. Members opposite, as important as the trade union movement but also important in themselves, which would be able to claim that they should be represented.
    We feel it right that in setting up this very important body for the future of the industry, the Minister should not be inhibited in having to allocate seats on the Council to represent particular interests. By "flexibility" I meant that if we allocated a position on the Council to one particular interest we should almost certainly find ourselves compelled to allocate other seats for other particular

    561
    interests, organisations representing industry or the consumers and a number of others. That would inhibit the Minister in appointing the best Council, and that is why we do not feel able to go further than the Amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Further Lords Amendment made: In page 3, line 25, after "three" insert:
    "of other persons (being persons appearing to the Minister to be qualified as mentioned in subsection (3) of the last preceding section)."—[Mr. Maudling.]

    New Clause A.—(WHOLE-TIME MEMBERS OF GENERATING BOARD, ELECTRICITY COUNCIL AND AREA BOARDS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 8. at end insert new Clause A:
    (1) The office of chairman of the Generating Board or of the Electricity Council shall not be held except by a person appointed as a whole-time member of the Board or Council.
    (2) Subject to the preceding subsection, in the exercise of his powers of appointing members of the Generating Board or of the Electricity Council in accordance with sections two and three of this Act, or of appointing members of an Area Board in accordance with section three of the principal Act, the Minister shall secure that as many of the members so appointed as he may consider requisite for the efficient performance of the functions of the Council or Board shall be appointed as whole-time members of the Council or Board.
    Read a Second time.
    Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    I understand that, once again, this Amendment was inserted in the Bill in response to promptings from Opposition Members in the other place. It is concerned with the extent to which membership of the Generating Board, the Electricity Council and, indeed, the area boards shall be whole-time appointments. As the Bill was passed by this House, it left the matter very much to the discretion of the Minister, but this Amendment would limit his discretion to the extent of providing in subsection (1) that the chairmen of the Generating Board and the Electricity Council shall be whole-time members. Subsection (2) requires, in that appointing people to the Generating Board, to the Council and to the area boards, the Minister shall secure that he has on each of these bodies enough full-time members to ensure that the functions of the body to which they belong are efficiently carried out.
    562
    I suggest to the House that this reaches a proper balance between the importance of having enough whole-time members on each board whilst, on the other hand, ensuring that we do not fetter the Minister in his discretion as to the exact proportion of members of the boards who are whole time and those who are part time.
    Mr. Arthur Palmer: We on this side of the House welcome the change proposed by the other place, particularly in relation to the Generating Board. The general effect of the change is to strengthen the tendency towards whole time membership of the boards. That is excellent as regards the Generating Board, and certainly in regard to the more important leadership of the Electricity Council.
    There is, however, a point which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take into account, namely, that a differentiation should be made in nature between the Generating Board, which is a production body concerned with making electricity, transmitting electricity, having a big functional, technical job to do, and the area boards, which again of their nature are more of a public service and closer to the consumer.
    For myself, I think that the case for having more whole-time members on the Generating Board is infinitely stronger than the case for having too many whole-time members on the area boards. Therefore, I think that the emphasis should be on the representation of those interests which are natural to the locality, and which have some bearing on the interests of the local consumers, and are seen to have some bearing.
    I hope, therefore, that in making these appointments, in respect of which the Minister now has flexibility, he will take into account the natural difference between the Generating Board on the production side and the area boards on the distribution side.
    Mr. Maudling: By leave of the House, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my noble Friend has that consideration very much in mind. I am sure he will agree in what has been said about the differing functions of the area boards and the Generating Board, and the comparative weight which would be given to whole-time and part-time membership in each.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 11.—(MACHINERY FOR SETTLING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOY MENT.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 1, leave out "Electricity Board" in insert:
    "of the Scottish Electricity Boards".
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. David Renton): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a drafting Amendment, consequential on a change which was made in Clause 11 on Report in this House. Hon. Members will remember that, originally, that Clause was designed to provide that the machinery for settling terms and conditions of employment should be negotiated and operated by area boards and by the Generating Board, whereas, in response to views expressed by the Opposition, it has now been made the responsibility of the Electricity Council in England and Wales. However it remains, and must be made clear in the Bill that it does remain, the responsibility of the two Scottish Electricity Boards severally in Scotland, and that will be the effect of this Amendment.
    Sir F. Soskice: We welcome this change, which is a purely formal change of language consequential upon the major change in the provisions of the Bill, for which we pressed, and we are grateful to the Minister.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 13.—(TARIFFS AND SPECIAL AGREEMENTS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 26, leave out "this Act" and insert "the Electricity Act, 1957,".
    Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is another consequential drafting Amendment which arises because Section 49 of the 1947 Act, dealing with the supply of electricity to the railways, has now been replaced by Clause 27 of the Bill. The Clause and the relevant portions of Section 37 of the Electricity Act dealing with retail tariffs have to be dovetailed with the special provisions relating to the fixing of charges for the supply of electricity to the railways. That is done by this simple Amendment.
    Sir F. Soskice: This Amendment, I understand, is purely consequential on the change which is already in the Bill to Clause 27, and we accept the change.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In line 27, leave out "Area Boards" and insert "an Area Board."
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment, and the next one in line 30, go together, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that they be considered together.
    Both Amendments are consequential on one which was moved in another place by an Opposition peer and accepted, to the effect that the area boards, when fixing retail tariffs, as they have a responsibility to do, shall consult not only the Electricity Council but also the consultative council for each area. It is already the existing and well-established practice in each of the areas that this should be done, and if these two Amendments are accepted the existing practice will have been given statutory effect. I hope that this is a proposition which commends itself to both sides of the House.
    Mr. Palmer: There is a point which arises here. As I understood the 1947 Act, the area boards were obliged to consult the consultative bodies on tariffs and rates. Is it now suggested that if this Amendment is accepted they will have to do it prior to making the change? I think that that is probably the issue, because under the 1947 Act they were obliged to consult.
    Mr. Renton: With the leave of the House, I will reply to the hon. Gentleman. As I understand, under the 1947 Act the area boards were obliged to consult the consultative councils as to their general plans and arrangements, and there was no statutory obligation to consult them before fixing the retail tariff. In practice they did consult them, but there was no obligation to do so. If these two Amendments are accepted there will be an obligation to consult the consultative councils not only as to general plans and arrangements but, as the hon. Gentleman has put it, before fixing retail tariffs.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Further Lords Amendment made: In line 30, after "with" insert:
    "the Consultative Council established for their area and with".—[Mr. Renton.]

    Clause 24.—(TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF CENTRAL AUTHORITY.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 8, at end insert:
    "(6) In this and the next following section obligation' includes any such customary obligation as is referred to in subsection (5) of section fifty-four of the principal Act (which relates to certain customary obligations in respect of pensions)."
    Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    I suggest that this Amendment and the Lords Amendment in page 42, line 46, go together. The second is consequential upon the first.
    Under Section 54 (5) of the 1947 Act it was provided that, subject to any pension regulations made by the Minister, any "customary obligations," to use the statutory phrase, which were observed by the former owners of electricity undertakings with regard to pension schemes should be transferred to the electricity boards. That meant that when the various rights, liabilities, duties and obligations of electricity boards were made the subject of transferred provisions, these so-called customary obligations were included with them. It is necessary to make sure that obligations of that kind, inherited from the pre-nationalisation regime by the Central Electricity Authority, should also be transferred respectively to the Generating Board and the Electricity Council.
    The Amendments are necessary for that purpose and achieve it by giving a definition of the word "obligation" at the end of Clause 24, the one which deals with the transfer of assets and liabilities of the Central Electricity Authority, and, secondly, by ensuring that any proceedings in respect of a customary obligation which happen to be pending at the time the transfer takes place are continued under the provisions of the Second Schedule. That will be the effect of the second Amendment.
    Sir F. Soskice: I rise only to say that we on this side of the House are grateful to the Minister for removing anxieties which we entertained and expressed in
    566
    Committee on whether customary obligations were adequately covered by the language of the Bill. The Minister has now put that beyond all doubt and I am grateful to him. By his second Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman has removed any possible difficulty of construction in relation to existing proceeds. For that, also, I thank him. I think that in this respect the Bill is now satisfactory.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 28.—(MAXIMUM CHARGES FOR RESELLING ELECTRICITY SUPPLIED BY ELECTRICITY BOARDS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 27, line 9, leave out "Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899," and insert "Electric Lighting Act, 1882,".
    Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is purely a drafting Amendment in that it corrects an incorrect reference. It should have been not the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, but the Electric Lighting Act, 1882. I apologise to the House for the error and hope that it will accept the Amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause B.—(FURTHER PROVISIONS AS TO PLACING OF ELECTRIC LINES.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 46, at end insert new Clause B:
    (1) Every application for the consent or authorisation of the Minister under paragraph (b) of section ten of the Schedule of 1899 (in this section referred to as 'section ten (b)')—

    (a) shall be in writing;

    (b) shall describe by reference to a map the land across which the electric line is proposed to be placed; and

    (c) shall state whether all necessary way-leaves have been agreed with owners and occupiers of land proposed to be crossed by the line.

    (2) Where such an application made by an Electricity Board states that all necessary way-leaves have not been agreed as mentioned in paragraph (c) of the preceding subsection, the Minister, if he thinks fit, may give notice to the Board that he does not propose to proceed with the application until he is satisfied, with respect to all the land over which wayleaves have not been agreed, that the Board have taken such action on their part as is mentioned in subsection (1) of section forty-four of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926 (which enables applications for consent or authorisation under section ten (b) and applications in respect of

    567
    wayleaves to be taken concurrently); and where the Minister gives such a notice under this subsection—

    (a) the Minister shall not be required to proceed with the application until he is satisfied that the Board have taken all the requisite action in accordance with the notice, and

    b) the provisions of subsection (1) of the said section forty-four as to concurrent proceedings shall apply accordingly.

    (3) Where an application for consent or authorisation under section ten (b) states that all necessary wayleaves have not been agreed, but the Minister does not proceed concurrently as mentioned in subsection (1) of the said section forty-four, the Minister, if he gives his consent or authorisation under section ten (b), may give it subject to the condition (either in respect of the whole of the line or in respect of any part of it specified in the consent or authorisation) that the work is not to proceed until the Minister gives his permission; and in determining at any time whether to give permission for the work to proceed, either generally or in respect of a part of the line, the Minister—

    (a) shall have regard to the extent to which the necessary wayleaves have been agreed by that time, and

    (b) in so far as any such wayleaves have not then been agreed in respect of any part of the line, shall take into account any prejudicial effect which, in his opinion, the giving of permission (whether in respect of that part or of any adjacent part of the line) might have on any subsequent proceedings relating to the outstanding wayleaves.

    (4) In the application of this section to Scotland, for any reference to the Minister there shall be substituted a reference to the Secretary of State."
    Read a Second time.
    Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a more substantial Amendment which introduces a new idea which I want to explain in some detail. This new Clause concerns all applications for overhead electric lines—excluding service lines to the consumer—which are lines for which the Minister's consent has to be obtained under Section 10 (b) of the Schedule of 1899, to which reference is made in the first subsection.
    The first subsection specifies the way in which these applications for consent shall be made—they shall be in writing, there shall be a map, and they shall state whether the necessary wayleaves have been agreed with the owners and occupiers of the land which it is proposed the line should cross. The next two subsections are designed to meet a grievance
    568
    which has been expressed from time to time. The grievance is to the effect that when the electricity authorities come to ask for a wayleave—to negotiate a way-leave, or, if necessary, to apply for a compulsory wayleave—the owner's position is prejudiced if the Minister has already given planning consent to the line.
    It is said that if the Minister has already agreed that the line shall go from A to B, crossing over a certain number of properties, then the position of the owners or occupiers of those properties is prejudiced when it comes to deciding whether the Authority shall have a way-leave to put pylons on the land, or whether a transmission cable shall be allowed to cross that land.
    The Clause tries, I think successfully, to meet that objection in two ways. In the first place, in subsection (2) it says that when an application for planning consent to lines of this kind is made to him, the Minister may insist that before he deals with it all the necessary way-leaves shall have been obtained, or, if the wayleaves have not been obtained, that the objections shall have been stated. Under subsection (2) the Minister will be able to say, when an area board applies for planning consent to run a line from A to B, that it must, at the same time, ask him to deal with compulsory way-leaves, if objections have been raised by the people occupying the premises along the route of the line. Therefore, he will be able to deal simultaneously with both planning consents for the line and with any question of compulsory wayleaves which may have to be granted for sections of that line.
    It should be an administrative improvement to conflate the two processes and it will be an advantage to the owner or occupier, because his objection will be heard simultaneously with any objections to planning consent to the erection of the lines. I should make it perfectly clear that this procedure can apply only in fairly limited circumstances. Clearly, it would not apply to very long transmission lines, because so many people might be involved.
    When one is considering planning consent for a considerable length of line, so many routes may be involved that it may be impossible to say in the planning consent how many people may be asked

    569
    to grant wayleaves, or how many applications may be made for wayleaves over individual properties on the possible routes over which the line may travel. This procedure of conflating a wayleave consideration with planning consent will probably apply most of all to short transmission lines from power stations, feeding into the grid, and possibly also to distribution lines of the area boards.
    Provision for the longer main transmission lines is made in subsection (3). In those circumstances, if all the necessary wayleaves have not been obtained, the Minister need not say that planning consent must await the wayleaves. He can give planning consent, but not permit a particular section of line to go ahead until he is satisfied that wayleaves can be granted. The effect of that will be that the Minister will be able to insist that approval for the necessary way leaves will proceed some way ahead of the actual construction of the line.
    4.30 p.m.
    The thought behind that is that people say—with some justice—that if the line is run absolutely up to their properties and they then say, "We do not want the line to run over our property," their position is a little prejudiced by reason of the fact that the line is already on their border and the cost of diverting it will probably be considerable. We want to see that people who object to wayleaves being granted are able to object before the line has advanced to the point at which their objections will be prejudiced.
    The purpose of subsection (3) is to enable the Minister to phase the physical progress of the transmission line with the legal process of obtaining the wayleaves, so that the electricity authorities have a few miles in hand, and so that nobody is faced with the position where the line is right up against his land and his objection is thereby prejudiced. That is the purpose of the Clause, which is basically intended to deal with the fairly general feeling that individual owners and occupiers may be prejudiced in their objections to the granting of wayleaves, either because the Minister's planning consent has already been given or because the line has advanced so near to their property that a diversion around it will be too expensive for the authorities to contemplate or for the Minister to feel able to give his permission to it.
    570
    I believe that the Clause meets the point which these people have in mind. I do not think that the new procedure will lay any burden upon the authorities or the Department which will hinder or slow down the progress or development of these overhead lines.
    Mr. Palmer: We could hardly complain about the Clause in view of the fact that its principle at least was suggested by a Member of this party in the other place. It seems generally sensible and, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, it certainly goes quite a long way towards meeting a substantial grievance on the part of property owners when electricity authorities propose to extend their lines. We therefore support the Clause in general.
    But I would like to put one point to the right hon. Gentleman. Does this mean that the Minister or his representatives are now open to be questioned in this House on every such proposal, where their responsibility is involved? It may be that I should not put that question to the right hon. Gentleman, but he may have some views upon it. There is also one further point. We are all in favour of greater protection being given to owners of property, in the interests of amenity—and that point of view has been widely expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House and in the other place but we now run the risk of the pendulum swinging a little too far in the other direction. We must be a little careful about the matter.
    When we discussed the question in Committee upstairs, where the question of consent to electricity works was first raised, I understood that it was the intention—I give the Government credit for it to speed up power station and transmission line projects. It may be that the net effect of these changes will be rather in the opposite direction, and will slow these projects down. I just put that thought to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that he is satisfied on the point.
    Only the other day my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, drawing attention to the loss of electricity supply in many parts of the country due to the recent thunderstorms and lightening disturbances. The point

    571
    which my hon. Friend very reasonably made was that the electricity authorities should provide more alternative sources of supply. If the authorities are to do that kind of thing, and extend their lines to give a greater reliability of supply, it is not much good having a procedure which is so cumbersome and is likely to stand in the way of their doing something on these lines.
    Mr. C. R. Hobson: We must be careful before we accept this proposal, despite the fact that it was moved by a member of my party in another place. I say that particularly in view of the fact that there is a further Amendment on the Notice Paper which I shall vote against later on, namely, the new Clause C.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) has said, the Clause now under discussion changes the whole question of the Minister's responsibility. As I see it, as a result of the insertion of the Clause it will be quite in order for the Minister to be questioned here, and for the Minister of Power to be questioned in another place, in connection with every single wayleave to which objection is taken and to which hon. Members may be referred by their constituents. I do not think that we can run an industry of this character if that procedure is followed.
    Unless assurances are given by the Minister in this respect, in view of the necessity for a practical and efficient working of the electricity supply I shall certainly vote against the Clause. I am reinforced in my view by the foolish and inane later Clause to which I have already referred, and which it would be out of order to discuss now. We must have assurances from the Minister before we accept the Clause.
    Mr. Maudling: Two very important points have been raised by hon. Members opposite. First, I do not think that the Clause will make any difference to the degree to which the decisions of the Minister are open to question in this House or in another place. Application already has to be made to the Minister under Section 10 (b) of the Schedule to the 1899 Act, and the Clause in no way affects the authority and responsibility of the Minister for giving or withholding
    572
    planning consent. The Clause makes him no more and no less accountable to this House than he was under the 1899 Act. The Clause, in effect, is concerned not with the decisions which the Minister makes but the procedure adopted before he makes those decisions, and the circumstances in which he makes them.
    Mr. Hobson: It is all very well for the Minister to say that, but the position is not quite so simple. In view of what he says, if we are not satisfied with the ways and means in which these wayleaves have been asked for, and our constituents complain to us about them, in view of the Minister's statement at the Box just now it will be quite in order for us to question him. Therefore, the logic of my argument follows, namely, that we shall be able to raise the question of every single objection to a wayleave that is put forward.
    Mr. Maudling: If that will be true in the future it was equally true of the past. My point is that the Minister has to decide whether to grant these wayleaves in every case in which his consent has to be asked, and if he were subject to challenge in Parliament in the past over his decision in regard to any wayleave he will be no more and no less responsible to Parliament in future. The Clause does not affect the liability of ministerial decisions being challenged in this House.
    My own impression—speaking rather off the cuff—is that if the Minister gives a planning decision he is always liable to be questioned in this House as to why he made that decision. That has always been so, I would have thought, and it is probably only a matter of practice that he has not so been asked. But there is nothing in the Clause which will make Ministers' decisions upon wayleave procedure any more subject to challenge in this House in the future than they were in the past.
    I very much share the fears of both hon. Members opposite about the possible delay. I am very worried about this. Half way through the Committee proceedings we started trying to speed up the procedure, and everyone was in favour of that in principle. Having produced some ideas, however, we found that no one liked the ideas. It is rather like Government economy; everyone is

    573
    in favour of economy in general, but nobody likes it in particular. In the Bill as it left this House we introduced certain improvements to speed up the procedure. Too often however, people think that this matter is very simple, and that we can have electricity supplies without the erection of power stations and of transmission lines. It is bunkum to think that. It is an attitude which colours the minds of too many people.
    Much of the opposition to the erection of power stations and transmission lines comes from people who already have an electricity supply. They should remember that if we are to be able to supply electricity to every part of the country, we must be able to produce it and carry it. I am, therefore, grateful to both hon. Members for underlining what should be underlined more often, namely, that although we are anxious to preserve the amenities of this island—and I know how anxious and how sensible the electricity authorities are in this matter—we cannot have electricity distributed without pylons and transmission lines. I am grateful to hon. Members for pointing that out.
    With that background, and having looked at the proposed new Clause, I am satisfied that it will not slow down procedures. I hope that, in practice, it may speed them up a little. By putting together two stages, planning consent and the granting of wayleaves, subsection (2) may enable us to speed up a little. The Clause is designed to meet a legitimate cause of grievance by owners and occupiers of property. After some consideration, I am satisfied that it will not hold up the development of the electricity supply system. For those reasons, I hope that the House will be prepared to agree to the Lords Amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause C.—(PROVISIONS AS TO CON STRUCTION OR EXTENSION OF GENERATING STATIONS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 46, after the Amendment last inserted to insert new Clause C:
    574
    "(1) Where under section two of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909 (which relates to the construction or extension of generating stations), notice, and an opportunity of stating objections, are required to be given to the local authority of the district in which the land in question is situated, the like requirements as to notice, and as to an opportunity of stating objections, shall apply in relation to the local planning authority in whose area the land is situated.
    (2) An application for the consent of the Minister or of the Secretary of State under the said section two shall be in writing, and shall describe by reference to a map the land in relation to which the consent is required.
    (3) In this and the next following section 'local planning authority', in relation to England and Wales, has the same meaning as in the Town and Country Planning Act. 1947, and, in relation to Scotland, has the same meaning as in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947."
    Read a Second time.
    Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a fairly small Amendment which will have no great practical effect. It gives statutory authority to an accepted practice. Where application is made for the construction or extension of a generating station under the Act of 1909 it provides that notice shall be given, not only to the local authority, but to the local planning authority. That will bring the provision for generating stations into line with the provisions for transmission lines which are, I believe, set out in the Act of 1919. At any rate, it has always been the practice, where a generating station is to be built or extended, to let the local planning authority know as well as the local authority. The Clause will give statutory authority to a general and sensible practice.
    Sir F. Soskice: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a sensible proposal. It gives statutory sanction to a practice which has been carried on for some considerable time. It requires consultation with the local planning authority. That seems to us eminently sensible and does not effect any great change.
    Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause D.—(SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO PUBLIC INQUIRIES.)
    Lards Amendment: In page 29, line 46, after the Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause D:

    "(1) Where an application has been made to the Minister for his consent or authorisation under paragraph (b) of section ten of the Schedule of 1899, or for his consent under section two of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909, and the local planning authority after giving public notice, considering any objection that may be made and consulting with the local authorities, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and other appropriate national and local bodies, have notified the Minister that there are objections by the planning authority or by persons aggrieved by the application or by the local authorities or bodies consulted and that those objections have not been withdrawn, the Minister (either in addition to, or in lieu of, any other hearing or opportunity of stating objections) shall cause a public inquiry to be held, and, before determining whether to give his consent or authorisation, shall consider the objection and the report of the person who held the inquiry:

    Provided that this subsection shall not apply where the Minister proposes to accede to the application subject to such modifications or conditions as will give effect to the objection of the local planning authority.

    (2) Where in accordance with the preceding subsection a public inquiry is to be held in respect of an application by an Electricity Board, the Minister shall inform the Board accordingly; and the Board shall in two successive weeks publish a notice stating—

    a) the fact that the application has been made, and the purpose thereof, together with a description of the land to which it relates;

    (b) a place in the locality where a copy of the application, and of the map referred to therein, can be inspected; and

    (c) the place, date and time of the public inquiry.

    (3) A notice under the last preceding subsection shall be published in one or more local newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land in question is situated, or circulating respectively in the several localities in which different parts of that land are situated, as the Board publishing the notice may consider appropriate.

    (4) If it appears to the Minister that, in addition to the publication of a notice in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) of this section, further notification of the public inquiry should be given (either by the service of notices, or by advertisement, or in any other way) in order to secure that the information specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (2) of this section is sufficiently made known to persons in the locality, the Minister may direct the Board to take such further steps for that purpose as may be specified in the direction.

    (5) Where in accordance with this section a public inquiry is to be held in respect of an application for the consent or authorisation of the Minister under paragraph (b) of section ten of the Schedule of 1899, and (whether in pursuance of subsection (2) of section (Further provisions as to placing of electric lines) of this Act or otherwise) the Minister is proceeding concurrently as mentioned in subsection (1) of section forty-four of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, the public inquiry shall extend to all the matters arising in those concurrent proceedings, and any notice of the inquiry (in addition to any other matters required to be stated therein) shall indicate the extent of the inquiry accordingly.

    (6) In the case of an application for the consent or authorisation of the Minister under paragraph (b) of the said section ten, where the application relates to land in the areas of two or more local planning authorities.—

    (a) in so far as any of those local planning authorities do not object to the application, no public inquiry need (unless the Minister otherwise directs) be held in respect of the application in so far as it relates to land in the area of that local planning authority;

    Read a Second time.
    Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in subsection (1), line 5, to leave out from the beginning to "not" in line 11, and to insert:
    "have notified the Minister that they object to the application, and that objection of the local planning authority has".
    I think it would be for the convenience of the House if all the Amendments to the proposed Lords Amendments were taken together. That would include the proposed new Second Schedule, which is described as a "consequential Amendment to the Bill".
    This matter is a little complicated. I will try to explain it, in the hope that I shall explain it also to myself in the process. The proposed Lords Amendment arises from an undertaking given by my noble Friend that where the local planning authority maintained an objection either to the building or the extension of a power station, or to the provision of an overhead line, my noble Friend would cause a public inquiry to be held. That is the principal purpose of the proposed new Clause D. It is backed by a series of subsidiary provisions which are concerned with the notice that shall be given, where notices shall be placed, further publicity, if the Minister should re
    578
    quire it, and machinery designed to carry out the primary purpose.
    4.45 p.m.
    I believe it was also felt that local planning authorities, excellent as they are, are primarily local and therefore have a limited purview of these matters. It was put to us that there might he objections on planning grounds to power stations or transmission lines which would not necessarily come within the field of operation of planning authorities and that provision should therefore be made for the consideration of objections, not only from the local planning authority, but from any other body, for example, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. In those circumstances, a public inquiry should be held at the instance of the Minister. As the result, the proposed new Clause D now provides for a public inquiry not only if the local planning authority should object, but if that authority should inform the Minister that other persons are aggrieved by the application. The effect would be that if any two people objected to any particular application the Minister would be bound to hold a public inquiry.
    There are a number of reasons why the Government do not feel that the proposed new Clause is acceptable. The

    579
    Minister has to deal with about 9,000 or 10,000 applications for overhead lines annually, and if we had to have a public inquiry any time two people objected to one of these applications, the effect on the power programme would be insupportable.
    The effect of the Amendment which I have moved to the proposed Lords Amendment would be that where application has been made to the Minister, and the local planning authority has informed the Minister that it objects to the application and its objection has not been withdrawn, the Minister shall hold a public inquiry. Subsection (1) would say that where the local planning authority objects, there shall be a public inquiry. This is in accordance with the undertaking given by my noble Friend. I hope that that proposal will commend itself to the House. If the planning authority maintained an objection, there would be a very strong case for a public inquiry.
    We then endeavour to meet the further point, that the local planning authority may not be the only people with a reasonable objection and that the Minister should be able and obliged to listen to objections from other quarters. The purpose of subsection (2) as amended would roughly be that, in the case of high voltage lines, which are to be defined as lines for conveying electricity at or above 132,000 volts, if anyone other than the local planning authority has an objection to make he will send the objection to the local planning authority and simultaneously to the Minister. Then the Minister will have the whole picture of the objections to the line and will be able, if he thinks it right, to hold a public inquiry in regard to objections from sources other than the local planning authority.
    This has happened in other cases, one of which was the Bradwell Power Station. No objection was raised locally, but the Minister thought it right to have a public inquiry because of the importance of the project. If the local planning authority says that there are other substantial objectors, like the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the Minister will have discretion to order a public inquiry. He will not be compelled to do so unless he thinks that the substance of the objections is such as to make that the right course to pursue.
    580
    This is a very tangled problem, and the Amendments which I am proposing to the Amendment from another place are, I regret to say, complicated, but I have endeavoured to explain to the House the main purpose. I think that what underlies the whole provision is the feeling that, first of all, if the local planning authority objects, there should be a public inquiry; secondly, we cannot assume that because the local planning authority has no objection, there are no other objections from other sources which are worthy of a public inquiry; and that, in the case of objections other than from the local planning authority, it must be for the Minister—it cannot be for anyone else—to decide in his discretion whether these other objections should be dealt with by private hearing or whether they are adequate to merit the full machinery of a public inquiry on the lines set out in the subsequent subsections of the new Clause.
    I hope very much that our Amendments will commend themselves to the House. I think the point raised in another place is a valid one, and represents a feeling which is fairly widespread but, as I explained earlier, I also feel very strongly that we must not do anything which will, in fact, impede or hold up the expansion of the electricity supply industry. I think that by our proposed Amendments to the new Clause we have, with some difficulty and with some ingenuity on the part of the Parliamentary draftsmen, succeeded in obtaining the best of both worlds.
    Mr. C. R. Hobson: I think this is a step in the right direction, because the original Amendment would have been thoroughly impracticable. I am no lawyer, but it seems to me that it would have meant having to consult the Society for the Preservation of Rural England before erecting a power station in Scotland, and I do not know what the Secretary of State for Scotland would think about that. The whole thing would have been thoroughly impracticable, and would have impeded the programme.
    I should like to ask one question. Why has it been found necessary, according to the right hon. Gentleman's statement, to have a datum line for high voltage lines of 132,000 volts?
    Mr. Maudling: The answer is that we felt that it was quite impossible to apply this procedure to every application for an overhead line. The thing that causes most controversy and discontent to people is the large overhead lines carried on big pylons, and the datum line of 132,000 volts is intended to include the big pylons, hut to exclude the normal overhead distribution lines.
    Sir F. Soskice: I think the Minister has found what is a reasonable compromise in order to allay a number of conflicting anxieties. The Clause started out with a provision that there should be an inquiry when there was an objection by the planning authority. When that was examined, it was thought that possibly the planning authority might take too narrow and sectarian a view in some sets of circumstances.
    That quite naturally gave rise to the suggestion that the Clause should be considerably enlarged and that the Minister should be required to hold an inquiry in the event of objections from other sources which, it was thought, might take a more general view of the circumstances. But, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the Clause in the form in which it left another place would have put very serious obstacles in the way of the direct implementation of large-scale schemes. It was under these circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers set to work to try to find a middle way between these opposing points of view.
    The course which he has adopted in order to achieve that objective seems to us on this side of the House to be wholly reasonable. What he has said, in effect, is that there must be an inquiry when there is an objection by a planning authority, and that there should be an inquiry when an objection is voiced from other quarters. At any rate, in the case of these very high voltage cables, it seems to us that, faced with that difficult situation, and trying to meet the point of view of those who wished objections to be fully aired and fully considered and those who felt more strongly the practical need for pressing on with urgent programmes, that the right hon. Gentleman has found a sensible middle way and a reasonable compromise, which I hope, when it is considered, will seem to be satisfactory to all those who have felt very much concern in this matter.
    582
    Speaking for myself, I would certainly hope that the House would agree with the Paymaster-General in the changes which he proposes, which certainly seem to me to meet the situation, and I therefore hope 'hat the House will agree to them.
    Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments to the Lords Amendment made: In subsection (1), at end insert:
    (2) In relation to applications for consent under section two of the Electric Lighting Act. 1909, and to applications for consent or authorisation under paragraph (b) of section ten of the Schedule of 1899 in respect of the placing of high voltage lines, the Minister shall make provision by regulations for securing—

    (a) that (in addition to any notice required to be given under section two of the said Act of 1909) notice of every such application shall be published in such manner as may he specified in the regulations;

    (b) that (in addition to any notice required to be given under the said section two, and to the publication of notices in accordance with the preceding paragraph) notice of any such application shall, where the Minister so directs, be served upon much persons as may he specified in the directions;

    (c) that every notice published or served in pursuance of the regulations shall state the time within which, and the manner in which, objections to the application can be made by persons other than those to whom (under the said section two, or under section twenty-one of the Electricity (Supply) Act. 1919) an opportunity of being heard or of stating objections is required to be given, and that the time so stated shall not be less than such minimum period as may be specified in the regulations; and

    (d) that, in so far as any such notice requires objections to be sent to any person other than the Minister, copies of the objections shall be sent to the Minister by that person:

    Provided that, in relation to applications for consent tinder the said section two to the extension of generating stations, any regulations made under this subsection may include provision for enabling the Minister to give directions dispensing with the requirements of the regulations, in cases where in accordance with that section the Minister dispenses with the giving of notices thereunder.
    (3) Where, in the case of any such application as is mentioned in the last preceding subsection,—

    (a) the Minister is not required by virtue of subscetion (1) of this section to cause a public inquiry to be held, but

    (b) objections or copies of objections have been sent to the Minister in pursuance of regulations made under the last preceding subsection,

    the Minister shall consider those objections, together with all other material considerations, with a view to determining whether a public inquiry should be held with respect to the application, and, if he thinks it appropriate to

    583
    do so, shall cause a public inquiry to be held, either in addition to, or in lieu of, any other hearing or opportunity of stating objections to the application.
    In subsection (2), line 1, leave out "the preceding subsection" and insert:
    "any of the preceding provisions of this section".
    Leave out subsections (6) and (7), and insert:
    (6) The provisions of the Schedule (Supplementary provisions as to public inquiries) to this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this section.
    Subsection (8), line 6, after "(1)" insert "or subsection (3)".
    Subsection (8), at end add:
    (9) In this section "high voltage line" means an electric line for conveying or transmitting electricity at or above a voltage of one hundred and thirty-two thousand.—[Mr. Maudling.]
    Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to
    Consequential Amendment made to the Bill: In page 38, line 44, at the end insert the following Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE

  SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO PUBLIC INQUIRIES
  1. In the case of an application for the consent or authorisation of the Minister under paragraph (b) of section ten of the Schedule of 1899, where in accordance with any of the provisions of section (Special provisions as to public inquiries) of this Act a public inquiry is to be held, and the application relates to land in the areas of two or more local planning authorities,—

  (a) the application shall not be the subject of a public inquiry in so far as it relates to land in the area of a local planning authority who have not notified the Minister that they object to the application, unless the Minister otherwise directs having regard to objections by other persons of which he has notice;

  (b) in so far as the application is to be the subject of a public inquiry in relation to land in the areas of two or more local planning authorities, the Minister may direct that separate public inquiries shall be held in the area of each of those authorities;

  and, where the Minister gives any such directions, the provisions of the said section (Special provisions as to public inquiries) shall apply with the necessary modifications:
  Provided that for the purposes of sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph a local planning authority who have notified the Minister that they object to the application shall be treated as not having done so if the Minister proposes 'to accede to the application subject to such
  584
  modifications or conditions as will give effect to the objection
  2. Subsection (2) of section sixty-six of the principal Act (which relates to inquiries under that Act) shall apply in relation to inquiries held in pursuance of section (Special provisions as to public inquiries) of this Act as it applies in relation to inquiries held in pursuance of the said section sixty-six.
  3. For the purposes of section (Special provisions as to public inquiries) of this Act the Minister may make regulations limiting the time within which notification of objections may be made to the Minister by local planning authorities, and providing that objections which are not notified within the time so limited may be disregarded for those purposes.
  4. Any power to make regulations under section (Special provisions as to public inquiries) of this Act, or under this Schedule, shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and any instrument containing such regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and different provision may be made by any such regulations in relation to different classes of applications or otherwise in relation to different classes of cases.
  5. Where any regulations made under section (Special provisions as to public inquiries) of this Act, or under this Schedule, are for the time being in force, any rules made under section thirty-four of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in so far as they relate to applications to which the regulations apply, shall have effect subject to those regulations.
  6. In the application of this Schedule to Scotland, for any reference to the Minister there shall be substituted a reference to the Secretary of State.
  7. In this Schedule "local planning authority" has the same meaning as in section (Special provisions as to public inquiries) of this Act.—[Mr. Maudling.]

  New Clause E.—(PRESERVATION OF AMENITY.)
  Lords Amendment: In line 26, at end insert new Clause E:
  "In formulating or considering any proposals relating to the functions of the Generating Board or of any of the Area Boards (including any such general programme as is mentioned in subsection (4) of section seven of this Act, the Board in question, the Electricity Council and the Minister, having regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest, and of protecting buildings and other objects of architectural or historic interest, shall each take into account any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, buildings or objects."
  Read a Second time.
  Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

  585
  5.0 p.m.
  During the discussions in another place their Lordships showed themselves to have a passionate interest in beauty and physiography and especially flora and, of course, fauna. [Laughter] I do not know why hon. Gentlemen are laughing. There is no question of three guineas in this. The new Clause is a very valuable addition by their Lordships and I commend it to the House.
  The Clause is fairly wide in its application. It states that not only when formulating proposals, but when considering proposals, the electricity boards, the Electricity Council and the Minister shall have regard to the various matters which are specified. Those matters cover a wide range of subjects—the preservation of natural beauty:
  "… the conserving of flora, fauna and ecological or physiographical features of special interest …"
  In regard to geological features, for example, that means that if there were known to be or thought to be a certain bed of interesting fossils and excavations had to be made, then those fossils could not be disturbed until the matter had been carefully considered. Also, buildings and other objects of architectural or historical interest have to be protected. I think it might be in order for me to point out that this is in line with a similar provision which was made in the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Bill the other day. We are anxious to protect our irreplaceable national heritage. whether of ancient things or of beautiful ones.
  Considering the way in which this very broad obligation is likely to work out in practice, I would point out that, first and foremost, the various electricity boards would have to bear these factors in mind when considering their duty under Clause 7 (4) to produce a general programme of development for consideration by the Minister. Then the Electricity Council and, in turn, the Minister would also have to bear these factors in mind when considering their general programme. But the obligation would apply to matters of a more particularised kind. For example, when proposals are being formulated for a new power station and an application is being made by the Generating Board to the Minister for consent, both the Board and the Minister will have to bear these proposals in mind.
  586
  I hope that the House will not think that this is imposing upon the Generating Board a big new obligation which is not already borne voluntarily by the Central Electricity Authority. I have been looking closely into these procedures lately, and I find that the Central Electricity Authority goes into these matters with very great care. I think it would be a matter of public assurance that these excellent practices should be recognised by Parliament and written into this Bill while we have the opportunity to do it. I feel that their Lordships have done a public service by drawing attention to these matters and giving us the opportunity to ensure that they become part of the law of the land.
  Mr. C. R. Hobson: I am against the proposed new Clause. It is far too restrictive. I do not see any reason for its insertion. Indeed, we have already been told that it covers precisely what the electricity boards already do. It may appear from that that I put myself in a contradictory position when I say that I am against the inclusion of the Clause, but there is all the difference in the world between having a common-sense and practical approach to the problem—which I am sure those connected with the Generating Board have—and having this very closely drawn Clause inserted into an Act of Parliament.
  What is meant by "fauna"? Can it be stated where we shall site atomic power stations without affecting some fauna, such as deer in Scotland, or rabbits? Does "fauna" cover badgers? It is all a question of definition. The whole thing is stupid. Provision has already been made for siting projected atomic power stations. The proposal to have one at Bradwell raised a flurry about whether or not a Georgian mansion was an ancient building. The same sort of thing will happen all over the country.
  I do not see why the House, to please another place, should insert a Clause containing such categorical language when we have got on very well in the past without one. I have known the industry for many years and I have never heard of the building of a power station leading to the destruction of fauna and flora or to the pulling down of historic monuments. I cannot understand the readiness of any Government to have a Clause of this character, for I am sure it will be the subject of objections and a tremendous number of legal actions. After all,

  587
  the British people have a certain tradition, and we are not likely readily to destroy any of our heritage. I do not think the Clause is necessary. I would on no account vote for it, because I think it is just plain stupid.
  Mr. Ray Mawby: I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson). If we add such a Clause to the Bill, we may look forward to lawyers' field days, because we shall be putting into the Bill many words with vague definitions. We are, in fact, calling upon the boards to carry out obligations which they have voluntarily accepted over a number of years. Unless we are to have a long interpretation Clause dealing with the points covered by the new Clause, I feel that we should do well not to accept it.
  Mr. Palmer: Many of us understand and sympathise with the doubts concerning difficulties in the operation of the Clause which have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson) and the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby). Nevertheless, it cannot be doubted that on both sides in this House and in another place there has been a strong expression of feeling that when our power station programme is extended in the future—we are to have a tremendous extension—it is the business of all the authorities concerned, including the boards, to take account of amenity considerations. I believe that I speak for the great majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that, for that reason, we feel that the Clause should be given general support.
  The difficulty seems to be on the aesthetic side. What is to be the standard of taste in these matters, and how is it to be determined? Will the electricity boards appoint flora and fauna officers?
  Mr. C. R. Hobson: Why not?
  Mr. Palmer: Unkind critics of the boards—I am sure without any warrant—have occasionally talked about a "bereavement officer," quite a mythical figure. If, in addition, there is to be a "flora and fauna officer," there would be scope for more jokes for the comedians on the music hall stage.
  There are such difficulties, but the real problem is to determine what we really
  588
  mean by the natural beauty of the countryside. It so happened that my memory from reading Macaulay's History of England took me to Volume I. Macaulay is not a much quoted historian these days. He is a Whig historian, but none the worse for that, if I may say so as a good Socialist. I remembered words which I found in page 280, where he says:
  "Under the benignant influence of peace and liberty, science has flourished, and has been applied to practical purposes on a scale never before known. The consequence is that a change to which the history of the old world furnishes no parallel has taken place in our country. Could the England of 1685"—
  and Macaulay was writing in the early years of the nineteenth century—
  "be, by some magical process, set before our eyes, we should not know one landscape in a hundred or one building in ten thousand. The country gentleman would not recognise his own fields. The inhabitant of the town would not recognise his own street. Everything has been changed, but the great features of nature, and a few massive and durable works of human art. We might find out Snowdon and Windermere, the Chedder Cliffs and Beachy Head. We might find out here and there a Norman minster or a castle which witnessed the wars of the Roses. But, with such rare exceptions, everything would be strange to us."
  That is my difficulty when noble Lords and others talk about the natural beauties of the countryside. I am all in favour of protecting beauty on every occasion, but my difficulty is to define natural beauty.
  Mr. C. R. Hobson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Would it be competent for me to submit a manuscript Amendment?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Gordon Touche): Mr. Speaker would have to select it.
  Mr. Hobson: That means that it would be impossible for any hon. Member who objects to this Amendment to move a manuscript Amendment?
  Mr. Renton: I understand that the Lords Amendments were ordered to be printed on 6th June. They were available, if I remember correctly, before we reassembled following the Whitsun Recess.
  Mr. Hobson: That may be so, but I submit that it is irrelevant. It is quite competent during the Committee stage of a Bill to submit manuscript Amendments, subject to the discretion of the

  589
  Chairman of the Committee, and I see no reason why the procedure in this House should be any different in this respect, particularly in view of the fact that these Amendments come from another place. Hon. Members have a lot of other things to do and if notice has not been taken of this it only means that hon. Members have had their minds devoted to day-to-day problems. I personally am not prepared to ponder night after night upon foolish Amendments of this character and I should like to know whether it be possible to move a manuscript Amendment to delete the most objectionable features of this Clause.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would be possible to move an Amendment, but I cannot select it.
  Sir Thomas Moore: I feel it necessary to support the Minister in this matter. We are all agreed that we have the loveliest country in the world, especially in good weather. We also have some of the noblest and most distinguished buildings and some perfect gems of rural architecture in our English villages. I am not referring so much to Scottish villages. A few years ago this lovely countryside was disfigured by ribbon development. Fortunately, owing to the quick and successful action of the then Conservative Government, this horror was largely stopped.
  Now we are being subjected to a new menace. Pylons of strange design, and erections of a Heath Robinson character, are going up all over the countryside, destroying the skyline—
  Mr, C. R. Hobson: The hon. Member is making a case for removing the Clause.
  Sir T. Moore: —destroying the vista and practically everything which gives happiness and satisfaction to the eye. On this occasion I think that their Lordships have shown a sensitiveness to beauty and to those natural features mentioned in the Clause. We should welcome this Amendment. I, for one, am glad to support it.
  5.15 p.m
  Mr. Renton: If I may speak again with the leave of the House, I should like to reassure those hon. Members who have expressed anxiety about this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) said that this proposed Clause might result in a lawyers' paradise. I
  590
  hope that I can assure him that is not so. All that requires to be done by the various parties concerned, the Electricity Council, the boards and the Minister, is to take into account these various things and to consider them having regard to
  "… the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest, and of protecting buildings and other objects of architectural or historic interest …"
  It is not every sparrow which has to be protected. It is not every stone. It is when these features are of special interest that they have to be taken into account. There is no question of this becoming an overriding factor which will decide every case. I hope that my attempt at clarification will allay the anxiety of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson). He made the point that this Amendment is unnecessary because what the Clause proposes is already being done. It is already being done by the Central Electricity Authority, but we must remember that a new public authority is being created, the Generating Board.
  The Electricity Council is being set up with new responsibilities and I think it right that while we are making this general change in the structure of the industry we should remind those accountable for the future administration of the industry and the making of these decisions of their responsibilities. It is right to bear in mind the public anxiety which has been expressed, although it has sometimes been misplaced. I think that we should write these responsibilities into this Bill.
  The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) expressed the hope—if I may put it this way, paraphrasing the words of the hon. Gentleman—that there would not be a "flora and fauna officer"—
  Mr. C. R. Hobson: There is plenty of time yet; there are plenty of seats vacant in the Empire.
  Mr. Renton: —and that there would not be an "ancient buildings officer". Judging front the experience of the Central Electricity Authority, I am sure that the anxieties of the hon. Gentleman may be set at rest. Consultation already takes place with the Nature Conservancy where anything affecting flora and fauna is concerned, and with the National Parks Commission where areas designated as being of special beauty are concerned.
  Mr. Palmer: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not wish to take too seriously what I said. The point I was anxious to make was the difficulty of defining these things. They depend so much on standards of taste, and so on. That was the point I was making; I was not serious in the other part of my speech.
  Mr. Renton: I am obliged to the hon. Member and will not make heavy weather of it, but it is right to point out that there are already procedures for consultations on these matters. The Ministry of Works comes into this as well and, as has been stated by my noble Friend in another place, very eminent architects are consulted by the Central Electricity Authority, also.
  May I say how grateful I am to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) for his support? I hope that now the House might feel disposed to agree with the Lords in this Amendment.
  Mr. Mawby: I wonder whether my hon. and learned Friend could convince me that if, in fact, this Clause were not complied with there is an authority which can make certain that it is complied with?
  Mr. Renton: That comes back to a very great extent to the responsibility of the Minister in this matter. He is obliged to take these matters into account when exercising his powers and duties under the Act. There is no question of an appeal of any kind except to the Minister, but I think that one must realise that this has got to be regarded in the light of the various procedures under this Measure and previous statutes. If one regards it in the light of those procedures, one finds that the whole thing is channelled upwards to the Minister and he is responsible to Parliament That is the sanction which underlies the working of this Clause.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Second Schedule.— (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 39, line 33, after "relating" insert:
  "to employed persons generally or"
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  592
  It might be convenient to consider all the Lords Amendments to page 39 together. They are drafting Amendments.
  The Second Schedule, which is one of transitional provisions, deals with the agreements already in effect dealing with employed persons. It is clear that, as drafted at present, it refers to:
  "Any such agreement relating to any class of employed persons"—
  That is line 33 of the Schedule as it stands, but the Schedule does not refer to agreements relating to employed persons as a whole, and as there are such agreements, that is a defect in the drafting.
  The last two Amendments proposed, to line 41 and line 43, are necessary to ensure that in interpreting the existing agreements in the new circumstances appropriate reference should be made both to the Electricity Council and the Generating Board.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Further Lords Amendments made: In line 35, after "relation" insert:
  "to employed persons generally or"
  In line 36, leave out "persons" and insert:
  "employed persons, as the case may be,"
  In line 41, leave out "references in the agreement" and insert:
  "in the provisions of the agreement, references (however expressed)"
  In line 43, at end insert:
  "or to the Generating Board or to both of them, as the case may require."—[Mr. Maud-ling.]
  Lords Amendment: In page 42, line 46, at end insert:
  (3) In this paragraph "obligation" has the same meaning as in section twenty-four of this Act.
  Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This Amendment was considered when we were considering the Amendment to page 22, line 8, and is consequential.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 44, line 52, at end insert:
  Applications for consent or authorization made before vesting date
  14. The following provisions of this Act, that is to say,—

  (a) sections (Further provisions as to placing of electric lines), (Provisions as to

  593
  construction or extension of generating stations) and (Special provisions as to public inquiries), and

  (b) so much of the Third Schedule to this Act as amends section two of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909, shall not have effect in relation to the giving of any consent or authorisation for which application was made before the passing of this Act, or is made thereafter but before the vesting date.

  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This is a consequential Amendment. This afternoon we have agreed to three new Clauses dealing with the placing of electric lines, construction or extension of generating stations and special provisions as to public inquiries. The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that these new provisions do not take effect until vesting date under the Act. It will be generally agreed that to introduce new machinery into inquiries or negotiations or decisions at present in course of being taken would be a mistake. It would be to the convenience of all concerned to introduce the new provisions with the vesting date of the Act.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Third Schedule.—(AMENDMENT AND ADAPTATION OF ENACTMENTS.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 45, line 43, leave out "(4)".
  Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This is an Amendment which makes various adaptations and amendments, including some to the Electricity Act, 1947. Section 3 (4) of that Act disqualifies Members of Parliament from being members of the Central Electricity Authority or its area boards. The House of Commons Disqualification Act has recently repealed Section 3 (4) of the Electricity Act, 1947. It is, therefore, right that we should also repeal it here.
  However, in this connection I should invite the attention of hon. Members to page 50 of the Bill as it went to the House of Lords on 9th April, in which we find that the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957, is also amended, and amended in such a way as to substitute for "the Central Authority" "the Central Electricity Generating Board" and the Electricity Council". So we
  594
  now arrive at the position at which it will be impossible for Members of this House to be members of the Electricity Council or any of its electricity boards.
  Sir F. Soskice: I hope that this is an instance in which the effect of the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957, will be salutary in clearing up various ambiguities in the law relating to disqualification with which that Act set out to deal. I am a little dismayed, however, to find that, while the provision we seek to remove is rendered unnecessary because of the House of Commons Disqualification Act, the Bill itself amends that Act. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman proposes to remove from the Bill, or has already removed, the provision in which it amends the House of Commons Disqualification Act. I do not think he told the House that, but presumably he has done so.
  Mr. Renton: I speak again by leave of the House. The House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957, is amended in the Third Schedule and on page 50 of the Bill. I think it was right for the House of Commons Disqualification Act to be passed irrespective of what might be enacted by Parliament in this Bill, which had not been enacted by the time that Act was passed, and for the Bill, now it is to be passed, to amend the House of Commons Disqualification Act. I understand that the usual procedure which pertains when we have two Bills going through the House in one Session and to some very minor extent they overlap has, in fact, been followed in this case. Nothing unusual is being done, but the whole thing is being tidied up in this way.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. C. R. Hobson: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) has raised a very important point. It is very difficult for laymen to follow these legal arguments between counsel across the Floor of the House. The point about which I am concerned and on which I should like some elucidation, either from my right hon. and learned Friend or from the Minister, is whether this means that a consequential alteration will have to be made to the House of Commons Disqualification Act. Will that Act have to be amended?
  Mr. Renton: I do not wish to pursue the point, but I am being pressed about it and, with the leave of the House, I wish to help. The House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957, has already received the Royal Assent, and when this Bill receives the Royal Assent that Act will be amended by the words on page 50 at the end of the Third Schedule.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 46, line 28. at end insert:

  Section 21

  In subsection (3), for the words "Central Authority" there shall be substituted the words "Electricity Council".

  Section 33

  In subsection (4), for the words "Central Authority" there shall be substituted the words "Electricity Council".

  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This is a tidying up Amendment which deals with two matters which, I can assure the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson), were considered in Committee. The two Sections of the principal Act which we propose to amend are Sections 21 and 33. Section 21 appointed stockholders' representatives at the time of nationalisation to represent stockholders entitled to compensation, and provided that they should be paid by the Crown and that the money should be recovered from the Central Authority. It appears to be true, although rather surprising, that all possible claims under the nationalisation Act have not yet been exhausted, and it is possible that further money will have to be provided by the Crown to meet the expenses of stockholders' representatives. This money will clearly have to be reimbursed to the Crown in the future by the Electricity Council, which will be in existence after the vesting date in the Bill, when the Central Authority has ceased to exist.
  Section 33 is similar in that subsection (4) provides for the payment of allowances, pay and expenses to the Electricity Arbitration Tribunal which was set up under the nationalisation Act to determine disputes arising from the nationalisation of undertakings. I understand that some matters are still outstanding between the Central Authority
  596
  and the local authorities for which arbitration may be necessary, and if the arbitration tribunal is to be reconvened, which is possible, the Electricity Council will be the proper body to reimburse the Minister for the tribunal's expenses, since the Central Authority will not be in a position to do so after the passage of the Bill.
  Mr. C. R. Hobson: This is a shocking business. On two occasions this afternoon privileges of the Commons have been broken by another place. I cannot understand why Government spokesmen in the other place are so badly briefed, or are not informed by those responsible for informing them that the Money Resolution is not adequate—because I take it from the Minister's statement that this is precisely what is meant here. I hope that we shall not have many repetitions of this sort of thing.
  It is true that one is present when Lords Amendments are being considered only if one is particularly interested in the Measure; that is the general way in which hon. Members conduct themselves. Nevertheless, I speak with over twelve years' membership of the House, and I think this is the only occasion which I can remember on which the privileges of the Commons have been broken by the Lords twice in one series of Amendments. I am not blaming them, for they are trying to get their own way, but I am complaining somewhat bitterly that there is not sufficient co-ordination between the Minister and right hon. and hon. Members opposite in pointing out that there is not enough money in the Money Resolution to cover the point under consideration.
  If certain concessions are to be made, we shall have Bills put up to a sort of Dutch auction and the highest bidder will get what he wants. Are we to have a state of affairs on the Budget in which, when he has a surplus, the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "All right boys. I shall be distributing largesse to the tune of £50 million"?
  This is a case in which the Money Resolution has not been adequate. I think it points to very bad co-ordination, and I make my protest.
  Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
  Lords Amendment: In page 48, line 13, at end insert:
  Third Schedule In paragraph 5 of Part I, and in paragraph 2, and sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 5, of Part II, for the words 'Central Authority', in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words 'Electricity Council'; and in subparagraph (2) of paragraphs 5 of Part II, the words by the Central Authority' shall be omitted, and after the words in respect of any securities' there shall be inserted the words whether by the Central Authority or by the Electricity Council'.
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  The Third Schedule of the principal Act, with which we are concerned here, deals with the issue of compensation stock at nationalisation. Once again, rather surprisingly, it is true that there is still a small amount of compensation stock which has not been allocated, the reason being that people entitled to it have not been identified. Adaptations are required in the Schedule to transfer to the Electricity Council certain functions of the Central Authority about compensation stock. This is in line with what has already been decided in principle by the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 48, line 40, at end insert:
  The Electric Lighting Act, 1882
  In the provisions of section eighteen of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847, incorporated with the said Act of 1882 by virtue of section twelve thereof, the words from "or shall supply any other person" to the words "by the Undertakers", and the words "or such supply furnished", shall be omitted.
  Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  I suggest, if it is convenient, that we should take at the same time the next Amendment, in line 43. The two go together.
  Mr. C. R. Hobson: Is this again a breach of privilege?
  Mr. Renton: These two Amendments are consequential to Clause 28 (5) of the Bill, which deals with the fixing of maximum charges for reselling electricity, and the need for the Amendments arises in this way: Section 18 of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847 provides penalties for
  598
  misusing gas supplied by gas undertakings. That Section of the 1847 Act was applied to the misuse of electricity by Section 12 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, but with the adaptations that "gas" meant "electricity" and that "gas pipe" meant "electric lines". The two Acts between them are among the legislative fossils with which we have to contend from time to time, but of which we have to take notice because, although they seem to be fossils, they are still alive.
  The 1882 Act, as read with the 1847 Act, made it illegal to resell electricity, whereas in the Bill we are making it legal to resell electricity subject to certain conditions. We therefore have to remove the legislative provisions which make it illegal to do so.
  The first of these Amendments, to line 40, deletes the obsolete words from Section 18 of the 1847 Act and the second Amendment, in line 43, which can be understood only by referring to the Bill as well as to the Lords Amendments, if I may respectfully say so, deletes the now superfluous words from the Appendix to the Electric Lighting Act, 1882. I should point out that we have a most extraordinary legislative position in that provisions of the Gasworks Clauses Act,1847, as amended and amplified by the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, are embodied in the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act. 1899, so that we have double legislation.
  Therefore, by these Amendments we have to correct the same piece of legislation, which occurs in two different places, and to do it twice. I have been into this, and I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the object has been achieved.
  Sir F. Soskice: I rise only to express the grateful thanks of, I think, hon. Members on both sides, to the Minister for his fascinating and enthralling discourse. What I cannot understand is how the profound truths that he has enunciated managed to escape the vigilance of all of us during the Committee stage. I think that we should all come forward in a white sheet and apologise.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Further Lords Amendment made: In page 48, line 43, at end insert:
  "and, in the Appendix, the provisions of section eighteen of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847, therein set out shall be modified in accordance with the last preceding provisions of this Part of this Schedule."—[Mr. Renton.]
  Lords Amendment: In page 48, line 46, at end insert:
  "after the words 'district in which the land is situate' there shall be inserted the words 'to the local planning authority (within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947) in whose area that land is situate', and after the words 'such local authority' there shall be inserted the words 'local planning authority'."
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  It might be for the convenience of the House if, with this Amendment, we took that in line 48.
  These two Amendments are consequential on the adoption of the new Clause dealing with the construction or extension of a generating station. The House has already agreed this afternoon to the new Clause, which will provide that when application is made to construct or extend a generating station, notice shall be given, not only to the local authority but to the local planning authority. The first Amendment applies that, consequential, to the 1909 Act. The second, which is, as I say, also consequential, makes the necessary adaptation for Scotland.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Further Lords Amendment made: In page 48, line 48, after "schemes" insert:
  "and with the substitution, for the reference to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, of a reference to the Town and Country Planing (Scotland) Act, 1947".—[Mr. Maudling.]
  Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 11, at end insert:
  "In section ten A, in subsection (1), for the words 'Electricity Act, 1947', there shall be substituted the words 'Electricity Act, 1957'",
  Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This Amendment is consequential on that in page 10, line 26, dealing with the supply of electricity to the railways.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 50, line 7, at end insert:
  "In section ninety-seven, in subsection (1), after the words British Electricity Authority', there shall be inserted the words or the Electricity Council'".
  Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  600
  Under the Local Government Act, 1948, the Central Electricity Authority has been paying the rates on behalf of the electricity boards to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and the Minister of Housing and Local Government receives them on behalf of local authorities, and various adjustments are subsequently made. In future, the Electricity Council will make these payments, after the Central Electricity Authority has been dissolved, so that a reference to the Electricity Council is required. That is what the Amendment does.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 50, line 21, at end insert:
  The Gas and Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Act, 1954
  In section one, for the words 'the said Act', there shall be substituted the words that Act'.
  Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  I suggest that this Amendment could be taken with that in page 51, line 35.
  By the 1954 Gas and Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Act, various limits were set to the borrowing by electricity and gas boards on capital account, but by Clause 14 (5) of this Bill a new limit of £1,400 million in aggregate outstanding has been set. The provisions of the 1954 Act, therefore, have become unnecessary, and the effect of these two Amendments will be to remove the nationalised electricity industry generally from the effect of the 1954 Act.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 50, line 21, after the Amendment last inserted, insert:
  The Electricity Reorganisation (Scotland) Act, 1954
  In section twelve, in subsection (1), after the words transfer; and' there shall be inserted the words 'subject to the next following subsection' and at the end of that subsection there shall be added the following subsection—

  '(1A) Where any regulations made under subsection (1) of this section provide for appeals to be brought as mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (5) of the said section fifty-five, the referee or board of referees on any such appeal may, and if so directed by the Court of Session shall, state a case for the opinion of that Court on any question of law arising in the proceedings.'

  5.45 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  The purpose of the Amendment is to give to employees of Scottish electricity boards rights of appeal similar to those conferred by this Bill on employees of the Central Authority and the area boards. Clause 26 empowers the Minister to make regulations to compensate officers of the Central Authority and of area boards who suffer loss as a result of the operation of the Bill.
  In accordance with Section 55 (5) (b) of the 1947 Act, where an appeal about such compensation is taken to a referee or board of referees there is no appeal from the decision of such a referee or board of referees, but, as the result of a proposal of the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer), Clause 26 (4) of the Bill now provides that in England and Wales there may be an appeal, on a point of law, to the High Court from the decision of a referee or board of referees.
  It seems right, therefore, that a similar right should be conferred on officers of electricity boards who have suffered loss through the operation of the Electricity Reorganisation (Scotland) Act, 1954. Section 12 of that Act provides machinery for compensating such persons, hut makes no provision for an appeal, and this Amendment is designed to give a similar right of appeal on a question of law to the Court of Session.
  Since the reorganisation provisions of this Bill do not affect Scotland, they will not give rise to compensation claims in Scotland, but this Scottish Amendment concerns only claims that may arise as a consequence of the Scottish reorganisation brought about by the Act of 1954. It is considered proper that we should give the same right of appeal under that Act.
  Mr. Palmer: I am sure that employees of the electricity supply industry in the South of Scotland will be grateful to the Government for bringing forward this Amendment in another place; and that we are grateful to the Joint Under-Secretary for his explanation. As he says, the Bill does not concern Scotland, as Scottish electricity now runs more or less on its own.
  602
  The hon. Gentleman has referred to the Electricity Reorganisation (Scotland) Act. I think that it is true that the compensation provisions in that Act run for a 10-year period, but there is, of course, another very important part of Scotland—so I am told—in the Highlands, which is looked after for electricity supply purposes by the Hydro-Electric Board. Perhaps I should have given the hon. Gentleman some notice of this, but I think that those compensation provisions are still in force. I do not think that they have run out, though I speak from memory.
  If this advantage is to be extended, very properly and very generously, to electricity employees who may be adversely affected by the working out of the Electricity Reorganisation (Scotland) Act, 1954—a Measure given approval, perhaps, before the present Bill was thought of—is there not some logic in the suggestion that a similar opportunity should be given to electricity employees in the North of Scotland. I shall be very grateful if the Joint Under-Secretary would promise, at least, to look at that point, if there is time.
  Mr. Macpherson: If I may speak again, with the leave of the House, I will willingly look at the point. My recollection is that there is really no cause, after such a lapse of years, to make similar provisions in that case, but, if there seems that there is any such cause, we will certainly consider it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In line 25, at end insert:
  The Rating and Valuation Act, 1957
  In section two, after the words "Central Electricity Authority", in each place where they occur, there shall be inserted the words "or the Electricity Council"; and any reference in that section to any provisions of the Local Government Act, 1948, shall be construed as a reference to those provisions as amended by the preceding provisions of this Part of this Schedule.
  Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  I was explaining just now how the Electricity Council will, in future, make the global payments in lieu of rates on behalf of the old electricity industry under the Local Government Act, 1948, but a slight complication is introduced by the fact that, under Section 2 of the Rating

  603
  and Valuation Act, 1957, passed earlier in this Session, the Central Electricity Authority is obliged to make the payments in respect of this financial year. It will, in fact, make the payments for this financial year before the vesting date. These payments are made half-yearly, in July and in December, so that, so far as this financial year is concerned, we have no need to worry; it is all perfectly well arranged already.
  We must, however, amend Section 2 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1957, in order to include references to the Electricity Council so as to straighten the matter out for future years, and also in order to make it clear that the references in the 1957 Rating and Valuation Act to the Local Government Act, 1948, are references to that Act as amended, that is to say, by this Bill. That is done by this Amendment, which will be an Amendment to the Third Schedule, in page 50, and the insertion will come before the House of Commons Disqualification Act.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Fourth Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)
  Lords Amendment made: In page 51, line 35 at end insert:

  2 & 3 Eliz. 2. c. 52.

  The Gas and Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Act, 1954.

  In section one, the words 'the British Electricity Authority and Area Electricity Boards, and of', and paragraph (a)

  —[Mr. Renton.]

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1955–56
Resolutions reported,
1. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1956, that the aggregate Expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services over the net Expenditure is £9,399,195 11s. 6d., viz.:—

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

…

10,387,490

7

6

Total Deficits

…

988,294

16

0

Net Surplus

…

£9,399,195

11

6

604
And whereas the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised:

(1) the application of so much of the realised surplus on Vote 10 for Navy Services as is necessary to meet the net deficit of £1,620 15s. 4d. on Vote 15 that would otherwise have been met by issues out of the Consolidated Fund under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Acts, 1949 and 1952.

(2) the application of so much of the remainder of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to make good the remainder of the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.

1. That the application of such sums be sanctioned.
II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1956, that the aggregate Expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Army Services over the net Expenditure is £8,481,349 9s. 1d., viz.:—

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

…

26,515,975

6

8

Total Deficits

…

18,034,625

17

7

Net Surplus

…

£8,481,349

9

1

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised:

(1) the application of so much of the realised surplus on Vote 8 for Army Services as is necessary to meet the net deficit of £1,179,464 4s. 7d. on Vote 11 that would otherwise have been met by issues out of the Consolidated Fund under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Acts, 1949 and 1953.

(2) the application of so much of the remainder of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the remainder of the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.

2. That the application of such sums be sanctioned.
III. Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1956, that the aggregate Expenditure on Air Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Air Services over the net Expenditure is £76,660,356 6s. 4d. viz.:—

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

…

95,460,215

17

9

Total Deficits

…

18,799,859

11

5

Net Surplus

…

£76,660,356

6

4

605
And whereas the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised:

(1) the application of so much of the realised surplus on Vote 8 for Air Services as is necessary to meet the net deficit of £3,090,933 12s. 10d. on Vote 11 that would otherwise have been met by issues out of the Consolidated Fund under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Acts, 1949 and 1953.

(2) The application of so much of the remainder of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is necessary to make good the remainder of the said total deficits on other Grants for Air Services.

3. That the application of such sums he sanctioned.
[For details see OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1957; Vol. 573, c. 306–324.]
First and Second Resolutions agreed to.
Third Resolution read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.
5.55 p.m.
Mr. A. G. Bottomley: The Financial Secretary will remember that, during the Committee stage, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) raised the general question of public accountability, and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) raised the same point also and made the suggestion that the Select Committee might look at the matter. Has the Financial Secretary anything to say about that?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) has, since that debate, put down a Question to my right hon. Friend the First Lord, and I ought not to anticipate my right hon. Friend's reply. The debate has obviously drawn his attention to the arguments.
Question put and agreed to.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (LEVY)
5.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I beg to move,
That the Draft Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) Regulations, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.
It might be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we discussed these and the following Regulations together.
Where appropriate, we have followed the pattern of the voluntary levy both as regards collection and distribution, and I am glad to be able to tell the House that we have been able to secure agreement on nearly all matters. Numerous methods of collecting the levy were considered, but, in the end, the scale given in the Schedule to the first of the two sets of Regulations was found to be the one most acceptable to the trade, and I hope, therefore, that it will meet with the approval of the House.
The Regulations provide also for payments for admission to cinema entertainments which are exempt from Entertainments Duty to be exempt also from levy. This follows the existing scheme and, in addition, any exhibitor taking less than £150 for admission in any one week, excluding Entertainments Duty on those takings, will be exempt from levy on that. There are arrangements for appropriate marginal relief also. These arrangements for exemption are rather more generous than those under the existing trade operated arrangements.
As to the Regulations relating to distribution, I should like to point out that claimants will now have a definite legal right to payments, which they did not have before. We are continuing the principle of distributing the levy in proportion to the box office success of all eligible films. This meets with general approval and follows the present practice which rewards merit and does not subsidise inefficiency.
There is one point to which I should like to refer, namely, that, to deal with possible abuses, whereby the earnings of films might be unfairly inflated in order to attract a larger share of the Fund—
Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
House counted, and, 40 Members being present—
Mr. Erroll: As I was saying, we have, to avoid the possibility of abuse, given a fairly wide measure of discretionary power to the Agency rather than attempted to frame complicated and detailed Regulations which would be unlikely to stop up all possible loopholes and might be somewhat inflexible. I am glad to be able to tell the House that these discretionary powers have received an unqualified welcome from all quarters consulted.
The Agency has power to make provisional payments, but this power is permissive and not obligatory. I do not think that this need cause any anxiety, and I understand that the Agency is already taking the necessary practical steps to make provisional payments on much the same lines as at present. The Agency was set up on 1st July, and is getting ready to come into operation fully on 20th October.
I hope, therefore, that the House will see its way to approving these draft Regulations today.
5.59 p.m.
Mrs. Eirene White: We are very glad to have the Parliamentary Secretary's brief explanation of these Regulations, but I think that there are one or two points which are causing some disquiet in the trade, on which it would be only proper to have a further disquisition from the hon. Gentleman.
Turning, first, to the Regulations dealing with the collection of the levy, it is true that the provisions for exemption are somewhat more generous than those under the private scheme, in so far as cinemas are now to be exempted if their net takings, instead of their gross takings as before, are £150 per week.
Of course, we all recognise that this does not really help the rather larger cinema which may, nevertheless, be in a very difficult position because, although its takings may be more than £150 and, therefore, not exempt, it may be running at a loss, or hardly breaking even. Under the private scheme there has been an arrangement with the renters whereby any cinema which was not exempt but
608
which was in considerable difficulties over payment of the levy could approach the renter and the renter agreed to make some adjustment in the hire charge.
My understanding of the present situation is that because these Regulations provide for a statutory levy, instead of a voluntary one, the renters appear not to be willing to continue with this practice and that may mean that we shall find a certain number of cinemas which may be in considerable difficulty and which will not be helped by the renters under what I call their shorn lamb policy. We should like to know whether the Government have any idea at all in their mind as to the way in which, if need be, such cinemas may be helped.
The Cinema Exhibitors' Association has put forward a suggestion that the President of the Board of Trade might require the Cinematograph Films Council to consider such cases and make recommendations for exemption from payment of the levy. That, perhaps, may be going rather too far in this first year before we see how things go, but I think it right to say to the House that there is fairly considerable disquiet in the trade on this point, because it does not look as though the informal arrangement which has made this work under the voluntary system is likely to be continued. That is the main concern that we have about the collection of the levy.
When we turn to the Regulations dealing with the distribution of the levy, there is one point which, I think, should be mentioned to the House before we approve the Regulations. It has been decided to take 20th October as the starting day for the first distribution period. That means that the distribution period is in effect settled for the next ten years and must always begin on the 20th October. Although we realise that the levy and the entertainments tax are theoretically completely separate subjects, nevertheless it will, I think, possibly be awkward in the future if we have the levy regulations beginning on the 20th October whereas any changes that there may be in entertainments tax would presumably take place fairly soon after a Budget which was introduced in April.
There may be a very long gap—as, in fact, there is this year—between changes in tax and possible changes in the levy. I mention that because it is

609
something which may prove awkward in the future, although I fully recognise that there were good reasons this year for going on to October instead of starting the payment period at, for example, the end of July.
The Parliamentary Secretary has assured us, I am happy to say, that under paragraph 5 provisional payments will he made as they have been made under the voluntary scheme. I am sure that the film producers will be very glad to have this assurance, because I know that there has been some anxiety about this matter of provisional payments, and I think that they will be glad to know that the Agency proposes to carry on making the usual very substantial provisional payments, even before they can come to the final computation of what any particular firm has earned. We are very glad to have that assurance.
On the other hand, when we come to paragraph 6, concerning the computation of earnings of films, once again there is considerable anxiety in the trade, and I am rather surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary has not even referred to it, because under paragraph 6 provision is made in the first subsection that a long film shall receive one unit and a short film two and a half times the rate.
Considerable representations have been made, by the film producers, the Association of Cinematograph and Television Technicians and the Association of Specialised Film Producers, that the President of the Board of Trade ought to have included a special provision for second feature films. They formally asked, I understand, that for such features the unit should be twice the basic unit. So it is rather surprising that the Parliamentary Secertary, having received formal representations from three important associations in the trade, has not even mentioned today the reasons why the President of the Board of Trade has felt himself unable to accede to this request. I do not want to go into all the details about the difficulties which the makers of second feature films are now experimenting, because I think that they are well known to anyone familiar with conditions in the trade.
I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that, among other things, the National Film Finance Corporation makes very much more stringent
610
conditions for second feature films than it does for other types of films in offering assistance with finance. In general terms, I think that it is right to say that of all the groups of British films now being made they are suffering most at the present time, so I think that we are at least entitled to some explanation why, with such strong pressure, the President of the Board of Trade has not felt himself able to accede to the request.
When we come to the later provisions concerning what one might call the tightening up of procedure, particularly in cases where two or more films are being shown in the same programme, and where there may be some little adjustment between the earnings of one and another, I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that we very much welcome the proposals in the Regulations, because it is most important that everyone should feel that there is no possibility of any dishonest juggling with the money which, after all, is collected from other people in the trade.
We are, therefore, glad to see that proper discretion has been given to the Agency. I quite agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that that is the best way to do it. So far as I can judge, the Agency is being given adequate powers to deal with the kind of difficulty which it has been suggested may have arisen in one or two cases under the voluntary scheme. That seems to us a very proper provision in the Regulations.
Most of the other provisions in the Regulations are solely of technical interest. Before we conclude this brief debate, however, I should like to draw attention to one rather important point. It is something new so far as Parliament is concerned, although the voluntary scheme had some provision for the same thing. It is the position of films made for television. The Parliamentary Secretary might be more explicit, because this is important in view of the increase in the number of television films now made. The general principle is that if a film is made primarily for television it does not seem fair that it should receive part of the money which was intended really to support the production of films shown in commercial cinemas. As this is the first time that such a distinction between one type of film and another has been made in statutory form, I think that we

611
might have had a few words of explanation, because it is a matter of considerable public interest and of some interest in the trade.
There is one other small point which interests me personally and to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. Paragraph 13, sub-paragraph 3, provides that the maker of a film may assign his responsibility to claim on the fund to some other person and that if he does so the assignee shall
"… be deemed for all purposes of these Regulations to be the maker of the film to the exclusion of the actual maker thereof …"
While, of course, one wants completely to safeguard the financial rights of any person to whom an assignment of this sort has been made, nevertheless it seems to me that the Agency should at least be permitted—it may not necessarily be obliged—to give to the actual maker of the film information as to the amount of levy which has been earned by any film of his.
It does not seem right that when we are dealing with a quasi-public fund—this is not a matter simply of private agreement between individuals—a maker who applies to the Board of Trade should not be given that information. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to say that whereas there may not necessarily be any statutory obligation upon the Agency to give that information, there is nothing to prevent it giving the information to the actual maker of the film even though he may have assigned his financial rights to somebody else.
After all, the person who actually made the film has a great interest in what happens to it. It might strengthen his hand in any future negotiations if he could say, "My last film made such and such an amount and received so much from the fund". I hope very much that we can have this assurance.
That may seem to be a small point, but it is one which I believe to be of considerable importance to certain individuals. The whole purpose of these Regulations is to assist the makers of British films. I hope, therefore, that on that small point we may have a satisfactory reply from the Parliamentary Secretary. Apart from these relatively minor matters, we on this side support the Regulations.
6.12 p.m.
Wing Commander Eric Bullus: I should like briefly to support the earlier remarks made by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). While we all welcome the general agreement on the levy, there are some cinemas which are above the £150 limit which were previously exempt from the levy, but which now will have to pay it and will be considerably affected. As there are so few cases, I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will look sympathetically at them.
There is one such cinema which serves part of my constituency. It has a seating capacity of 2,000 and runs the "second run" films. Previously, this cinema was exempt from the levy, but it will now have to pay the statutory levy. There are very few such cinemas. If the Minister will consider them and help them if possible, I shall be grateful, along with those others who are similarly affected.
6.13 p.m.
Mr. John Howard: I shall detain the House for only a few moments in elaborating the point concerning the larger cinema whose takings, although they may be a little above £150 a week, are still insufficient to sustain the standing charges. Those cinemas may, by reason of wages to staff, rent and rates and the usual outgoings, require to take more than £150 before they can break even. Under the old voluntary scheme, the renters made concessions by reducing the film hire for this type of cinema, but if a reduction in film hire was inadequate and the cinema was still unable to pay its way under the voluntary scheme, no action was taken to collect the film levy.
It is quite apparent that the producers and renters together have an interest in keeping the cinema alive. If they waive a certain part of the film hire, the cinema is able to make sufficient money to keep going and a certain amount of the takings eventually flows back into the production end of the trade. If we look at the problem in the inflexible way that the Regulations treat it, there will be no ground for concession; the full levy has to be exacted from the cinema irrespective of its standing charges and, at the

613
same time, there is not the encouragement to the renter to make a concession.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will reconsider this matter. He might possibly suggest that one body, either the B.F.P.A. or some other body, could examine the accounts of the cinemas and if it appears that the payment of the levy is causing a cinema to lose money every week, possibly concessions could be made by waiving the levy. At the same time, a certain responsibility rests upon the trade itself in the intervening period. The end of the trade of which I am thinking is the production end and the renters. They could continue to make some form of concession in film hire to these cinemas in the hope that my hon. Friend might come to their rescue later.
6.16 p.m.
Mr. Erroll: The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) remarked upon the brevity of my opening remarks. She will, I am sure, appreciate that I intended no discourtesy to the House. I wished to refer particularly to the points contained in the Regulations, knowing full well that there might he matters lying to one side of the Regulations which might be raised by hon. Members and that in my opening remarks I could not exactly anticipate which points might be raised.
I should like to deal, first, with the question of exemptions for individual larger cinemas. We examined very carefully the possibilities of providing some sort of an exemption scheme for the special case of the larger cinema which is faring badly at the present time. We received conflicting views on the matter and we came to the conclusion that the disadvantages of such a scheme as was outlined, for example, by the hon. Lady would outweigh the advantages.
We feel that while in the future there may still be cases of individual difficulty, they should be substantially reduced for the reasons which I shall give. First, the exemption limit has been raised from £150 gross to approximately £190 gross. Then, there has been a reduction in the levy on the cheaper seats and also a reduction in Entertainments Duty. The new levy and duty scales are so designed to enable cinemas to retain a larger proportion of the increase in seat prices than was formerly the case in a great many instances.
614
There are signs, if one is to judge by the trade Press, that there may well be increases in the prices of seats in the coming months which will enable those cinemas which are particularly hard hit to take advantage of a general advance, small though it may be, in seat prices.
We feel, therefore, that those cinemas which, in the past have been hard hit and those which have had some measure of relief from the special scheme operated under the voluntary scheme should think not only on the basis of past earnings and outgoings, but should make a reassessment of the likely trend of events in the coming months based on the considerations which I have just given. I would only add that we fully understand the difficulties which the cinemas have been experiencing, but after thinking the matter over carefully we feel that for the time being at least we should wait to see how the Regulations work out in practice.
The hon. Lady referred to the fact that the levy changes will in future years take place in October, whereas Budget changes arise in April, and that this might cause difficulty. We have to remember that the starting date of 20th October was chosen because the trade-operated scheme was due to come to an end in that month. By choosing any other date, we should have had to accept the consequences either of a hiatus between the end of one scheme and the beginning of another or of overlapping. So that it was surely worth while to make the new scheme start where the old scheme left off. In any case, it is surely desirable to avoid linking the levy with Entertainments Duty.
Mr. Douglas Jay: We do have October Budgets under the present Government.
Mr. Erroll: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) would not be able to resist making a crack like that, but he was well answered by the Economic Secretary earlier today. The eventuality that the right hon. Gentleman describes is not likely to occur.
The next matter the hon. Lady mentioned was that of payment for second feature films. As hon. Members will know those films, like short films, are let for a fixed sum instead of on the basis of a percentage of the box office takings, as are first feature films. It was suggested in some quarters that the earnings

615
of second feature films should be multiplied by two, and their share of the levy should be calculated in much the same way as is that of short films, whose earnings are multiplied by two and a half.
I will admit straight away that the arguments for and against are fairly finely balanced. The arguments in favour of special consideration for second feature films are that there is a great demand by cinema patrons and exhibitors for the long supporting films and that their production has become uneconomic owing to increased costs of production at a time when there is less money available for supporting programme features. This, in turn, has led to a serious drop in second feature film production so that second feature films are simply not available in sufficient quantity. A larger levy for second feature films would assist such production. That is how the arguments run.
I will now put the arguments on the other side. On the other side we feel that the solution of the problem is best left to the economic forces in the trade. If second feature films are really in great public demand we think the public will be willing to pay a little more for the longer programmes these films make possible, and this, in turn, will enable higher rents to be obtained for second feature films. Alternatively, if the public tends to stay away because of the absence or poor quality of the supporting programmes it must be in the interest of the exhibitor and supplier to ensure that the production of second feature films becomes a paying proposition and that second feature films get a proper economic rental.
It is questionable whether a multiplier of two would have the effect the hon. Lady has suggested, because it is quite likely that in present conditions of financial stringency rents for second feature films would be forced down by exhibitors on the ground that those films were now getting substantially increased contributions from the levy. That would mean that the producers of second feature films could not get so much by way of letting. Indeed, the experience of the producers of short films would seem to bear that out. So, after considering the pros and cons very carefully, we have come to the conclusion that it will be better to provide no special payment for this class of film.
616
As for television films, we did take very carefully into account the views put forward most strongly by the trade that the levy on cinemas should not be used to assist the production of television films. We realise, however, that this may well be a growing market, and we feel that the regulations as framed are probably right for the time being. We are keeping very closely in touch with the development of television film production and of films suitable for showing on television, and we shall make quite certain that we are not left behind in this important matter.
Another matter which was raised was that of the publication of details of levy payments. I should make it plain that the Board of Trade has no power to compel the Agency to publish details of payments, but we appreciate that the problem is a difficult one. I would only say that the Agency has been in operation for only a very short time, and that I am sure that it will be guided by the views of the House and of other interested parties in deciding in its discretion whether it should make any publication of individual figures.
Mrs. White: There are really two separate issues. One is that of the figures for all recipients should be made public. The other is that the individual maker of a film should be given information if he personally asks for it though it need not necessarily be made available to the general public.
Mr. Erroll: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I had been thinking of the general question. I appreciate that her suggestion is a different one. It is the sort of question that I should like to leave with the Agency for the time being, saying only, in conclusion, that the Board of Trade has no power to compel the Agency to divulge such a figure even on an individual basis.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Draft Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) Regulations, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.
Draft Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) Regulations, 1957 [copy laid before the House, 26th June], approved.—[Mr. Erroll.]

WOOL TEXTILE INDUSTRY (LEVY)
6.27 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I beg to move,
That the Draft Wool Textile Industry (Export Promotion Levy) Order, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.
I think. Mr. Speaker, that it would be convenient to consider this and the following Order together.
Mr. Speaker: If the House pleases.
Mr. Erroll: The purpose of the latter Order is to increase the yield of the Research Levy from about £155,000 to about £200,000 and to make some minor alterations in the range of persons liable to pay the levy so as to bring it more into accord with the present conditions and current developments in the industry. We are also taking the opportunity of making this a consolidation Order, and it will replace earlier Orders on this levy.
The money is required to provide for additional capital expenditure by the Wool Industry Research Association and to meet increased costs since the levy was introduced. The Wool Textile Research Council also wishes to increase its grants to other bodies carrying out research. As hon. Members will know, the Board of Trade has to satisfy itself about the case submitted by the Wool Textile Delegation, which represents about 85 per cent. of the industry, and which has in this case asked for the increase in the rates of levy. We are so satisfied. We know that it is also supported by the great majority of the firms in the industry, and, I would add, by the organisations of employees in the industry, although I think it would be only fair to mention that the support is not completely unanimous and that a very small number of firms and organisations expressed objections. However, in our opinion there was not sufficient objection to justify refusal of the request made by the Wool Textile Delegation.
The first of the two Orders increases the yield of the parallel Export Promotion Levy from about £115,000 a year to about £200,000 a year. This is to meet increased costs and to build up the promotion of sales in North America. It is
618
also proposed to introduce sales promotion campaigns in the other export markets and to exhibit at certain important trade fairs and exhibitions.
As a result of statutory consultations, as with the other Order, we have found a large majority of firms in favour of the increase. It was also supported by organisations of employees in the industry. As with the other Order, there were a very small number of objections, but we do not feel that they were sufficiently serious to refuse the request of the Wool Textile Delegation. Accordingly, I hope that the House will see its way to approve the Orders.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. IL Rhodes,: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak about these two Orders because we in the Opposition have a high regard for the wool textile industry which is so important to our exports. As I am personally engaged in the industry and have been so engaged all my life, I am proud to have this opportunity. The Order dealing with the export promotion levy is designed to increase the amount of promotion that we want to do. We want to do more in the North American countries, the United States and Canada, because it is there that we earn our dollars. We who are engaged in this industry convert a sterling area commodity into dollars and last year we exported to Canada and the United States £42 million worth of goads.
We have the highest record in exports of any manufacturing industry, and anything that is introduced in the House which has to do with expanding our exports is of great importance to us. This is a good industry and one well worth while looking after. We do not come to the Board of Trade on any slight pretext. It is only when we have something serious to say, as the Parliamentary Secretary will have found in his experience, that we ever come to any Government Department to ask for assistance. We have asked for the good offices of the Board of Trade in collecting this levy for us so that we can use it as we think best.
I have the greatest faith in those who operate the National Wool Textile Export Corporation. They are a first-class body of business men who are selfless in their desire to see an expansion of worsted and

619
wool exports for the whole of the trade. Throughout the years that I have had experience with them I have always found them keen and energetic and never neglecting to further the interests of the trade.
We in the trade also want to do a little more in terms of taking part in various fairs and exhibitions. We have not done quite enough in the last year or two. As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, there has been some division of opinion about the importance of fairs and exhibitions in the promotion of overseas trade. Our industry is composed of firms which are small in comparison with large-scale industry elsewhere. The majority of the firms employ from 10 to 500 employees and the specialities produced by these small firms are peculiar to their own individual traditions.
Naturally, therefore, there is some contention as to whether exhibitions are of use or not but I would remind sections of our industry which may not be as enthusiastic about the promotion of our goods as are some others that if it were left to individual firms to do it, in all probability very little would be done. It is only by securing a levy of this kind that the money can be guaranteed, because this promotion is a heavy responsibility.
We in the industry are proud that the Board of Trade has chosen the wool industry along with the aeronautic industry, the atomic energy industry, and the tourist trade to represent Britain in the exhibition of world trade in New York in April next year. We are also proud that we have the backing of the Board of Trade for a curtain-raiser in Brussels next year for anything that there may be in the future by way of a European Common Market. We are proposing to spend about £50,000 on one exhibition there in furtherance of our trade. The Parliamentary Secretary will be aware of the success that we had in Frankfurt last year and this year, and how, as a result, we have expanded our sales, despite increasing competition in Germany from elsewhere during the last two years.
I should like to stress at this juncture that the Board of Trade, and the economists who advise it, should not pay too much attention to those who think that
620
the old-established industries in this country can be jeopardised or be expended in favour of the newer, more fashionable industries which are in the news today. It may interest the House to know that when the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee paid a recent visit to the National Physical Laboratory and we saw there "Deuce" and "Ace", the great new electronic computers and we asked the head of the department how long it would be before other countries could imitate and make computers of the same size and be ready to put them on the market, he said that our lead was about three years. If that is the case, in view of how good imitators such people as the Japanese are, it can be assumed that in a few years' time what are considered today to be new and exciting industries may be in a position similar to that of some of our old-established industries in having to resist competition. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to convey to everybody in the Government who has anything to do with the problems we are confronting in the older industries, that we must fight for every bit of trade we have got, and that it does not matter whether we are old industries or new. On that basis we in the wool textile industry are playing our part.
There is another activity supported by the levy, that is, the protection of our trade in countries where our interests may be threatened by tariffs or quotas. Nowadays the way in which we export our woollens and our worsteds means that we cannot accompany every consignment ourselves, as was done in the days of my great-great grandfather. Then they used to take their woollens from our district on the deck of a sailing ship and they slept on top of the bale, with their heads sticking out from the tarpaulin which covered them. And they had a way with them, because I understand that many complaints were made in New York about the way in which folks from our district used to look after their own interests.
We can no longer do it as individuals because the trade is on far too big a scale, so somebody has to do it for us, and that is the Wool Textile Corporation for which this levy is required. If it were not for the Wool Textile Corporation there perhaps would not be as energetic an opposition as there is to the present imposition that the United States has inflicted on our trade.

621
The services of people overseas, which cost money, have been brought in during the last year or two on account of the American quota. We regret that quota very much. As soon as there is 5 per cent. of the domestic manufacture imported the tariff goes up from 25 per cent, to 45 per cent., which puts our fine products at a disadvantage. The Japanese, who have imitated our more plain manufactures, find it easier than we do to get their cloths into the United States market because they are more straight-forward to make and the finer and more craftsmanlike cloths we produce are longer in the making. Thus the quota is filled, and cancellations of our orders takes place.
Another thing I want to mention is that many people in the industry have been trying to persuade the wool technicians and the Export Corporation that it might be a good thing if we started promotion for home sales. If the Parliamentary Secretary has been in on any of these negotiations or talks with the industry, I dare say he will have found that this has been mentioned. Personally I am against it. I think we ought to concentrate all our activities in promotion for some years ahead on the export market. It will take us all our time and it will take all the money we have to do that, and to do it properly. The disadvantage we happen to be in is that ours is the only textile which is subject to a 10 per cent. Purchase Tax on the piece. It would be a pity if the money we are raising for this promotion scheme were diverted at some future time to the promotion of home sales, because we suffer a disadvantage through that taxation.
The levy is straightforward, we welcome it, it is needed. I think that we shall need more, and perhaps it would have been as well if the levy had been cast a little higher for this job, bearing in mind the way in which the value of the £ seems to be declining over the years.
I have not a great deal to say on the research side. I wish I could be as complimentary as I have been on export promotion but, unfortunately, I cannot. I have had experience of this business for a long time now and my interests in the textile industry have spread beyond the narrow confines of the wool textile industry itself. I believe that the time has come when there should be a recasting of the methods employed in
622
research into the textile industry. For instance, there is too much duplication of effort. We find that research associations are spending small amounts on the same jobs, because there is not enough liaison. The original conception of research, as outlined at the time when the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research was set up, may need a new fillip and an altogether new idea.
I believe that complacency has set in and that it is likely to become even more pronounced. I shall not oppose the Order because the money is needed if this is the course on which we are set, but I do not think it is the right one, so I appeal to the Government to look at it again. There could be more liaison, the money could be used better if one job common to the whole range of the textile industry could be done in one place, backed by adequate money, and the research stations could carry on with the day-to-day work they do for the firms they serve. As I say, we do not oppose the Order, but I have taken the opportunity to draw attention to something which is likely to be an urgent need in the future.
6.50 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Jay: I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question which arises from what my hon. Friend said. We all deplore the action which the United States Govment propose or threaten to take to put new obstacles in the way of our woollen exports which are of such value.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) was very careful not to exceed the bounds of order, but I was very restless when the quota was mentioned, because it is certainly not comprehended by the Order.
Mr. Jay: I thought that as the Order referred to export promotion it was permissible to ask the Parliamentary Secretary questions arising out of that.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the American quota is export promotion.
Mr. Jay: I do not want to press the point, but the quota is liable to frustrate the export promotion to which the Order refers. I wanted to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Government would press this point to carry out the purpose of the Order.
Mr. Speaker: That was answered earlier today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Draft Wool Textile Industry (Export Promotion Levy) Order, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.
Draft Wool Textile Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order, 1957 [copy laid before the House, 24th May], approved.—[Mr. Erroll.]

CHURCH OF ENGLAND (NATIONAL ASSEMBLY) MEASURES
6.51 p.m.
Sir John Crowder: I beg to move,
That the Channel Islands (Church Legislation) Measure, 1931 (Amendment) Measure, 1957, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
As hon. Members know, the Channel Islands are for ecclesiastical purposes in the Diocese of Winchester, but constitutionally they have a position peculiar to themselves. In consequence, Church Assembly Measures would not affect them unless special machinery existed for applying them to the Islands. Such machinery was set up by a Measure passed in 1931. However, this Measure contained certain limitations on the time within which the machinery which is set up could be used.
These time limits are now thought to be generally unnecessary, and the object of this short Measure is to remove them. There is also a particular reason for their removal. It is necessary to form
624
a new parish in the Island of Jersey. The obvious way of doing it would be under the provisions of the New Parishes Measure, 1943, if that Measure had applied to the Islands. Unfortunately, throughout the period when it could have been applied, the Islands were in German occupation. If the time limits are removed, it will be possible to take the necessary steps to apply the Measure and so allow the new parish to be formed.
The Measure has been approved by the States of Deliberation of the Islands and by the Decanal Conferences of the Islands. It passed through all its stages in the Assembly without a division and no amendment was made or proposed. I hope that the House will feel that this is a Measure to which it can give its assent.
6.53 p.m.
Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: I beg to second the Motion.
The Legislative Committee of the National Assembly of the Church of England submitted this Measure to the Ecclesiastical Committee and the Ecclesiastical Committee found no difficulty in making a favourable report upon it. As the hon. Member for Finchley (Sir J. Crowder) said, the Measure has been approved by the States of Deliberation and by the Decanal Conferences of the Islands of Jersey and Guernsey. The Measure does not prejudicially affect the constitutional rights of any of Her Majesty's subjects. The purpose of the Measure has been explained briefly by the hon. Member and a more detailed explanation of it may be found in the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee. I hope that the House will pass the Measure.
Question put and agreed to.

TINNED MILK (SURPLUS STOCKS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Barber.]
6.55 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Irving: I acknowledge with appreciation the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The issue I want to raise is that of the methods of disposal by his Ministry of 19,000 tons, or 167 million tins, of full cream, unsweetened milk, declared surplus to requirements after the end of control in March, 1954, and, in particular, the totally inadequate provisions which were adopted to ensure the enforcement of the conditions for the protection of the public which the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministry thought necessary at the time.
This milk was sold under covenant which declared that it should not be sold through the retail trade and that it should be sold only for manufacturing purposes, for animal feeding, or for export. Only too late it was discovered that the covenant was valueless, that it did not run with the goods, and, therefore, could not be passed further than the person with whom the covenant was made. It has been found that perhaps millions of these tins have got into the hands of third parties over whom the Minister has no control.
This has caused considerable embarrassment to the manufacturers concerned and has allowed a flood of this sort of commodity on to the market purporting to be fresh milk. The public has been invited to buy the milk, not realising that some of it may be three or four years old. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman why it was not foreseen that the covenant would be completely valueless and unenforceable over third parties, where it required to be enforceable, and why the tins were not marked, or the milk not bulked, as was finally necessary with the remainder of the milk, when it was put on the market.
I admit that since I and other hon. Members raised the matter the appalling complexity of the position has been made clear. In a supplementary question on 4th April, I said that a firm, Messrs. George Mence Smith, Ltd., was involved
626
in this sort of transaction. The firm has now told me that it has never purchased from the Ministry of Food or from any other Government Department or any agency stocks of tinned milk of doubtful age or unfit for human consumption, and it has said most emphatically that it would never even contemplate retailing such goods to the public for consumption. I am very happy to have that assurance and glad to pass it on to the House.
However, it is common ground and acknowledged by the right hon. Gentleman that this milk is on the market and at this very moment is on sale to the public and still purporting to be fresh milk when it may be very old. From my constituency have come reports of cases of such milk produced in 1953 on sale as milk which the manufacturers would not regard as fresh milk. Analysis has shown it to be discoloured and the tins etched with rust, a fairly clear indication, apart from the manufacturers' views, of age.
Since the matter was first raised, with all the difficulties of proof, a case has been determined in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court where Mr. Justice Stable in the case of the United Dairies v. Thomas Robinson, Sons & Co. Ltd. declared that it was a misrepresentation to sell as fresh milk, milk which was older than six months.
In reply to a series of Questions in April the Minister undertook to make inquiries and to consider what action could be taken for the enforcement of the covenants and the protection of the public at that time and in the future. He said that it was possible that some of these firms would be barred from receiving future supplies from his Ministry. I should like to know what steps, if any, the right hon. Gentleman has taken to enforce this covenant in any case, if there are any cases, and what firms have been barred from receiving supplies of this sort, either of milk or of other commodities.
I know that in my constituency, apart from the supplies from the Ministry, there are fairly substantial quantities of defective canned foods available in the shops. Quite recently a local authority in northwest Kent applied to the magistrates for, and got, an order for the destruction of

627
some of those foods. It is suspected by some of those authorities that, although most of these foods are not from the Ministry, some of them are. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what other foods of this kind have been disposed of to firms under covenants similar to those in respect of the tinned milk to which I have been referring.
It is extremely unfortunate that when this House has spent such a long time discussing pure and clean food the Government, through the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, should allow these quantities of food to be placed on the market and so make it much more difficult for local authorities, at least morally, to enforce the regulations for clean food and the protection of the public.
I would ask the Minister if he has taken any steps to protect the public in this way, and especially if he will notify local authorities of the precise details of all foods which have been supplied and which were defective in this way—not necessarily unfit for human consumption but in any way defective, in the sense that they were at least stale. I should like him particularly to notify local authorities of the makes, the brands and the code numbers of such supplies, so that the public health inspectors may be alerted to the dangers that exist and keep a careful watch upon public protection. It is a very serious matter that this vast quantity of food should be on the market and that the degree of protection of the public to be expected from a Government Department should not be properly provided.
7.2 p.m.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): The matter which the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving) has raised is a perfectly legitimate and proper one for examination. I am glad of this opportunity to say a few words about the disposal of this tinned milk, so that I may correct one or two misconceptions which have crept in, and also, perhaps, allay certain of the fears that have been expressed about this milk not being fit for human consumption.
In 1954 the Government decided to free the condensed milk trade and at that time my Department was left with very con-
628
siderable stocks. Since then it has disposed, as the hon. Member said, of 167 million tins. I thought that the hon. Member said "tons" but it is "tins."
Mr. Irving: I said 19,000 tons—or 167 million tins.
Mr. Amory: I misunderstood the hon. Member. That is a very considerable quantity, but I think that we have disposed of it in a sensible and proper manner. The first thing we did at the time of decontrol was to offer this milk back to the original manufacturers, on the ground that we thought that the original manufacturers would be in the best position to dispose of it with the minimum disturbance to the trade, and also, as they would have their pride in the quality of their brand and their label, that that would be the best and most effective way of safeguarding the consumers' interest. More than half the stocks of 167 million tins were disposed of in this way. As far as that part of the condensed milk goes probably everything was all right.
Mr. John Stonehouse: Can the Minister give us some indication of the price at which these stocks were disposed of?
Mr. Amory: As I have said before, it has never been the practice to disclose the price at which commercial stocks have been disposed of individually. For commercial reasons, only aggregate figures are given. So I am not in a position to give the precise prices at which the various lots of this milk were disposed of.
The quantity that remained, which was less than half the total quantity, represented entirely condensed milk manufactured between 1952 and 1954, and not the old wartime supplies. At that time the Department told the manufacturers that it proposed to dispose of this milk with as little loss to the taxpayers as possible but that, at the same time, it did not want to do anything to disrupt the trade to such an extent that the interruption would interfere with the trade taking fresh condensed milk made from the surplus milk at the time of the annual spring flush.
It was, therefore, agreed that any sales from the Department's stocks would be subject to a condition excluding sales through retail channels on the home market. So, as the hon. Member has said, these stocks were sold either for

629
export or for use in manufacture, or for stockfeed. In each case my Department required its customers to give an undertaking that the milk would be used in one of those ways.
That was quite a normal and not an exceptional procedure for the disposal of stocks, the quality of which we could not warrant absolutely. We tried stripping the tins of their labels, but we found that this was an extremely costly business, which would be justified only if it were necessary in order to safeguard public health.
It has been said that in spite of these undertakings some of this milk has, in fact, found its way on to the retail market. I have no evidence as to the precise quantities, but I should be extremely surprised if the quantity that has found its way on to the retail market was anything like as considerable as the hon. Member implied, although there is some circumstantial evidence that some may have done.
Mr. Irving: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he denies the evidence given in the High Court, which led to a successful application by United Dairies in the case of United Dairies v. Thomas Robinson, Sons & Co. Ltd., which was concerned with the issue of that sort of milk. The evidence is available.
Mr. Amory: I should be glad to look into that point, but my information is that, while there is circumstantial evidence that some of the milk has got on to the market, there is no evidence that the quantity is at all considerable. However, many people, including hon. Members, have been rightly concerned lest the public should buy this tinned milk in the belief that it is freshly made.
When the matter was last raised in the House I gave assurances that I would have inquiries made, and I should like to explain to the House the legal position as revealed by those inquiries. The manufacturers of this milk gave a warranty of six months in respect of sweetened milk and twelve months for unsweetened—evaporated—milk when they sold it to the Ministry. After that they took no responsibility for the condition of the milk. This is not tantamount to saying that the milk is unfit for human consumption after the period of the warranty has expired. It is in fact normally
630
quite wholesome for a number of years—so I am advised—the period depending upon the original type and quality of the milk and how it was stored. After a time, however, it can undoubtedly develop what might be called minor defects.
These minor defects would not, however, render the milk unfit for human consumption. They would render it unattractive by, for example, discolouration. It tends to turn a rather darker colour, and, in the case of sweetened milk, some of the sugar may sink to the bottom of the tin. In some cases small particles of the milk fat can separate and spoil the appearance of the milk. If storage has not been good, the tins show signs of rusting. It would obviously be wrong for the Government to sell milk which may be of that nature for the counter trade, not because of any risk to health, but because of the harm that might unwittingly be done to the good name of the original manufacturer who would normally sell the milk before it reached that condition.
I am advised that a trader who sold milk to the public, despite the undertaking he had entered into, would be acting illegally if the milk proved upon analysis to be unfit for human consumption when it was sold by him, or if the sale could be shown to be to the prejudice of the purchaser because the milk was not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser. The latter might be the case if the trader had altered or re-labelled the tins in such a way as to misrepresent the contents. Those are the circumstances in which the breaking of the undertaking would be illegal. Of course, someone believed to have broken his undertaking could be proceeded against by civil action, but in that case damages would have to be proved.
To safeguard the public against danger in the first case we made a practice—this answers the question asked by the hon. Gentleman—of notifying local health and food and drug authorities in all the districts in which sales were made for animal feeding purposes. As a result, many samples were taken from the tins, but in no case that I have heard of was the milk found to be unfit for human consumption. Local authorities have,

631
therefore, found no grounds for proceeding against the sellers on that account. The second offence, that of re-labelling deliberately, leading to misrepresentation, is one of a criminal nature, and the law for dealing with it already exists. Indeed, a prosecution was successfully brought by the police against certain persons found to have forged fascimiles of well-known labels and to have affixed them to tins of milk bought from my Department. The offence consisted not of selling the milk, but of forging the labels.
I believe that in this matter we have proceeded sensibly and reasonably. Though we have taken all the steps open to us to trace deliberate breaking of the undertakings, in the cases that we have investigated we have not found anything that could amount to proof of a deliberate breaking of it. We have gone into this question thoroughly, as indeed we ought to do. So far as we can discover, there has never been any question of danger to public health at all. My Department took what I believe were reasonable steps to ensure that the milk should not be offered for ordinary retail sale, and if,
632
in fact, some tins have found their way into the retail trade, as I think there is circumstantial evidence for believing, they can have amounted to only an extremely small proportion of the very large quantities involved and no risk to public health has resulted.
Mr. Irving: May I ask the Minister whether there have been other foods of this kind issued by his Department in similar circumstances? At what stage were the public health authorities notified about this material being issued from his Department?
Mr. Amory: I have no specific information with me on the first point. I think it likely that there have been, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman and tell him. If he feels that there is any ground for anxiety resulting from the information I send him, no doubt he will raise the matter. I will give him such information as I have regarding his second point about the precise time at which local authorities were notified.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Seven o'clock.

EDUCATION
  Roman Catholic Infants School, Sunderland
  Roman Catholic Infants School, Sunderland
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Commonwealth Trade
  Commonwealth Trade
  Men's Wear Imports
  Men's Wear Imports
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Casualty Animals (Slaughter)
  Casualty Animals (Slaughter)
  Grain Silos (Leases)
  Grain Silos (Leases)
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
  Farm Buildings (Research)
  Farm Buildings (Research)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Whitton Road, Hounslow (School Crossing Patrol)
  Whitton Road, Hounslow (School Crossing Patrol)
  Miss May Huang (Visa)
  Miss May Huang (Visa)
  Electrical Appliances (Inspection)
  Electrical Appliances (Inspection)
  Romeo Colantonio
  Romeo Colantonio
  Psychiatrists
  Psychiatrists
BRITISH ARMY
  No. 31 Base Workshops, Ashford (Closure)
  No. 31 Base Workshops, Ashford (Closure)
SHIPPING
  North Vietnam Ports
  North Vietnam Ports
TRANSPORT
  London Traffic Conditions (Committee's Recommendations)
  London Traffic Conditions (Committee's Recommendations)
  SUEZ CANAL
  SUEZ CANAL
  UNITED NATIONS (DISARMAMENT SUB-COMMITTEE)
  UNITED NATIONS (DISARMAMENT SUB-COMMITTEE)
UGANDA
  Labour Recruits (Wives and Children)
  Labour Recruits (Wives and Children)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  St. Paul's Area (Redevelopment)
  St. Paul's Area (Redevelopment)
  NOS. 10, 11 AND 12, DOWNING STREET (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY)
  NOS. 10, 11 AND 12, DOWNING STREET (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY)
SCOTLAND
  Dumbuck—Barloan Crescent Scheme, Dumbarton
  Dumbuck—Barloan Crescent Scheme, Dumbarton
  Glasgow—Stirling Road (Improvement)
  Glasgow—Stirling Road (Improvement)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

DOWNING STREET BUILDINGS
3.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, I beg 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 there is any truth in the rumour that secret plans are being made to pull down, or alter, or expand, those historic buildings, No. 10 and No. 11 Downing Street.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, a survey of the structure of Nos. 10 and 11 and also of No. 12, Downing Street carried out by the Ministry of Works in 1954 gave rise to some concern for the stability of these houses. There has been irregular settlement owing to the poor sub-soil and decay of the timber supports of the foundations. There have at times also been dry rot and beetle in the floors and roofs. There is no danger of collapse in the next few years, but it is clear that fairly extensive remedial measures will have to be undertaken, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Works has given some preliminary thought to the planning of these measures.
On a matter of such magnitude and public interest my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has thought it right to take advice from persons independent of the Government before authorising a start on the work. He is, therefore, appointing a committee under the Chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Crawford and Balcarres, with the following terms of reference:
" To consider the report of the Ministry of Works on the present condition of Nos. 10, 11 and 12 Downing Street and the proposals for reconstruction; to make such inquiries as appear to them necessary; and to report to the Prime Minister what action they recommend should be taken to preserve these historic buildings and to make them suitable for their present purposes."
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the unexpectedly satisfactory reply that he has given.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TEXTBOOKS
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what text books are available to enable teachers to prepare lessons for their pupils based upon the recommendations made on pages 112 and 113 of the Ministry of Education Pamphlet 31 entitled Health Education.]
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, it has never been the practice of any Government to compile lists of approved textbooks. Moreover, in my view, textbooks would have at best a very limited part to play in teaching based upon the recommendations to which the noble Lord refers. Where, as here, we are concerned to inculcate ideals of control and self-restraint, the best instrument is not so much the formal lesson out of a textbook as the influence which teachers—and I might add, parents—can bring to bear on the attitude of the children and the example set both by them and adults generally.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Viscount for the Answer he has given, indicating apparently what the practice is in his Department. This does not seem to me to be an adequate or very creditable reply for a Department that concerns itself with education, and it is the education side that is referred to in my Question.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, when the Minister of Education begins to approve textbooks, this will cease to be a free country, and I shall never be the Minister of Education to do this.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount the Minister whether he is aware that the tone and text of that reply do not do him credit?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I must say that the suggestion that the Minister of Education should compile a list of approved textbooks is not only revolutionary but dangerous, and it is my duty to say so; and for the noble Lord to suggest that it is not creditable for a Minister of Education to refuse to do so seems to me to show a lamentable lack of understanding of educational policy in this country.

HOUSING AND TOWN DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.10 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Exchequer contributions towards receiving authorities' expenses under town development schemes]:
On Question, Whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD GREENHILL: I have taken the opportunity of giving notice to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that I should like to say a word on the Motion that Clause 14 stand part, and perhaps noble Lords will permit me to say just a word or two here. As the Committee will know, this clause deals with the regulations which the Secretary of State is to present in order to deal with Exchequer grants which will be received by receiving authorities in connection with expenditure incurred in the execution of town development schemes. The method adopted in this Bill is different from that adopted in a similar English measure. There, the administrative terms of the grant are fixed in the Act itself, whereas in this Bill we have the rather vague reference to regulations without any specific details having been given.
It is true that in the course of the Second Reading debate in another place the intentions of the Secretary of State were explained to the Members, but, although the methods are supposed to be-
978
better than those adopted for England, I do not think they are as good; because while the English fixed rate resulted in a failure to produce the full development which it was originally hoped would be obtained from that grant—the proportion being 50 per cent. on a capital basis—the formula here is so complicated and difficult to understand that Members in another place, when considering this clause, asked what it meant. The Under Secretary of State went to the trouble to explain how the figures would be arrived at. In case noble Lords are interested, perhaps I can paraphrase the sort of particulars upon which the amount would be based.
First, there would be drawn up a notional income and expenditure account each year for each town development scheme. The expenditure side would show the loan charges incurred on monies borrowed for buying and preparing land providing water supplies, sewerage schemes and so on; it would also show certain maintenance charges. The income side would show the proceeds of any lands sold, plus the rating income the receiving authority would have earned if the valuation had been on the pre-town development level. Finally, the Exchequer would contribute 75 per cent. of the deficit on this notional account year by year, leaving the receiving authority to meet the balance, after deducting whatever contribution the exporting authority may make. I shall not be surprised if noble Lords do not follow the reasoning behind this particular formula. It is really a summary of the information which was given to Members in another place. I am inclined to think that this is far too complicated a measure.
It is also, I think, unacceptable, in that the amount which the Secretary of State is prepared to give under these regulations is quite inadequate. It is no good hiding the fact that both the receiving and the exporting authorities are not enthusiastically on the side of the transfer of what is called "overspill" population. In the case of the exporting side, there is the fear that, with a reduced rateable value leading to heavier rate burdens on a reduced population, they will be worse off. On the receiving side, there is the fear that, whatever may be the future outcome of these regulations, the immediate effect will be a heavier rating burden on the receiving

979
authority without any guarantee that they will be better off in the long run. So, if the Secretary of State is to encourage this very necessary measure for providing accommodation for overspill he will have to show some greater generosity than he has already given evidence of, and show that he is serious in his desire to help both the receiving authority and the exporting authority.
As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is probably aware, the Government apparently ignore the fact that even with the £42 subsidy, plus the £14 contribution by the exporting authority, plus the £39 suggested by the Government as being the appropriate figure for rent, there will be a considerable deficit to be met by the receiving authority. I would ask, therefore, that if the Government are sincere in their desire to remedy this very bad situation—and the noble Lord is better aware than any other noble Lord I can think of of the terrific problem with which we are now dealing—they should give us an assurance to-day that in the regulations the grant to receiving authorities will be at least 75 per cent. of the annual deficiency arising from the provision of overspill houses.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has raised two questions to which I think it would be your Lordships' wish that I should reply. The first concerned the difference between the grant in relation to England and Wales and the grant in relation to Scotland. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has admitted from the outset that the assistance given to a receiving authority under the English system—that is 50 per cent. capital grant—will amount to more in the long term than under the proposed Scottish system of a grant based on 75 per cent. of the deficiency incurred. The noble Lord has told your Lordships how that deficiency will be arrived at. That is to be done by the compilation of an income and expenditure account year by year, and the 75 per cent. grant will be based on the deficiency brought out in that account. The Scottish system will give a bigger grant in the critical early years—that is before the development produces new income for the receiving authority. That, apparently, is where the "shoe pinches," and we
980
believe that it is the effect of town development on their finances during this early period which has been deterring receiving authorities.
The noble Lord's second point was that there should be a grant of 75 per cent. on any deficiency which may arise on housing revenue account of the receiving authority due to overspill housing. Your Lordships will appreciate at once that any such grant would be merely an additional subsidy. I believe that the existing subsidy for Scotland, which is 42 per cent. per house for sixty years for overspill development, is generous. I believe that it takes into account the special housing conditions in Scotland and compares favourably with the English equivalent of £24. I do not accept for one moment that the provisions of this Bill will necessarily result in a net loss on housing account; nor that, even if such a loss does occur, the result of providing for overspill will be unfavourable to receiving authorities. What matters is the overall effect on the receiving authority's finances, including the increases in land values, both on the spot and in town centres, and the increases in rating resources presented by the houses and also by the associated commercial and other developments which naturally will take place.
Your Lordships may be interested to know that recently I proved to the satisfaction of one local authority which feared that overspill would be a considerable additional deficiency on its housing revenue account that, while a small loss might accrue on their housing revenue account, a scheme for 2,000 houses such as they had in view would produce, provided that reasonable rents were charged, an overall surplus of some thousands of pounds a year—and that was without taking into account any other than housing developments. If the noble Lord is interested, I can supply him with the figures that made up that calculation. We have never suggested that the rents for new houses should be limited to £39. What my right honourable friend has said is that an average rent of £39 for existing houses would provide an overall surplus in the immediate future in the housing revenue accounts of local authorities in Scotland.
LORD GREENHILL: In order to avoid ambiguity, would the noble Lord

981
say specifically that the Government are of opinion that a figure of rent much in excess of £39 may be necessary?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I would not say "much in excess". The rent would all depend on the arrangements made between the two authorities—the exporting authority and the receiving authority. I think that I have answered the points made by the noble Lord, I hope to the satisfaction of your Lordships.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 23 agreed to.
3.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved after Clause 23 to insert the following new clause:
As to conditions to be observed with respect to improvement grants
". Section one hundred and fourteen of the principal Act (which specifies the conditions to be observed in respect of dwellings which have been the subject of an improvement grant) shall be read and have effect—

(a) as if in subsection (2) thereof—

(i) the words ' or in the event of the voluntary alienation of a dwelling by the owner thereof during the said period ' and the words ' or of the voluntary alienation of the dwelling as the case may be ' were omitted; and

(ii) after the word ' shall ' in paragraph (a) thereof there were inserted the words ' if the local authority in their sole discretion determine that repayment of such sum should be made '; and

(b) as if—

(i) in subsection (5) thereof there were omitted the words ' or on a voluntary alienation of the dwelling '; and

(ii) in subsection (6) thereof there were omitted the words ' or of a voluntary alienation of the dwelling '."

The noble Earl said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper. It is intended to rectify a serious anomaly between the interpretation of the principal Act in Scotland and the interpretation of the corresponding Act in England. Under the Scottish Act, if an owner modernises a house, with the approval of a local authority, he may receive from the local authority a maximum improvement grant of either £400 or 50 per cent. of the cost, whichever is less; that is to say, if he spends £1,000 or £1,500 on modernising a farm worker's house, which often happens, his maximum grant would be £400. If the total cost was only £600,
982
the maximum grant would be only £300, and so on. If the owner subsequently fails to maintain the conditions under which the grant is given, the local authority can require that the grant should be refunded. That is perfectly right, and it applies both in Scotland and in England.
If, however, the owner is obliged to sell the house, or if he makes it over to his son or to some other member of his family, what happens then? In England, the new owner is in the same position as the former owner: if he fails to fulfil the conditions of the grant, the grant is forfeited, but if he maintains the conditions of the grant, then it is not forfeited. But in Scotland the local authorities have been legally advised (and I think that they are bound to act on the advice which they are given) that immediately the property is transferred by an owner to his son, the local authority are bound automatically to require the refund of the grant, whether they want to do so or not. It may be that the legal advice they have been given does not correctly interpret the true intention of Parliament. I do not know: Acts of Parliament are sometimes very difficult to interpret.
I think that my new clause would rectify that situation, which cannot be justified. What we want to do is to give Scottish local authorities exactly the same discretion as is now possessed by the English authorities. We want to remove what is a serious deterrent to housing progress in Scotland. If an owner, who is an elderly man, sees that the time is soon coming when he ought to make over his property to his son, and he has a house which ought to be modernised, he is naturally deterred from doing so by the knowledge that immediately the transfer takes place, the whole grant will be forfeited. That is a thing which I do not think can be justified on any ground at all.
I am glad to see that the Government have taken the opportunity of this Bill to amend the law in relation to improvement grants, by providing in Part II of the First Schedule that where a local authority refuse an application for grant, they may be required to give their reasons in writing. That is not, of course, the same point that is raised in my new clause. I mention it only in order to

983
show your Lordships that, since the Government have used this Bill to amend the law in relation to improvement grants, it is an appropriate Bill in which to insert a new clause of this kind. I hope very much that my noble friend will be able to accept the Amendment, or, if he cannot accept it in its present form, that he will at least undertake to rectify this injustice before Report stage. I think that we must try to clarify the law on this point and remove what is at the same time a serious injustice and an unfortunate deterrent to the improvement of housing conditions in Scotland.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 23, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I beg to support my noble friend Lord Dundee in this Amendment, because I can see no detriment whatever to the Bill if this Amendment, or another appropriately worded, is inserted. The Government are continually telling us that they want the maximum use to be made of these improvement grants. Surely it is not logical to refuse to rectify an anomaly which prevents an express desire from being effected. The deterrent to people from taking advantage of a grant, on the ground that on a voluntary alienation they will lose the unexpired portion, has perhaps not been felt up to now as much as it will be, for the very reason that this anomaly was not published and advertised until a couple of months ago; and the majority of people did not even realise that it existed. Therefore, I support strongly my noble friend in this Amendment.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My noble friend Lord Dundee has stated the position quite clearly, but there are one or two additional points that I should like to bring to the attention of your Lordships. Unless the Government are prepared either to accept this new clause or to rectify this position by some Amendment of their own, there is a distinct possibility that these measures will not be put into full effect in future in Scotland, because at the present time, when a man is hopeful of propelling his property to his heir, he naturally expects that the continuance of ownership in his family will go on. If, however, he finds that the grants will have to be compulsorily
984
repaid in a way which is not the case if the estate is sold, it is probable not only that in a number of cases will there be no propulsion but also that a considerable number of owners will not take advantage of the grants, so that a number of houses which badly need reconditioning will not get it.
These Acts have been of the greatest possible value to the agricultural population in Scotland, although not so much to the landlord, because in many cases the landlord is already drawing no revenue from his properties and, therefore, is not in a position, by denying himself some additional income, to improve his house. In many cases, receiving grants has meant merely that the houses have been put in order, whereas it might have been many years before the owners would otherwise have been in a position to do so. It is surely most unfair that when a man sells his property the buyer should not have to repay the grant yet when the owner makes it over to his heir, the heir should have to do so. I therefore strongly support this new clause.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I have studied this Amendment carefully, and I have also listened with attention to what the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the other noble Lords have said in its support. I have to say at the outset that, while I have some sympathy with the objects which my noble friends have in view, the Amendment that has been moved is, I regret, not one which Her Majesty's Government can accept. What the noble Earl has in mind are certain differences between Scotland and England and Wales and the statutory restrictions to which houses improved with the aid of the grant are subject. As the noble Earl said, in both countries the relevant Statutes provide for the repayment of outstanding grants in the event of any breach of the statutory condition. The main condition is the restriction on rent that may be charged; and your Lordships will recollect that these restrictions normally apply for a period of some twenty years.
Under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, the owner of a house improved with the aid of grant is also required to repay any outstanding improvement grant in the event of a voluntary alienation, which, of course, includes a sale. But, on the other hand, the owner can at any time ask the

985
local authority, indeed, he can demand the local authority, to accept repayment of any outstanding improvement grant, whereupon the house ceases to be subject to restrictions.
I think I should explain the situation in England and Wales. There, as the noble Earl said, there is no provision covering repayment in the event of voluntary alienation of the house; but during the period for which the conditions must be observed the house must be kept available for letting if it is not occupied either by the owner who received the grant or by a member of his family. I am advised that that means that the house cannot be sold with vacant possession for owner occupation. Also, in England and Wales the owner, unlike the Scottish owner, is not entitled to repay the grant at will, since the acceptance of repayment is in the discretion of the local authority. I have mentioned these differences because they appear to me to be relevant to the Amendment.
The two codes have differed since the outset of the improvement grant scheme in 1949. At that time they were separately framed and took into account the differences in the law and the practice of the two countries. In particular, provision for repayment of grant on the sale of a house was, according to my recollection, included in the Scottish code with the express object of preventing possible abuse of the improvement grant facilities through the sale of improved houses at substantial profit. At that particular time when the provision was enacted, in 1949, it was thought that there was a special risk of that happening in Scotland, where it was expected that it would become increasingly common to subdivide large houses and to sell the resulting flat.
I have to point out that this Amendment, which I think is intended to bring the law in Scotland and England into line, goes very much further. The English code, as I have tried to explain, requires that the property shall be occupied by the owner or a member of his family or be made available for letting. This Amendment would have the effect of freeing the owner from all restrictions on his right to sell his property, after receipt of improvement grant just as and when he thought fit. I know that that is not what the noble Earl has in mind; he is really thinking of the transfer of property from father to son. However, that is the
986
effect of the Amendment: that it would allow someone who has improved his property with the help of an improvement grant to sell it without any restrictions whatever. That is a proposal which I am afraid the Government could not possibly accept.
I said at the opening of my reply to the noble Earl that I had some sympathy with the object he has in view, and I am quite prepared to agree that a case can perhaps be made out for modifying restrictions on the sale of improved property in Scotland so as to bring them more into line with England and Wales. But it may be that other modifications to the improvement grant scheme are called for in the light of the experience which has been gained since the scheme was introduced some eight years ago, and it seems to Her Majesty's Government that the whole subject could best be dealt with as part of a general review of the working of the improvement grant scheme. I can say that it is the intention of the Government to take in hand such a review. While I cannot promise any early legislative action, I can give this assurance to my noble friend: that the point he has raised in this Amendment is one that will be kept in mind during the course of that review. In all the circumstances which I have mentioned, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment; but in the light of the assurance I have given perhaps the noble Earl may feel that he need not press it further.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: If I understand him rightly, my noble friend has given as the reason against the Amendment that if an owner wishes to sell the house not as a lettable subject, but with vacant possession, he then has the right to demand that he should give back the grant he has received. Naturally he would have to give it back; but he is then, surely, in exactly the same position as he would have been if he had reconditioned his own house without a grant at all. No-one has any reason to complain. I do not see how that affects the position of an owner who gives an agricultural cottage—a cottage which is intended as a residence for an agricultural worker or an estate worker and which has been reconditioned—to his son, there being no question of its ever being sold with vacant possession, and then finds that the son

987
who receives the property has to refund the grant which has been contributed towards its modernisation. It seems to me that that is a great injustice which does not apply in England, and which we ought to try to rectify in Scotland.
I wonder whether the noble Lord could make any distinction between the question of sale and the question of gift to a member of the owner's family, and whether anything could be done to rectify the position a little more quickly? If not, could he undertake that the inquiry which may take place will deal seriously with what I cannot help feeling is an utterly unjustifiable state of affairs and a great deterrent to the improvement and modernising of houses in Scotland?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: The noble Earl has said, as has the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, that this is a serious deterrent to the provision and modernisation of houses in Scotland. I shall be grateful to the noble Earl if he could produce any information as to that, because it would appear from the figures that are available that the scheme is working extraordinarily well at the present time. We have not hitherto heard of the point he mentioned.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Because it has only been known for the last few months.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: That may be. I am only telling the noble Earl that we have not had any serious complaint—in fact, no complaint—of its being a deterrent up to this date. I see the noble Earl's point. It is not his desire that persons who make use of improvement grants should be able to profit out of it, but it is his desire that, where a member of the family is concerned, the house might pass to such a member without his having to repay the grant. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has considered this matter, and he feels that it would be much better dealt with by having a review of the whole situation. I shall certainly see to it that what noble Lords have said to-day is drawn to the attention of that inquiry.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Can the noble Lord say whether this inquiry is going to start within a reasonable period, and whether it is likely that something will be done to rectify this position during the lifetime of the present Parliament?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I regret that I cannot give an assurance as to that.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am afraid I cannot pretend to be wholly satisfied with what my noble friend has said on this matter; but in view of the assurance he has given that there will be, I hope, an early review of the matter, and that it will be dealt with by the Government, I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee by pressing the matter any further. I would therefore ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Bill reported without Amendment.
House resumed.

SUPERANNUATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

STATE ASSISTANCE TO THE ARTS
3.46 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN rose to draw attention to the urgent need for increased financial assistance by the State to the Arts; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. Having regard to the long list of eminent Members of your Lordships' House who are to take part in this debate, I have a feeling of some humility and unworthiness in this matter, because I feel that there are many others who could perform this task much better than. I can. I believe this is one of the most important matters which has been discussed in this House in recent years. The interest of the general public in the Arts to-day is greater than it ever was. It has been stimulated by a number of factors. In the first place, curiously enough, the war itself greatly stimulated interest in the Arts. During the war we had the lunchtime concerts at the National Gallery, at which hundreds of thousands of people attended. We had such things as the musical appreciation courses for schoolchildren run by Sir Robert and Lady Mayo. We have had the introduction of the B.B.C.

989
Third Programme. We have had the long-playing gramophone records, television, and a variety of other things. All these things have increased the public interest in the Arts, and the tastes for the higher forms of Arts have become much more widespread.
What is even more gratifying is that more and more people are taking an active part in the Arts, by participation in plays, ballets, painting and sculpture. I should think there are more amateur painters in this country to-day than there ever have been, and some of their works are very good indeed. This is one of the most encouraging facts of our time. It was never true that we were a nation of Philistines, although some people like to pretend that we were. Of course, no one nation excels in every form of art, and we do not. But to-day we can claim to be pre-eminent in sculpture, in ballet and in poetry. We also have a most promising school of painting, and I believe the time is not far distant when we shall play a great part in world painting. Our performances at the opera are the equal of any in the world. I do not think we can yet claim that our opera itself is equal to any other, but certainly the performances are as good as any other.
It is not my purpose, however, to deal with Art in a nationalistic spirit, though friendly rivalry is all to the good, and I believe that the exchange of visits between artists of this country and the countries behind the Iron Curtain are a valuable factor in the interests of peace. But Art is international, and we, who have never been fortunate enough to produce a Bach, a Mozart, a Beethoven or a Tchaikowsky, can rejoice in these composers and enjoy them. It was remarkable that even during the war there was no great prejudice against the performance of a Beethoven sonata—indeed, I think that the Fifth Symphony was used for certain purposes during the war, as a sort of signal. Nor in the world of painting have we yet produced a Michael-angelo, a Leonardo de Vinci or a Rembrandt but we can nevertheless enjoy their paintings and try to possess as many of them in our galleries as we can.
Shakespeare and Dickens are as familiar in the Soviet Union and in other countries behind the Iron Curtain as they
990
are in this country and in Germany. Indeed, I would venture to say that Shakespeare and Dickens are more familiar behind the Iron Curtain than they are here. I am sure we should all agree that this wonderful cultural inheritance which has been handed to us is a great bond between nations and a civilising influence within our own country. We must ensure that it is spread widely and enjoyed by as large a number of people as possible.
It has been the universal experience throughout the ages that the Arts cannot be self-supporting. In the past, the artist has been subsidised by royal or other wealthy patrons. The House will not need examples of that kind. The poet, the painter and the musician have usually been court officials or have been resident in the homes of very wealthy patrons. More recently, as the wealthy patrons have fallen out it has become necessary that they should be assisted out of public funds, and it is now an accepted fact that the community has to assist the Arts if they are to live and flourish. This is an accepted fact in every civilised country in the world. In this country, the methods of assistance have developed gradually and grown up, and are to-day so varied, so complex and so confusing that it defies the wit and ingenuity of the ordinary person to ascertain exactly how much is being actually provided.
I have taken the trouble to ascertain, so far as I can, the number of different sources by which assistance is given, and I think I have reached eight. There is, first, the money provided direct by the Exchequer. There is, secondly the money provided on the Vote of the Ministry of Education. They provide money for the London Museum, the National Gallery, the Tate Gallery, the Scottish National Galleries and others. Thirdly, there is the money provided by the Ministry of Works, mostly in the form of the provision and maintenance of buildings: for instance, the Ministry of Works have a lease of the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, which they sub-let to the company running it, and they have made themselves responsible in a number of ways for the maintenance of that building. Then there are institutions that are wholly maintained by the Ministry of Works, such as the Victoria and Albert Museum. Then there is the Arts Council,

991
which receives an annual grant from the Exchequer. Then there is the provision which has recently been made under the Finance Act, 1956, which permits of the Exchequer receiving the payment of death duties by means of chattels or works of art of outstanding æsthetic or historic value. Then there is the Local Government Act, 1948, which enables local authorities to contribute up to, I think, a 4d. rate in respect of the Arts. Finally, there are such things as special Acts of Parliament which permit local authorities to manage particular buildings, such as the London County Council Festival Hall.
Incidentally, it would be a good thing if we could one day have a White Paper telling us exactly what is the total contribution which is made out of public funds to the Arts. But there is, nevertheless, a general and very strong feeling that, with all this multiplicity of sources of assistance, the Arts are suffering from lack of adequate funds and are unable satisfactorily to achieve their object of making Art available over the widest possible field. There is a feeling that, having recognised the need for assisting the Arts out of public funds, we are doing so in a niggardly and grudging spirit and certainly not on a big enough scale.
In the short time that I propose to take up, I should like to quote three examples, but they are examples among many, and I am sure that noble Lords in all parts of the House will be able to supplement what I propose to say. First, there is the Arts Council. This comprises a committee of public-spirited people interested in the Arts generally under the chairmanship of Sir Kenneth Clark. The task of the Council is to receive a grant from the Exchequer and out of that grant to assist the Covent Garden Opera, the "Old Vic", Sadler's Wells, a number of repertory theatres, opera companies, orchestras, art exhibitions and poetry, and to do so not merely in London but, so far as possible, all over the country. The grant last year was £885,000, and this year, 1957–8, it is to be £985,000. That may sound a good deal of money, but, having regard to the large number of tasks which I have enumerated, it is really quite inadequate. Admittedly, the grants have been steadily increasing, but no more so than the actual rise in the cost of
992
living; and the steady increases in grant have not enabled the Arts Council in any way to widen the scope of their activities. They have to remain exactly as they are. Out of that grant to the Arts Council, they have to spend about £500,000 in respect of the opera, ballet and various orchestras all over the country, including, I think, £350,000 to the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, and to the Sadler's Wells School. Then £55,000 went to the assistance of drama and to the repertory theatre.
In a recent report of the Arts Council, after saying that this country spends far too little upon the Arts and that the total expense from public funds in maintaining music, opera and the drama amounts to 4d. per head per annum of the population (3d. from Parliament and 1d. from the local authorities), they go on to say:
" Such a parsimonious provision from public funds, not even guaranteed from one year to the next, is among the lowest provided by any civilised nation for the preservation of the Arts".
That is a shocking statement for a responsible body of men to have to make. They say that there is a need for thirty well-provided provincial repertory theatres and an equal number of excellent halls. They say that £1 million a year for the next ten years would furnish Britain with all the additional buildings required, either new or reconditioned and that an annual addition of another quarter of a million pounds of public funds would enable them to take care of all the new ventures.
This may be sufficient at present, but in my view even these sums are already outdated by the increasing costs that exist to-day as compared with the costs at the time of the report. But even apart from that, I consider that the figures are unduly cautious and timid, and not facing up to the real requirements. For instance, it is essential that there should be a continuous survey of cultural needs and that they should not necessarily be stabilised at their present requirements. We have now fourteen new towns growing up and a considerable number of greatly enlarged towns, and there is a real need for new cultural facilities to be provided for these new communities so as to build up happy and live communities, and not merely to create a series of housing estates. That is the case for the Arts Council.
I turn now to my second example, the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden. As I have already explained, this is subsidised out of the grant of the Arts Council; but this grant is naturally restricted by what the Arts Council itself gets—and the Arts Council, as I have already explained, have a great many other commitments. I need hardly remind your Lordships that the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, is a national and an international institution. Last year one and a half million people throughout the country attended performances of opera and ballet. I understand that of the tourists visiting this country some 75 to 80 per cent. go at least once to Covent Garden. Covent Garden is open for 47 weeks in the year. Not only does the Company perform at Covent Garden itself, but its companies undertake tours to the larger centres of population—Birmingham, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester—so that it is not merely confined to London itself. The standard of its performances is equal to that of the most famous opera houses in the world, such as La Scala, Milan, the Opera House in Paris, or the Opera House in New York.
No opera house has ever paid its way, in this country or anywhere else. There have been suggestions that it might be possible to increase prices at Covent Garden. It may well be that on very special occasions, at gala performances and so on, it would be possible; and it would be possible, of course, by excluding numbers of people who would not be able to afford the higher prices. In those special cases there might be a number of people who would be willing to pay. But I am convinced—and I believe that the management of Covent Garden have gone into this matter most carefully—that they have reached a point when an increase in prices will not necessarily produce any larger return; it will simply leave 2, number of empty seats. But that, of course, does not preclude a further examination.
I think it would be unrealistic to imagine that any increase in prices, however substantial, is going to obviate the necessity of assistance to the Royal Opera House. The grant last year from the Arts Council was a quarter of a million pounds, and it has been calculated that as a minimum, without even extending the
994
activities of the Royal Opera House, the sum of £350,000 is needed; so that they need an extra £100,000. It is interesting to compare that with what is done in other European countries. In France they subsidise the four national theatres—the Opéra, the Opéra Comique, the Théâtre Français, and the Odéon. The grant is approximately £1½ million. In Italy, about the same amount is provided by the Italian Government for opera alone. In Germany, Hamburg alone has provided a quarter of a million pounds—as much as we spend altogether on our Covent Garden. Even Denmark, a country with a population which is less than that of London, spends a quarter of a million pounds for its Royal Theatre at Copenhagen. Therefore, the request, or suggestion, that the grant of £250,000 might be increased to £350,000 is not a very extravagant one, and is modest in the light of what is being done in other countries.
For my third example I want to turn to the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery. I do not think I need deal with them at any great length, because I see that the noble Earl, Lord Crawford and Balcarres, is going to speak, and I am sure that he will have something to say about the grant that is at present provided for the National Gallery. Our needs in respect of paintings are twofold; first, we have to buy, as far as is possible, pictures which would otherwise be exported. There is a grave danger, with the inability of wealthy men, owing to taxation, to preserve their art treasures, and the more frequent sales that take place, that some of our most precious works of art may be exported abroad. Some years ago a Committee was set up under the chairmanship of Lord Waverley (who I am glad to see is here) to consider the alarming number of pictures which were going abroad. This is an extract from their Report:
" All efforts; to preserve our national heritage will be largely nugatory unless the meagre sums hitherto available for the maintenance and development of the public collections are very substantially augmented."
That relates to the necessity to purchase pictures which would otherwise be going abroad.
But the second need of both the National Galleries and the Tate Gallery is to buy pictures from time to time as they become available, sometimes even

995
from abroad, to fill in, gaps in our collections, and to keep our collections up to date. To meet both these needs there is an annual purchase grant made by the Government. I am sure that if they do not already know it they will be horrified at the amount which is available. For the National Gallery the sum available this year is £12,500, and for the Tate Gallery a sum of about £10,000. Your Lordships may have seen in the Press this morning of a sale of masterpieces which took place at Sotheby's, at which a Van Gogh fetched £31,000, a Monet fetched £22,000, a Renoir fetched the same figure—£22,000—and a Gauguin fetched £17,000.
It is true that the trustees have some small funds of their own which, together with the grant, bring their revenue available for the purchase of pictures up to something like £20,000 a year, and it is also true that the Government can, and sometimes do, give special grants to enable specific pictures to be bought. But this latter is so uncertain that it would not be possible, for instance, to go to an auction and buy a picture relying on the fact that the Government will thereafter make good the bill. It would not be much good for the trustees of the National Gallery or the Tate Gallery, therefore, to go to Sotheby's with £12,500 or £10,000 in their pocket, in the hope of picking up one of the masterpieces which are sold there from time to time. In this connection it is rather an interesting sidelight that the City of Birmingham alone has recently granted a sum of about £12,500 a year for the very same purpose—the sum on which the National Gallery is expected to maintain its priceless collection. There are other aspects of this subject, such as our priceless collections in museums and art galleries throughout the country, like the Wallace Collection and the Scottish Collections, with which I hope other noble Lords will deal, and I do not propose to take up your Lordships' time in dealing with those.
I have quoted three specific cases merely by way of example in order to establish that we are not doing by any means enough for the Arts, and I should now like to summarise the case that I have tried to make by saying that what is needed is a new approach to Art. We must accept the need to support the Arts
996
adequately out of public funds, as one of the basic requirements of a modern civilisation. Our approach hitherto has been a grudging and a timid one, with the result that there is a general feeling of frustration among all the men and women who act as trustees of the various public institutions that they manage and to which they so freely give their time.
The amount involved is not a great deal of money, measured by any standard. I am not going to try to make comparisons. I believe the Arts Council compare the amount of their grant with the pig subsidy. I should be the last to complain about the pig subsidy; but noble Lords can, at any rate, make whatever comparisons they like. The amount we are able to afford for the Arts is trifling compared with the vast national expenditure which we are to-day forced to provide, and I shall listen with great interest and anxiety to what Her Majesty's Government propose to do about it. In a complete system of society there must be room not only for the scientist, the administrator and the practical people in life, but also for the philosopher, the dreamer and the artist. I would conclude by quoting (something I have never before dared to do in this House) from a poet who was at one time very well known and is to-day coming into his own again—James Elroy Flecker. In his play, Hassan he wrote:
" If there shall ever arise a nation whose people have forgotten poetry or whose poets have forgotten the people, though they send their ships round Taprobane and their armies across the hills of Hindustan, though their city be greater than Babylon of old, though they mine a league into earth or mount to the stars on wings—what of them? They will be a dark patch upon the world."
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes his seat, would he be good enough to say specifically the amount of additional finance that he has in mind? Is he speaking in terms of £1 million, £5 million or £10 million? He did not say a word about that.
LORD SILKIN: I did not add up the various requirements, but I believe I did indicate that what the Arts Council are asking for is £500,000 a year for ten years as capital expenditure, another £250,000 a year as maintenance; and, if the noble Lord would like a broad picture, I would

997
say that an additional maintenance allowance of £1 million a year would cover all the requirements that I have made.
LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
4.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, I am filled with encouragement and hope because this Motion has been moved from one of the Front Benches. Indeed, one is prompted to think that that sad day when Labour comes back into power will be relieved and brightened by the fact that some attention will be paid to things of the mind, an attention rarely given by a Conservative Government, who never hesitate to cut down on such institutions as the Bodleian Library. Your Lordships can see in the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, the unusual sight of a politician who prefers to build up the future rather than pull down the past. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who is going to reply for Her Majesty's Government, gives me no such hopeful sensation. We want a small sum of money and the noble Lord is well schooled in the bland art of refusal. The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, wants a few millions a year for the museums of this country, and the Arts Council want £2½ million a year and also a capital grant of £5 million for building in London. Without that minimum of £2½ million a year, the Arts Council can hardly cover their present commitments, much less extend them, as they should be extended, all over the country.
For lack of money the standard is continually falling. There is a fading out of all enterprise and experiment in the Arts-It has become a concentration upon keeping alive by sending all the best that we have to America—trying to make a balance at home by earning dollars abroad. As for the capital grant of £5 million for London (and I am much more ambitious in this matter than the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has shown himself), that sum would enable us to build the National Theatre, to build a new Sadler's Wells on the South Bank and to build a Music Centre in Regent's Park. The National Theatre has received the sanction of an Act of Parliament, and the other two have received the approval of the Gowers Report, As it is now, drama and opera are refused the prestige that are given them in Paris by the
998
Théâtre Français and the Opéra Comique. We show what we think of them by leaving them in back streets and squalid surroundings. It is essential that they should have the prominence of conspicuous Government approval. And yet I have an intuition that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will get up and roll out that old speech about the precarious economic condition of the country, the balance of payments, the inflation, the example to the consumer, the existence and repetition of which arguments never reduce the Budget much below £5,000 million.
Against such a total, our demand looks small. But the noble Lord will turn it down with that air of final authority, that invincible assurance that I find so enviable and so intimidating. He will give the weighty impression that when he refuses to add a mite to that £5,000 million he has 5,000 civil servants behind him. The truth is that the Government do not want to spend any more money on the Arts. They can always find money when they wish. But Art is not the sort of thing that attracts easy money in Government circles. Some things get by the Treasury very easily. No-one thinks it extravagant to stage obsolete air exercises on the lines of the Battle of Britain From an annual subsidy to ungrateful Jordania of £10 million, to £40 million spent on ground-nuts—
LORD MANCROFT: Or subscriptions to the Liberal Party funds.
VISCOUNT ESHER: I am not saying that all Governments do not behave like this. As I was about to say, the expenditure may be useless and the project may fail, but it does not have to be adjusted and justified to imperial or business ideas. No-one worries if the railways have a deficit of £50 million a year. The Arts are just the opposite. Dr. Dalton's £50 million, which would have given us for twenty years the money we want, is quietly removed from under us. In the Arts even the smallest expenditure is in Government eyes, a luxury and a waste of money. Surely when everything else is changing around us, these Philistine values cannot be maintained. The Empire and the Services are passing out of the picture. Business now leaps into the top position; its job to make everybody rich. But if the Government think

999
that wealth is everything and culture nothing, the nation is getting the wrong kind of Cabinet Minister, and the sooner the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, is asked to form a Government the better.
Surely out of the vast sums displaced by our defence revolution the small sum that we need can be found to civilise the great democracy that we are creating. It is no longer a luxury or a waste of money; it is a first necessity for our future as a nation. As Chairman of the London Museum and of the Friends of the National Libraries, I have watched our possessions moving to the United States. And even what we have is not displayed. Owing to the refusal of capital expenditure, only 25 per cent. of the possessions of the London Museum can be seen by the public. As a member of the Arts Council since its beginning—and I have just been superannuated for the second time—I have been in continual contact with bankrupt opera, unendowed orchestras, unworthy theatres, problems that cannot now be solved by private benefactors subject to sur-tax.
A very different picture is presented when we look abroad. All the leading countries spend more than we do on the Arts. Many single towns in Germany spend more on music than the whole of this rich country. Even Iceland has a National Theatre. The Australians are running a State Lottery to raise the £2,800,000 they need for an opera house in Sydney. I have in my hand an Act of Parliament passed in Canada last February for the establishment of a Council for the Arts, endowing it with 50 million dollars. To give us an equal chance in this world-wide movement, £5 million at once on London and £2½ million a year for the Arts Council is what we want. Surely that small sum cannot send a shudder of dismay through bureaucratic hearts hardened by years of vast expenditure. We spend £480 million a year on our promising system of education, teaching the Arts at every grade, and then there is a sudden fade-out for adults, this country is an artistic desert. And all because the Government refuse to raise that £480 million to £485 million.
I lived under the aristocratic system and I know not a few of its secrets. Boredom was the bane of aristocracy, and most of their money was used to avoid or
1000
overcome it. Except to a small minority, the penalty of leisure has always been boredom. Hunting, shooting, golf, the foreign watering place, the military station in the Empire, ruling the small kingdom of the country-house, were all devices to cover up the boredom of leisure. Very few of these can now be afforded; nor would there be room, in these crowded islands, to make life interesting for everybody. So the workers have become the victims of their own revolution. The rich who were bored are now busy, and the workers, with high pay and short hours, have assumed the attributes of aristocracy without the same opportunities for filling their idle hours. For these expensive subterfuges can never be provided for the mass of the nation, who are acquiring leisure around us.
Hence, the young people of to-day are in sub-conscious revolt against the lack of adventure in their lives. They must find something to make life interesting. To fill this vacuum of the people's leisure to an ever-increasing extent is the job of the Arts Council created by the noble Earl Lord De la Warr in a moment of vision. I am not so fatuous as to imagine that this small expenditure which I am advocating is going to turn low-class minds to Beethoven and Shakespeare. But if the Arts Council were free of its anxieties about our major activities in the artistic world, it could turn its time and attention to the lamentable fact that the cinema in this country is largely stagnant and the machinery for circulating works of quality from abroad hopelessly inadequate. Still more, the Arts Council might do something about the low standard in television, which even the brilliant intellect of Sir Kenneth Clark has not been able to raise much more than an inch. It is no good saying that it will take ages, or that this atmosphere of boredom and frustration cannot be infiltrated by education; for if we fail to follow up the progress already made, we may fall into barbarism.
I will read an extract from a letter lately received from a woman in that outpost of wealth and civilisation, the United States.
" All over the country "
she writes
" the teen-agers steal, molest people, break into houses and smash up everything "

1001
Take, again, the other end of the intellectual scale. Here is the headmaster of Doncaster Grammar School, talking proudly of his sixth form, fifty boys, of whom the parents of twenty-four left school at fourteen, and the parents of nineteen left school at sixteen. He says:
" These boys come from good homes, and the word ' good ' bears no relation to income. Many come from the homes of skilled artisans, who themselves would probably have gone to the university had they been given the opportunity now given to their sons "
He goes on to say that the homes of eleven of these boys had more than 500 books, and only one home had fewer than 50 books. It is an inspiring picture that Mr. Best gives—for that is the name of this intelligent headmaster. But listen, to how he concludes his lecture:
" Doncaster is a town singularly lacking in culture. There is no theatre only a moderate museum, art gallery and library. There is little or no opportunity of hearing a good orchestra, though once a year there is a visit from an opera company."
I am not blaming Doncaster; I am blaming the Government, who starve the Arts. Why should Doncaster build a theatre, when they know that the Government consider it an extravagance to implement the Act and build a National Theatre in London?
Nor can the Arts Council help these neglected provincial areas. It is as much as they can do to keep in precarious existence the national institutions in London. Unless we can provide the finance, not only will Doncaster remain "singularly lacking in culture", but it will be impossible to make the country, from which the constraints of war and poverty have been removed, into a civilised nation. This headmaster knows, as we all know, that we have the best material in this country in the world. If we give them a chance, they will dominate the new world as they did the old. But they must be given something to replace the war and poverty that limited their lives. There is a vacuum into which the patients of psychiatrists are pouring. We must try to fill that vacuum with the unending interest of the Arts.
I know chat the general view in this country is that the Arts are a pastime and luxury. It is said that we are an extrovert nation, and proud to be so; that we go in for sport and the open-air life: that that is our character and our place in the world. In the old days, when
1002
the front Benches were full of Lytteltons and Lubbocks, I would have accepted this and taken without protest the back seat to which intellectuals were then confined and accustomed. But things are none too good on the athletic front. Two Americans and two Australians in the finals at Wimbledon! Two American crews in the final of the Grand Cup at Henley! It is all very disturbing. May I suggest that we seem to be doing better in the field of the Arts? We have the best sculptor, the best composer, the best actor, and the best dancer in the world. Surely our growing reputation in the Arts is worth supporting.
I put it to the Government that we should push along these new lines of excellence, exploit these more promising avenues of national success. Surely we should not have to wait for the return of the Labour Party. It may be that this national and patriotic aspect of the question will appeal to a Conservative Government. I do not expect them to see that the Arts are the highest expression of human activity, as much superior to anything produced in the political and commercial world as the speeches of Mark Antony and Henry V are superior to those made in your Lordships' House. But; I should expect them to see that all the important things the Government are asked to do, and which they ought to do—a new roads system, for instance—are extremely expensive. Our demand, so important, both for national prestige and private happiness, is extremely cheap.
4.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: My Lords, the scope of this debate is obviously so wide that its horizons can be limited only by a definition of what we mean by Art—and that I do not propose to venture to give. It is so broad that the result is that no single aspect can be fully debated. On the other side, it has the advantage, perhaps, of showing how wide is the area of neglect by successive Governments. The noble Viscount who has just spoken from the Liberal Benches blamed the present Government more than the Opposition. I do not know whether he has cause to do so, nor do I know what a Liberal Government would do or could do. At any rate, my memory of what the last Liberal Government did for the Arts is not very strong. But if I fail to form the next

1003
Government, there is something to be said for a Liberal Government led by my noble friend Lord Esher.
Owing to the width of this debate, perhaps it will be convenient if I confine my remarks to a prosaic subject with which I am closely connected—namely, the effect of a shortage of money on the Arts as represented in our museums. I would illustrate my points from the position in two museums. The museums of this country are famous throughout the world and they are among the greatest of British institutions. It follows, therefore, that even those who are not interested in their contents or in their work must recognise that our national prestige is involved in the way in which these museums are maintained and developed. I do not think that it can be said that the oldest and greatest of our national museums, perhaps the greatest museum in the world, the British Museum, is to-day being properly maintained.
During the war the galleries were seriously damaged. Much work has been done since 1940 on their repair, but both on the ground floor and on the first floor there are series of exhibition galleries which are shut to the public and in some cases open to the skies, as they were after the bombs fell. Is that a thing, I wonder, that could be said of any museum anywhere else in the world? This means that the Museum is failing in its first duty, which is to make available for the public, for public pleasure, public instruction and public education, the works of art which belong to the nation. It means that since 1939 no member of the public has seen some of the most famous works of art in the world. In one department alone the great Nereid Monument and the frieze from Bassae are to-day hidden, as they were hidden in 1939. It seems to me wrong that the public should in this way be deprived of seeing what it owns, and not to the credit of a great nation to treat its greatest museum so scurvily.
We are failing also in the British Museum in our second duty: that is, to make available for scholars the raw material for their research. The British Museum is the greatest quarry in the world from which scholars, historians, whoever they may be, can write their books and guide the thought of mankind.
1004
In the Report of the Standing Commission of 1953 we read how, for instance, the cataloguing in the Department of Manuscripts is twenty-eight years in arrears, and that 7,500 manuscripts and 15,000 charters are, therefore, not properly available to students. Those figures, I think, could be reduced to-day, but the figure is still enormous. We are failing, moreover, in our duty to posterity: for many objects in different parts of the museum are being neglected and are physically deteriorating to such an extent that the wonderful laboratory which has been built up there cannot deal with the situation.
For these things the staff is not to blame. The staff works under conditions of appalling frustration and the utmost difficulty, and succeeds in a manner which I think should commend itself to your Lordships in carrying on such work that it can do. The cause of this is that we are not allowed sufficient staff to maintain the Museum. When we ask for more, the most that we can hope to get is one-third or one half of our annual requirements. The refusal in negotiations with the Treasury seems to be on the basis of a complete misunderstanding of the importance of a great museum and of its function both in this country and to mankind. We are therefore prevented from being able properly to maintain our existing public services, let alone develop new public services, which everyone realises are desirable and, indeed, essential. That is one type of development.
Another type of development is by acquisition—and here let me turn for illustration to the National Gallery. I think it will be agreed that it is the duty of so great a gallery as the National Gallery to buy great masterpieces, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, that the most representative gallery in the world should continue to make good its deficiencies in representation. For either purpose the annual grant is inadequate. This means that there is seldom enough money in the Gallery funds to make any purchases privately in the right and proper way. What happens when we wish to acquire an important picture, a masterpiece, let me say, is that in the private market the National Gallery is not even a starter. It has to wait until the picture has virtually been sold abroad—until, in fact, it reaches the export market. Then

1005
what happens? The Board of Trade report to the Government adviser that such and such a picture is to be exported. If the Government adviser thinks it is a picture which should be bought by the National Gallery, it tells the National Gallery so. If the National Gallery thinks that it should be bought, it no doubt puts all its few funds towards the purchase, and appeals to my noble friend Lord Cottesloe, who is Chairman of the Reviewing Committee, to see whether export can be stopped. The Reviewing Committee may agree that it should be stopped for a certain period of time in the hope that during that time the National Gallery may raise the money; but, of course, if the money is not raised then expert is. I think very properly, allowed.
The National Gallery has to raise the money. It, first of all, probably appeals to the National Art Collections Fund—a private body to which not enough of your Lordships subscribe—and they no doubt will help, or may help. It then appeals to the Pilgrim Trust, which may, or may not, help. But even so, the amount will never be enough. It then appeals to the Treasury, and if the Treasury approve, the Treasury appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer approves, he may, or may not, introduce a Supplementary Estimate into Parliament, and Parliament may, or may not, grant the Vote. That, my Lords, is the system by which the National Gallery to-day buys masterpieces.
One can see how unsatisfactory this is; one can see the element of uncertainty; one can see the irritation which is caused; one can see how uneconomic it is to wait until the eleventh hour and then, in the full glare of publicity, when the price has hardened against the National Gallery, how undesirable it is that at the top of the market a picture should be bought in that way. These ad hoc grants under that sort of system have been, and always will be, necessary; but I cannot help thinking that they should be the exception, and that they should apply only to pictures and works of art of the highest expense and importance, and that the galleries should have sufficient funds to make the more ordinary purchases which everyone realises are necessary out of their own funds. I should like, in passing, to say
1006
how much we owe to the Reviewing Committee, which undertakes this extraordinarily difficult task, and of which, believe it or not, I have heard not one breath of criticism.
By how much should the grant to the National Gallery be increased? I am not dealing with the millions that noble Lords have mentioned hitherto. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, the grant has risen by slow stages to £12,500. He compared it with the £12,000 which the City of Birmingham now grants to its museum. He might have compared it also to a comparable figure granted to the National Gallery during the 1880's, when prices by to-day's standards were ridiculously low and when the supply was vast. Prices to-day, for one reason and another, have rocketed. Reference has been made to the prices in the sale room of yesterday, and your Lordships will have seen a week or two ago that a Greek shipowner bought a 19th century French picture for £104,000. Of course, we know that when Greek met Greek there was a tug of war, and it is obvious that when Greek tanker owner meets Greek tanker owner there is the devil to pay. The rocket, indeed, can become something of a racket.
When all is said and done, the truth remains that prices have genuinely risen since the war with a rapidity unparalleled in the previous history of the Arts, and that unless the National Gallery is to lock up its doors and say, "That is the end; we buy no more", we must look to a larger grant. The matter is urgent. Urgency is stressed in the terms of the Motion. The Government's advisers have stressed urgency. The Waverley Committee have stressed urgency. The Standing Commission on Museums has expressed urgency. The Reviewing Committee has expressed urgency. The urgency, I think, is all the greater because of the recommendations of the Committee presided over by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. He recommended, with general and complete agreement, that the regulations for control should be relaxed. But he also recommended at the same time that to meet the situation of a relaxed control there should be a substantial increase in annual grants. What has happened is that that relaxation has taken place and there has been virtually no increase in the annual grants. In the last year, the increase was £2,500. The

1007
National Gallery has suggested that their increase should be to a figure of £80,000. Personally, I think that that is not nearly enough and should be doubled. I feel that the Board of Trustees would agree with what I am saying.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? I imagine the noble Earl would apply the same argument to the Tate Gallery.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: I would, indeed, entirely from my knowledge of the Tate; but not being a trustee of the Tate I confine myself to the two museums of which I am a trustee. But I may say generally, in answer to the noble Lord, that though, of course, there are differences in figures, I believe that what one says about one museum can really be applied to the others as well. If we were to double £80,000, that would not enable the Gallery to buy the greatest masterpieces. The present procedure which I have described of an ad hoc or Supplementary Vote would still be necessary, but it would, at any rate, enable the National Gallery to buy comparatively minor pictures which it is its duly to buy and which everyone agrees should be bought. I hope that we shall not be told that the time is not opportune. I have never known a time when it was opportune to spend money on the Arts, and until the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches forms his Government perhaps we never shall. But there is little time left. The reservoir is being depleted. We are not buying things which should be bought. They are going abroad, and going abroad for ever. Unless the time is considered opportune we shall, I fear, be too late.
4.57 p.m.
LORD COTTESLOE: My Lords, I think we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for having raised this matter, which is one of importance and concern, rot only to Members in every part of your Lordships' House but equally to great numbers of the public at large. The financial starvation of the Arts has a number of facets of which I could speak. I might have referred to the difficulties under which the Old Vic labours, but the Chairman, under whom I have the enjoyment of
1008
sitting on the Governing body of that unique and valuable foundation, the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, has already given your Lordships in his customary spirited and entertaining terms, the benefits of his views.
Then there is the position in which Sadler's Wells finds itself, of being unable, through lack of funds, to embark on any new production whatever for a period of twelve months. That position, deplorable as it is, has had a good measure of publicity in recent weeks. If I propose, therefore, to follow the example of my noble friend Lord Crawford, who has spoken with such a weight of experience and authority, and confine my remarks to-day to the effects of the financial starvation of our galleries and museums, your Lordships will not think that I am undisturbed about the effects of the starvation in other fields. I am, indeed, gravely disturbed about them.
But the effects on our galleries and museums, as I see them from the Board of the Tate Gallery and from the Chair of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art, seem to me to be even more disastrous and more pressing. As to the measure of the starvation, I will give your Lordships only a single example, but it is typical of the general condition. A few weeks ago it happened that I was reading a book published in 1882 called The Æsthetic Movement in England. In that book there is mention of the high prices paid by the National Gallery for some pictures bought by them in the previous year. They had bought a Botticelli for 1,550 guineas; a Giorgione for 1,350 guineas, and a Mantegna for 1,700 guineas. That is an average of just over 1,500 guineas apiece. The purchase grant the Gallery received annually at that time was £10,000, and it sufficed for the purchase of half-a-dozen such pictures in a year. The purchase grant now, as the noble Earl, Lord Crawford and Balcarres has said, is £12,500, and I suppose it would need to be accumulated for half-a-dozen years—possibly for a good deal more—to buy a single one.
I quote those figures for two reasons, and only in passing, because it is a subsidiary argument. In the first place, they exemplify very plainly the fact that, from a purely financial standpoint, the investment that had been made by the purchase

1009
of pictures for the National Gallery is probably the best investment the nation has ever made. In the second place, those figures stand as a measure, a yardstick, of the inadequacy of the purchase grant made available to the National Gallery at the present time. I suppose it may be said that the Gallery is very rich in the old Italian masters—that they do not now need to buy such pictures. Even if that argument were valid—and, in my view, it is not, for even in the limited field of the Italian old masters there are still many inadequacies and many important gaps in the collection—I would ask your Lordships to consider the position not in the field of Old Masters but in the paintings of the French Impressionist and post-Impressionist schools.
I suppose there will be a general agreement among critics and public alike (and critics and public do not always agree) that the French masters of the fifty years that ended with the First World War created one of the greatest epochs of painting in the history of art—Manet, Degas, Van Gogh, Cézanne, Monet, Renoir and the rest. Reviled while they lived, they are now names to conjure with. No-one would question now that their works ought to be well and fully represented in our national collections—I say "collections" because these artists have hitherto been within the purview of the Tate Gallery, which houses the national collection of modern foreign painting, and they are now really in transition to the sphere of the National Gallery, which has for a good many years housed a selection of their paintings.
But, my Lords, if you examine what are our present resources, taking the two Galleries together, of the paintings of that School, you will find that they are a very inadequate representation compared with the pictures in the Louvre. Perhaps that is not quite a fair comparison, because there they are on their home ground; but compared with the pictures in the great American collections they are a very poor representation of that School of painting. Although we have some very beautiful pictures, we have lamentably few that are of the first importance, of the importance of the great Baignade of Seurat which is one of the present glories of the Tate Gallery. If you look a little further and contemplate the labels on those pictures, you will see that nearly all of the best
1010
do not belong to us at all: they are on loan from the Home House Trustees. Those pictures, in due course, when the University of London have built their Courtauld Gallery, in three, four or five years, will be removed from our national collections altogether; and then the true nakedness of the land will be revealed. The national cupboard will be found to be almost bare of pictures of that great epoch of painting; a great shock and surprise will fall upon the public, and there will be a great and bitter outcry.
What hopes have our Galleries, the National Gallery, with £12,500 a year, and the Tate Gallery, with £10,000 a year (a sum from which they have to attempt worthily to represent not only the more modern foreign masters but also modern sculpture and the whole field of British painting), of filling—I was going to say this gap, but it is a vast and yawning chasm? Even with unlimited funds it would be difficult to fill—and nearly all of the finest pictures are already swallowed up into national or permanent collections elsewhere. But our national collections are utterly hamstrung, facing with their present resources the fact that virtually any Impressionist picture of prime quality and prime importance will now cost, perhaps, £50,000. Your Lordships will have seen what my noble friend Lord Crawford and Balcarres referred to, that a still life painted by Gauguin, an artist not in my opinion, of the very first flight, was sold at auction the other day for over £100,000. It is certainly the case that if the Baignade of Seurat in the Tate Gallery, of which I have just spoken, were in the market to-day, it would be sold for a very much larger figure than that.
If anyone should feel tempted to ask why this great gap in our collections was not filled when such pictures could be bought for relatively modest sums, then he must be unaware, as almost everyone is unaware, that until 1946 the Tate Gallery had no purchase grant whatever: it lived entirely on charity. And even then, until four years ago, until 1953, the purchase grant was no more than £2,000 a year. Indeed, a contemplation of this circumstance shows, and shows very plainly, that relatively small sums made available to the Gallery a quarter of a century ago would have prevented the need for enormously greater sums now.

1011
And that is exactly what will be said again, in the next generation, of our present parsimony—if, indeed, in the next generation any great pictures of this great School are still available to come into the market.
I should like to go a step further and bring the matter even more nearly to date. Modern painting is a highly controversial subject, but I think that no-one with any understanding of modern painting would question that among modern painters Matisse, not long dead, and Braque, still living, are among those of the first importance, artists whose work will live and whose reputation will grow as the years pass. There is in the Tate Gallery (the National Gallery are not yet concerned with those painters) no single work of the first importance by either of these artists. And if such a work were to become available to-day, the Gallery could acquire it only if they had bought nothing else whatever for the previous two years.
The fact is that, apart from the important question of filling gaps—and important gaps there are in our collection of Old Masters—we have the certainty of leaving the later Masters virtually unrepresented unless steps are taken now to put matters on to a realistic basis, and to enable the galleries to seize such fleeting opportunities as an enterprising search may well create, before the pictures of which I have spoken are swallowed beyond recall into permanent collections elsewhere. This is a matter of extreme urgency; it is a matter in which time runs all the while against us.
I should like to turn now to another aspect of these matters on which Lord Crawford has already touched—the control over the export of works of art already in this country. The system derived from the recommendations of the Committee presided over by my noble friend Lord Waverley, is simple enough. If a work of art of substantial age and value, not recently imported, is to be sent out of this country, an export licence has to be applied for. The application is considered by an expert adviser—a museum director or keeper—and if he considers, applying the criteria that were laid down by the Waverley Committee, that the national importance of the object justifies its retention in this country, the
1012
Reviewing Committee consider the application, and may recommend that no licence be granted. But a licence can be withheld only if the owner can be assured of an offer to purchase his work of art at a fair price. On the whole, that system works, with the co-operation of the trade, as smoothly as it is reasonable to expect—in so far as it works at all, for it has, of course, a very limited scope. There is, I think, no reason to doubt that objects of supreme importance and value are referred to the Reviewing Committee when they come into the export market; and if the collection that is interested cannot find the price, then the Committee have power to recommend a special Treasury grant.
But, my Lords, the fundamental concept on which that system rests, on which it depends for real success except in the limited field of most exceptional and important objects, is that galleries and museums should have funds enough to buy from their own resources all that they need, apart from objects of the most exceptional value. That concept is, at the present time, quite unrealised. The funds made available to the major national collections, as has been shown, are utterly inadequate, while those that are made available to help provincial collections are so small as to be derisory—£1,320 a year; that is the figure. It does not go very far in helping all the provincial collections in this country.
It is, of course, true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's power to accept works of art in satisfaction of death duty has recently been widened, and that is a change that is warmly to be welcomed. But in other respects the present position is very far from satisfactory. On the one hand, there is a great and constant outflow from this country of works of art that, though not individually of such importance as to justify their retention under the Reviewing Committee procedure, would, many of them, be desirable acquisitions for national or local collections if they had the money to buy them. I will not trouble your Lordships with the figures—they are available in the Reviewing Committee's Report. But, in the mass, these works form an important part of our national heritage.
On the other hand, the control over works of prime and exceptional importance is highly precarious, depending as it

1013
does in each case on a special Exchequer grant requiring, in each case, Parliamentary sanction. Trustees and directors of collections do not wish to exhaust their credit, so to speak, with the Chancellor, and in practice they inevitably sometimes let go one thing in order to be sure of retaining another. In recent years, if I may give an example, two pictures have been exported that would have been important and valuable acquisitions, filling considerable gaps in the National Gallery. One of these pictures was the only painting by Jacques Louis David in this country, the portrait of Napoleon, which was commissioned during the Napoleonic wars by the Duke of Hamilton—a work of the first importance and with a provenance that made it of particular interest here. This picture is now in the National Gallery in Washington, and Trafalgar Square, which is weak in the French school generally, is still without a David.
The other picture was the Clouet from the Cook Collection—a picture commonly, though erroneously, known as Diane de poitiers au bain. That was in some ways a controversial picture. I have heard it described as a mere furniture piece, but certainly a furniture piece de luxe. There is no doubt that it would have made an important and valuable addition to the collection in Trafalgar Square. However, the National Gallery wanted a Treasury grant for something else at the time and they let it go, even though, after consideration by the Reviewing Committee, it was available to them at an agreed price a great deal less than that for which it was almost immediately afterwards bought by the Kress Collection for the National Gallery in Washington. An opportunity was thrown away through the limitations of the present system, and Trafalgar Square is still without a Clouet.
The fact is, that in the steeply rising market that exists to-day, as galleries and millionaires in America, and in parts of Europe too, compete for the always diminishing stock of works of prime importance, the starvation of our Galleries is an utterly false economy. Our national heritage of such things is not conserved, still less is it augmented, and what is bought is bought, with rare exceptions, only at the last possible moment, after
1014
it has entered the international market—it is, in fact, bought at the highest possible price.
What is the answer to this state of affairs? The answer is that purchase grants must bear a realistic relation to current values, so that the galleries can seek out and negotiate for the desiderata before ever they come into the international market. If they were put in a position to do that, the enrichment of our national collections, and the long-term economy, must be very great. As a complement to realistic purchase grants,—as Lord Crawford has said, there will always be a need for special grants in some cases, whatever the level of the purchase grant—there is a need also for a fund set aside to back the special grants that will be necessary if the most exceptional and valuable works, works of the quality and importance of the Chatsworth tryptych by Memling (I have no reason to think that that is likely to come into the market) are to be acquired when opportunity offers. I must confess I had hoped that £10 million or £15 million might have been earmarked from the Land Fund and been made available for such purpose; but the Land Fund seems to have been evaporated by a book entry.
I sometimes think our galleries suffer from the very modesty of their demands. If the National Gallery required an extra £10 million a year they might perhaps get half of it; but they ask only for an extra £70,000—the Tate Gallery for even less. I will make the comparison which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, refrained from making: the two together amount to no more than one seven-hundred-and-fiftieth part of the Pig Subsidy; so of course they get nothing—or next to nothing. The tragedy is that £70,000 now would make all the difference. In another year or two even that modest sum will not suffice, and it will once again be the old, sad story: too little and too late.
I suppose it might be said that the figures I have quoted refer only to two galleries; that; they are but a small part of the whole picture; and that even there there are much more substantial expenses involved in the maintenance and staffing of the buildings themselves. All that is, of course, perfectly true. I have deliberately confined my argument to the

1015
field in which the effects of financial starvation seemed to me most disastrous, a field with which I happen to be closely familiar. But I should like on the wider point to leave in your Lordships' minds two thoughts. The first is that even if we take everything together, the sum that we spend on the Arts in an age when they are more widely understood than they have ever been before and in which, in the materialistic world of to-day, they are of far greater importance than they have ever been before, is no more than a microscopic part of our national income. The second point is that it does not seem to me to be wholly reasonable to spend substantial sums in maintaining our galleries if we are not prepared to spend what is necessary to buy works of art of the highest quality to exhibit in them to keep them alive.
Before I sit down I must make my apologies to the noble Lord the Minister because I shall not be in the House when he rises to reply to this debate. The fact is that I am really supposed at this moment to be somewhere else doing something quite different. But I can assure him that my absence does not mean any lack of respect for him or any lack of interest, and that I shall read his reply with the greatest interest.
5.24 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I had not intended to take any part in this debate, but the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, has kindly allowed me to say a word before he speaks to your Lordships. When I heard the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I felt that I could not refrain from speaking, and I should like to say at once how deeply grateful I am to him for raising this subject. It is not one which a man without imagination would dare to raise in this House. Personally, I have very strong feelings about it. I shall confine myself largely to the realm of music, which is the only one of the Arts of which I have had personal experience, and I shall begin by putting the question which I believe is occupying all our minds at the moment are the Arts worth a substantial part of the enormous expenditure which our country is making to-day? To my mind, the answer is emphatically, Yes. The Arts encourage a love of beauty, something which is grievously needed, I feel, as I
1016
look round the English countryside to-day.
The Arts also stimulate the imagination, and it seems to me that imagination, which again is a very necessary thing, is rapidly fading in our Welfare State. We once had a very high artistic level and a very much appreciated one. I refer to the reign of the first Queen Elizabeth. In those days music was appreciated not only by the few but by everybody. We produced at that time some of the finest music and some of the greatest composers of the world; they were generally acknowledged, and their music has not died. To-day, the situation is different. We have, after a period of lapse, regained our position as a nation which produces great artists—but with this difference: that they are not generally recognised. The public as a whole are not particularly interested in music, in spite of the fact that everybody says that the B.B.C. has done so much to stimulate public interest in it. It is certainly possible that the B.B.C. has done a certain amount, but I should not be prepared to go further than that, because when one hears the multifarious wireless sets blaring out, as one walks through the town or suburban areas, one seldom hears any note of serious music. I am not complaining about that—it is for the owners of the wireless sets to choose: I am merely stating it as a fact.
What is very much needed is a sounder education in music and in the Arts generally, and for that we need much more highly qualified teachers. At the moment, the situation regarding music teachers is not very satisfactory—and here I am referring particulary to State schools—because a man or woman who has achieved the status of a qualified teacher may be asked to teach other subjects in which they are not qualified, at the discretion of the headmaster or headmistress. So that a man may go to a secondary school as a qualified teacher of French, and if the headmaster has heard that he is fond of music he is probably asked to take over music lessons. The man is probably quite unqualified to do so, but because the headmaster asks him, he naturally does so—with, in my experience, disastrous results. So we need to make quite certain that those who are teaching music in our schools have a really sound knowledge of the subject.

1017
The position of the individual performer in this country is a very precarious one. Music is unique among the Arts in that it needs two sections, so to speak, to produce it. It needs the composer and the performer. The composer's position has always been precarious, and I do not suppose that it will ever be anything else; but it is essential that the position of the performer should be made more sound. I know many professional musicians of a high order who have said that they have no desire for their children to take up music as a profession because it is far too precarious. That outlook is certainly not going to produce many musicians of a high level from the next generation. When I was director of music at a public school a few years ago, many boys came to me and asked me what was the likelihood of their taking up music professionally with success. I had no hesitation in telling them at once that unless they had absolutely outstanding gifts, unless they were the sort of geniuses one meets only once in a hundred years or so, there was little hope of their making a living out of it. I encouraged them to keep up their music as a hobby, but I pointed out that to make one's living by music to-day is an extremely precarious matter.
The position of orchestras in this country to-day is extremely difficult. Even our most prominent orchestras are finding it difficult to go through a season without ending up with a deficit. Of course, orchestral players' fees have gone up very substantially—and rightly, no doubt; but orchestras are finding that it simply is not possible to get through a season without calling upon their guarantors to make good their deficits. That applies not only to London orchestras but also to provincial ones, large and small. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I think, also mentioned the need for more halls. That certainly is a very pressing need. Often, when I have toyed with the idea of starting some amateur musical society, the question of getting a hall has arisen and it has been found that there has been none within miles.
My Lords, I think I have said all I have to say that will be useful in this debate, but I do press the fact that music and, indeed, all the Arts are of great value to this country. We do not want to become as the French once described us, a nation of shopkeepers. We must realise that we are producing great art
1018
and that we can produce it. We want to hold our position not only as a strong and influential nation but also as a cultured nation.
5.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: My Lords, I propose to speak for only a very short time. I have been rather upset by the weather generally in the last fortnight, and I should not have come here to-day; but there are two or three things which I want to say. In the first place, I think we owe a great debt of gratitude to Lord Silkin for raising this matter. It is one of great importance, and I am delighted that it has been brought up in this way. I cannot help thinking that a great deal of good will be done by having the subject properly ventilated in your Lordships' House.
I shall confine myself to two institutions. The first is the British Museum, of which I have been a trustee for many years, and I shall say little about that, for, as I expected, everything has already been said by my noble friend Lord Crawford. He and I worked together for many years, and I know what excellent service he has given in this connection and how well-informed he is on the topic which we are debating. Therefore, I support him most strongly and most heartily. One of our chief troubles at the British Museum is that the Treasury completely fail to give us the staff which is necessary. It is most important, if desirable activities are to be carried on at such institutions, to have sufficient stall. Moreover, there is the danger of people going into such places and taking things. I do not think that this has happened at the British Museum, but it has certainly happened at a good many others. You have to be very careful and you cannot go ahead as you would wish if you have not the proper staff required.
Again, one would wish to bring new services into being, but that is impossible when the necessary work cannot be carried out simply because the institution has not enough people to do it. For example, a great number of members of the public would very much like museums to be open in the evenings. That is utterly impossible under present conditions. I very much hope that that matter will be taken into consideration in the future, for I think it is a matter of importance that ought to be considered by the Government. I am not going

1019
into the question of the £72,000 which is given us for purchases. I shall not discuss whether it is the right sum or whether we ought to be allowed a little more. Whether it ought to be a little more or a little less it is difficult to say. There are many other reasons for being dissatisfied, and I am not going to deal with that question.
My other point relates to the National Portrait Gallery, of which I have been a member for thirty-five years. I have been chairman of it for ten or twelve years; but I have known it for a very much longer period; and I may say that I know it extremely well. When I first became connected with it (I think that was in about 1920), we were getting a grant of £600 a year. I was rather surprised to hear that the Tate Gallery was getting even less, but I understand that that was the fact. With great difficulty we got the amount allowed to us raised to £800 a year. Now, we get £1,200 a year. Is that really a suitable amount for a gallery of the importance of the National Portrait Gallery? Believe me!it really is a very important institution. Some people may not go to see it, merely because it is rather hidden away in a corner. Undoubtedly, people do not go there as much as they should. Bui if you really want to see what someone looked like, that is the place to which you have to go. It is in this respect that the National Portrait Gallery differs from other galleries and museums. We all like to get a nice picture. We do not insist on buying highly-priced works, because the important thing is to get a real likeness.
We are not talking in terms of £12,000 a year, much as we should like to do so, but in terms of the £1,200 which we receive at the present time. From that small sum it is impossible to put anything by as a reserve which we could use when a really important picture came along. If such a picture becomes available, we have to go to our friends in one or other of the National Art Funds to help us buy the picture. A rise in our annual income is not only badly needed but imperative if we are to do the work which we are expected to do. Even if we have a chance of negotiating the purchase of a picture with the living artist, we often find that he thinks he would be unwise to come to us because
1020
he could get much better money for his picture elsewhere.
I should add that the Ministry of Works have been doing a great deal of decorating in our building, and we are most grateful to them for helping us. Ours is a curious museum. We do not want young trustees; we want old trustees who know people. We had a case in point some years ago, when a new picture came up and one of the trustees said that he knew the subject of the portrait very well and that in his opinion the new picture was infinitely better, and gave a far better view of the man, than the old. That sort of case shows how important it is to have old trustees. My Lords, I do not think that I can add anything further of value.
5.44 p.m.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, I welcome this Motion and like other noble Lords, I feel grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for initiating this debate. I believe that it is necessary and timely that this matter should be discussed by your Lordships, because in this country there is a large body of people interested in the Arts who feel that the scale of public support for the arts is inadequate. I am glad that this is not a controversial debate as it is the first occasion on which I have undertaken to address your Lordships. For that reason, I would most respectfully ask that your Lordships grant me the indulgence which your Lordships are accustomed to extend to one who addresses you for the first time.
The subject of this debate covers a wide field, and I will confine myself, in the main, to a plea for increased financial support by the State for the public patronage of living Arts by the Arts Council. That is not to say that I do not entirely agree with the case that has been made for increased grants to the National Gallery and the museums—to what one might call the preservative, as opposed to the patronage aspect of the State support for the Arts. I feel, however, that the case has already been adequately dealt with by my noble friends Lord Crawford and Lord Cottesloe, who are so much more qualified to talk about that aspect of the problem than I am. And no doubt there are other noble Lords who will be able to add to what has already been said on that aspect.

1021
My first submission to your Lordships is that the present grant to the Arts Council is quite inadequate if this body is to continue effectively the good work of filling the gap which has been left by the old private patrons who have largely been driven off the field by heavy taxation. Another £250,000 at least over and above the present grant will be required. Your Lordships will be aware, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has already pointed out, that during the last ten years there has, been created for the first time in England, at Covent Garden, a National Theatre for Opera and Ballet. But despite a remarkable degree of support from the public, and the lion's share of financial assistance from the Arts Council, amounting this year, I believe, to £300,000, deficits to the order of £150,000 have beer, incurred. Covent Garden could be put on its feet once and for all if a further grant such as I have suggested were forthcoming.
Another aspect of the Arts Council's work which could be developed if the annual grant were increased is the refurbishing of some two dozen of our provincial repertory theatres, which, of course, are non-profit distributing and have no capital assets available for redecoration. By "refurbishing," I mean repainting, installing better seating arrangements and probably putting the box office in a better position. This refurbishing could be done from a loan fund which could be repaid over a period of years. Experience has shown that redecoration and refurbishing of these theatres is almost immediately followed by a substantial increase in box office receipts.
From the extra £250,000 I mentioned just now it would also be possible to keep the Carl Rosa Opera Company on the road all the year round, instead of for only thirty weeks, as at present. It might well be possible to create a first-class touring theatre company to show the English classics—Shakespeare, Sheridan, Shaw and so on—to provincial audiences. Other uses for the additional money would be more funds to maintain the network of permanent symphony orchestras and increased expenditure on schemes for aiding young artists, sculptors and producers. Another point which might engage the attention of the Arts Council is the lack of gallery space in Central
1022
London which can be rented by independent exhibiting societies, such as the London Group, for the display of work. London compares badly with other capital cities in this respect, and although attention was drawn to the matter in The Times in August, 1949, and again in June, 1955, the problem is still as acute as ever.
Now, if your Lordships will bear with me a little longer, I should like to turn to the British Council, in so far as that body is concerned with the promotion and projection of British Art overseas. At present the Arts do not bulk very large in their work; in fact, only 2 per cent. of the whole budget of the British Council, less than £60,000 a year, is devoted to promoting British music, theatre tours and art exhibitions overseas. This compares very badly indeed with what other countries are doing in the same field. Our own effort at present is comparable with that of Yugoslavia, who spend some £59,000 a year in exporting drama and music. It is only fair to say that the British Council recognise the importance of this powerful means of gaining good will in foreign countries, and that their executive committee have recently come to the conclusion that the minimum needed for these purposes is £115,000 per annum, as compared with the £60,000 which is now allocated. The difference of £55,000 would, of course, have to come from public or other sources.
At a time when contemporary British sculpture and painting are making an increasing impact on foreign countries, it is clear that far more attention should be given to the problem of projecting our art abroad. It is, I think, arguable that the work done by the Art Department of the British Council would with advantage be transferred to the Arts Council, who are, after all, responsible for importing all art exhibitions into this country, and it would be logical that they should be responsible also for the export of our art. Such a change might require some modification in the charter of the Arts Council, but that should not constitute an insuperable difficulty.
While I am on the subject of the British Council, I should like to mention that this country is almost exceptional in not contributing to the expenses of its art delegations to conferences of

1023
U.N.E.S.C.O.-supported art bodies abroad. Only recently the British Council turned down a request for financial assistance to cover the travelling expenses of the United Kingdom National Committee of the International Association of Plastic Arts, who were proposing to send a delegation to the 2nd International Congress at Dubrovnik, in Yugoslavia, which is to be held from the 23rd to the 26th September. The probable result will be that Britain will be about the only European country not to be represented at that Congress, which is unfortunate, if one takes the view, as I do, that such cultural exchanges are a valuable factor in promoting international good will among the nations. The amount of money needed would be only about £150; and it should be added that the only reason why the British Council turned down the application was for lack of funds.
To turn back to my main theme, that another £250,000, at least, is necessary if the Arts Council is effectively to continue its good work and consolidate the ground that has been won, it has been estimated that at the least some £50 million a year of the overall expenditure on schooling is consumed in developing among children an appetite for the Arts. I would refer your Lordships to pages 31 and 32 of the Arts Council Report for 1955–56, where this point is elaborated. Yet the Arts Council and the local authorities together spend hardly more than £1 million a year on direct patronage of the Arts. Those figures are most significant: £50 million for developing an appetite for the Arts, and just over £1 million on direct patronage of the Arts. Very little additional money is needed to put this matter right. It may be that another £2 million per annum, inclusive of a further £250,000 for the Arts Council, would take care both of the preservative and of the patronage aspects of the public finance of the Arts. This is a small sum, indeed, in relation to the total national expenditure. Here is an opportunity for the Government to add to their laurels in the field of Art at a very small overall cost. I hope that the Government, who have shown such courage in tackling the problem of rent restriction, and so much foresight in regard to atomic power and technical education, will now have the vision to put the Arts on their feet.
5.58 p.m.
LORD METHUEN: My Lords, it is my pleasant duty to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Croft, on his maiden speech, which, if I may be allowed to say so, has been forthright and to the point and has emphasised what your Lordships know so well: that there is hardly a debate that takes place here without some noble Lord showing his expert knowledge of the subject. The House is indeed fortunate to have the noble Lord as a member.
We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for having brought this matter to our attention; and I take it that what has brought us to this House to-day are three reports: the report of the Arts Council, which has been often referred to, and the two reports of the National Gallery. The National Gallery did not make a report during the war, and the last two are for the last eleven years, if I am not mistaken—the first for ten years, and the last for the eleventh year. A great deal has been said about the Arts Council report, and I do not want to repeat what other noble Lords have already said. However, I should like to emphasise something that has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin: that one of the prime needs of the Arts Council is to have sufficient buildings in the provinces where they can operate. The second thing, of course, is the lack of cash. They are not the only ones to suffer in this country or who have unfortunate circumstances with which to deal.
Another point which I noticed in the report has not been mentioned. They had hoped that a grant would be made on a five-year basis, which would allow them to plan ahead; but that, unfortunately, has not been the case. I hope the noble Lord who is to reply will give us some reassurance about that matter. It appears to be rather important. The actual amount which the Arts Council receive must be weighed against the enormous amount spent in this country on education, which is £485 million, of which the Ministry of Education is responsible for £356 million. As your Lordships are aware, the Local Government Act, 1948, authorises local authorities to spend up to a 6d. rate in England and Wales, and rather less in Scotland, in order to encourage local expression in the Arts.

1025
The report says that £1 million is being contributed annually in Great Britain by the Arts Council and by local authorities as against nearly £500 million spent on education.
That seems rather disproportionate, especially when it is remembered that children nowadays receive training and education in the Arts but insufficient provision is being made for them to enjoy the Arts when they leave school. As your Lordships perhaps know, there is an academy of art at my home which has been partly converted into a training college for art teachers, and I know only too well from actual experience what this means to the country. It is deplorable, I think, that this great sum of money is being spent on education without the proportionate amount on that further side of education, the enjoyment of the Arts generally when adolescent reaches the adult stage
May I add that, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has already reminded us, most Continental countries have accepted the obligation to replace private, by public, patronage, by the rates and by the taxes. In the report, France is quoted and so are Italy, Germany, Austria, Belgium and Holland. Unfortunately, we lag behind these countries, and what the Government should take into consideration is the way the private patron has been practically taxed out of existence. I should like to refer to this later and make a suggestion to the Government to follow the American principle.
Now let us move to the National Gallery reports, on which the noble Earl, Lord Crawford and Balcarres, has so ably spoken. May I say that those of us who took part in the debate on the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Bill two or three years ago, are delighted to know that at any rate, one or two of our modest suggestions have been, or are likely to be, adopted—I refer particularly to the modernisation of the ground floor of the National Gallery. I understand from the answer given by the noble Earl, Lord Munster, on January 29 last, that the sum of £300,000 has been earmarked for that particular purpose, and that subject to confirmation by Parliament the work will start in about six months' time. I think the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, would confirm that. That is very satisfactory indeed, but it is not the whole story.
1026
The question of the grant which has been mentioned often this afternoon is perhaps a little too obvious to labour, but I should like to add something to what has been said. First, if the grant was £10,000 in 1880, and £10,000 a year or two ago, that is not the same sum at all. After all, what is the value of the pound to-day compared with its value in 1880? I am not wise enough to know, but an equivalent sum should certainly be eight times that figure. That happens to be the figure the trustees suggest. In other words, as the value of the pound has fallen these grants should have gone up. Are the Government unaware of the change in the pound? They cannot be. I do not think anybody can. Do they realise that we are completely outdated in the international and overseas market? With £12,500 a year we cannot compete with the private well-endowed galleries of the United States or the galleries and museums of the Commonwealth.
I made some inquiries this morning at Canada House as to what the National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa spent on purchases. I was told that last year they spent 920,000 dollars on pictures and sculpture, and that this year the estimate for the purchase of pictures was 130,000 dollars. If you divide that by about three, you get something near the pound value. We are nowhere near that figure. It would be interesting to know, if someone had the time to find out, what some of the privately-owned museums and art galleries in America have to spend in a year. To-day we have heard about Birmingham. It seems to me that this is harassing to say the least. It is most discouraging, and it has, as both the noble Earl, Lord Crawford and Balcarres, and the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, have explained to us, put the trustees in a very difficult position. They cannot compete in this market. If they had £150,000 a year it would give them elbow room to play with in what at the present moment is a sellers' market. But they cannot compete.
Your Lordships know as well as I do that for some years a certain amount of indulgence in the matter of price has been shown by owners of valuable picture which the National Gallery has wanted. They have been prepared to come to favourable terms with the National Gallery. That is my personal experience

1027
as a trustee. We should take advantage of this good will on the part of the owners. In present circumstances, as we have been told, the trustees are more or less helpless until sales have taken place and appeals for refusal of export licence have been lodged. This the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, who should know better than anyone else, entirely confirmed a few minutes ago.
The museums and art galleries under the jurisdiction of local authorities are, on the whole, well-run, and in some cases, such as in Birmingham, have been well provided with an annual grant. Sir Philip Hendy, the President of the Museums' Association—which, by the way, is deliberating at this moment at Bristol—sounded a word of warning in his Presidential address. I should like to quote from the report of his remarks which was published yesterday in the Daily Telegraph. He said:
" Some of our nationally-famous museums can still hold up their heads. But even the best are running behind because their funds are infinitesimal. The plight of the small and badly endowed museums is deplorable. In this country, where everything else is more or less equitably distributed, it is nobody's business to see that there is an equitable distribution of what I might call wholesome food for the eye."
Some centralised authority was needed to secure this—I want to emphasise this.
" The situation is urgent when smaller institutions are in danger of shutting down, when even established foundations are given insufficient funds and have not enough staff. The opportunities to remedy this will very soon be gone. Our National Heritage of the many things which go to make museums and art galleries is being exported at such a furious rate that in a few years there will be very little left."
The Museums' Association is a valuable co-ordinating body to which owners of private collections belong, as well as provincial and national institutions. This Association, your Lordships may know, submitted a memorandum to the Treasury in November, 1955, asking for an emergency fund to assist certain museums who were in a sorry plight, and I to have a Royal Commission to examine, report on and formulate a future plan. The Government replied, however, that it was a local matter to be dealt with by local authorities. I have the report here, if your Lordships would like to see it. The Association now presses for
1028
a Regional Museum Service to be set up with Regional Museum Boards, such as is already provided by the National Museum of Wales and which attracts a direct grant from the Treasury. The full context of the proposals was printed in the December, 1956, issue of the Museum Journal.
Some of the museums are in a sorry state and plight. We have many in the West country, such as those at Truro, Salisbury, Devizes and Bath; there is the Holbourne Museum at Bath—I mention just those few. They are causing anxiety as many of them were endowed years ago with funds which no longer defray the cost even of administration and maintenance. Further, under the present system of taxation private endowment can hardly be looked for. Societies known as "Friends of the Museum" have come into being, and are a help, but even so their future looks bleak. I mention the Holbourne Museum at Bath as a case in point. Your Lordships may have seen the letter from its Chairman, Sir Orme Sargent, in a recent issue of the Daily Telegraph in which he forecasts that, unless financial help is forthcoming soon, the Museum will have to close down. A suggestion has been made by one who is well acquainted with this side of the nation's activities that an independent body should be created, rather on the lines, I gather, of the University Grants Committee, which he calls the Trustees of the Provincial Museums Fund. This suggestion is also well worth following up, on the supposition that grants would be made by such a body for private museums, for art galleries, such as the Holbourne Museum, and for essential maintenance expenses and for buying objects of local interest.
I think I should touch, however lightly, on works of art in those private collections which have not so far been liquidated. I think it would be to the nation's advantage, taking the long view, if the best of the works in these collections were listed and if they were related to those in the National Gallery and the more important provincial galleries. We know, of course, that certain masterpieces have been earmarked for the nation, and that these may in time find their way to the National Gallery. I am not, however, alluding to this list (which anyhow is a confidential one); I

1029
mean a list of all those old pictures. Old Masters for the most part, which still form the majority of the collections still in private hands. Such a list would be invaluable to the student, to the visitor or to the expert who wished to study the works of certain masters. I do not quite know how the casual visitor—or, for that matter, anyone else—would or could get this information. I have heard that such a list is in course of preparation. Possibly the Courtauld Institute, which is doing invaluable work on these lines, would be in a position in time to publish such a list, as it is getting together a most valuable collection of photographs and of pictures of value to this country, and I presume that it is nothing more nor less than an extension of the Witt Library. Such a list, naturally, should be made entirely voluntarily.
I should like to make a recommendation to the Government. Recently the Finance Act was amended, as we have heard, to make possible the discharge of death duties by the presentation of works of art to the nation. That is all to the good. We have heard only this morning that Saltram House has been taken by the Treasury in part payment of death duties and passed over to the National Trust, I hope with sufficient endowment. I see no reason why we should not also imitate the American practice—and here I will quote Mr. Denys Sutton in the Financial Times. He says:
" In the United States taxable income can be reduced either by financial contributions to institutions of an educational nature or else by account being taken of the value of gifts of works of at to museums and galleries, made either during the lifetime of a benefactor or at his death."
In the United States, as is made plain in that stimulating publication dealing with the life of the late Lord Duveen, the moment this became law his clients were apparently easily persuaded to collect for their State or town, rather than for their heirs, which was quite useless. I hope the Government will give this aspect of the matter proper consideration as one method, among others, of preserving our great national heritage of artistic treasures before we have no more in private hands to preserve.
So far, your Lordships can hardly accuse us of having introduced anything of a highly controversial nature into this
1030
debate. As the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, has said, the obvious excuse for this parsimonious treatment of the Arts is finance and the continued threat of inflation—" the nation cannot afford any money "; and so on. This, I think, the noble Lords who spoke to-day would not for one moment admit. They feel that it is too big a subject to dismiss in that rather trivial way. I think we should say—and I think we are united in feeling—that the Government are spending a vast sum on education, so why is it that one of the most important aspects of education is being neglected? Personally, I have not a doubt why. To my way of thinking, it is because this country has no one Minister who is answerable in Parliament for the Arts. We have already had four mentioned. In Continental countries (France, Italy, Germany, Holland and Denmark, for example, to name but a few whose cultural attaches I rang up to get the facts) the Minister of Public Education is answerable for all matters relating to his Fine Arts Department.
In France, as your Lordships know, this Department is known as the Beaux Arts and has the maintenance and administration of historic buildings of national importance and nationally-owned museums and art galleries. In France, both the archives and the libraries come under the Minister of Public Education, but not as part of the Fine Arts Department; they each have their own separate administration, although under the Minister of Education. This arrangement seems to me a perfectly logical one, and one to which I feel we must come one day, if we wish to avoid the rebuke of living by a system which is both archaic and obsolete. For who is better qualified to speak for the Arils, to weigh up the financial requirements of each department and give a balanced Budget, than the Minister of Education, with his technical staff to give him the necessary assistance?
If your Lordships care to refer to the Civil Estimates for 1957–58, Class IV and VII, you will see that the Minister of Education has under him only two museums—namely, the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Science Museum, which are administered, as in the case of other galleries and museums, by trustees. The Trustees of all the others—the British Museum (including the Natural History Museum), the Imperial War Museum,

1031
the London Museum, the National Gallery, the Tate Gallery, the National Maritime Museum, the National Portrait Gallery, The Wallace Collection at Hertford House—are appointed by the Treasury, who also control the grants for the Sciences and the Arts to the universities and colleges of Great Britain.
I refer now to page 2 of Class IV in the Estimates. In addition to the Minister of Education, who seems to have a very small, though important, share in these matters, and the Treasury, who have accepted by far the largest responsibility, there is the Minister of Works. He is responsible for scheduled historical monuments, and is now more and more solicitous for the fate of the most important of our inhabited historic houses and their contents, and firmly entrenched behind exciting past achievements with such great men as Wren, Vanburgh, Hawksmore and others in their pedigree. And he has a most efficient staff, consecrated to their work of preservation, as any one of your Lordships can see from the wonderful work now being done at Chiswick House, which will be one of the great marvels of Europe when completed.
In addition, we have the Minister of Housing and Local Government, with his dwindling staff of investigators, also interested in this business of preservation. In France, the whole gamut is under the Minister of Education. We in this country have four Ministries, including the Treasury, involved in the Fine Arts in one way or another. Seeing that it is the Treasury who control—subject, of course, to trustees—the biggest part of the national art galleries and museums, I personally am not at all surprised that we find ourselves in rather a mess. Would it not simplify things enormously, and make for far greater efficiency, if we learned from our neighbours across the Channel and put all these matters—certainly national art galleries and museums—under the care of the Minister who is obviously the most suited to deal with them? I feel that we shall never make real progress until we have a Fine Arts Department under this Minister, continuing, of course, our excellent system of Trustees. If this is taken as introducing a controversial note, I make no excuse, because I believe that our present ad hoc
1032
arrangements—improvisation if you like—and not merely finance, are at the bottom of our trouble. It implies a major change, but I have been convinced for some time that a radical change is necessary.
6.24 p.m.
LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, I should like to join with my noble friend Lord Methuen in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Croft, on his excellent maiden speech. I had the privilege of being an intimate friend of his father for many years in another place, and I should like to tell him now that, in spite of having very strong right wing opinions, his father was universally popular with all sides of the House, owing to his good looks and his courtesy, his sense of humour and his good temper. His son, my noble friend behind me, has every reason to be proud of his father, and I have no doubt that we in this House shall soon learn to be proud of his father's son.
My Lords, it is an ungrateful task when, so obviously, the whole House is of one opinion, to venture to offer an opinion from a somewhat different standpoint. Before going further I should like to say that I am no Philistine in this matter; I have always been extremely fond of all forms of art, and all my life have been a collector in a modest way of pictures and objets d'art; and I have been a keen follower of the drama and other forms of entertainment of that type.
I greatly sympathise with the attitude of mind which is evident in all the speeches to which we have listened, but they have rather tended to groan over our gaps and lacks, and have not emphasised enough, it may be, the great possessions which we have. Where else in the world can you find such museums and galleries as there are in the city of London? I have seen most of the galleries, and such like, in most of the countries of the world, but never yet have I found a set of galleries and museums which can compare with those that we possess here—to say nothing of the little subsidiary galleries like the one at Dulwich or the fine collection of portraits at Ken Wood. Where else in the world can you find such a magnificent assortment of country houses, which are increasingly being thrown open, at a fee, by their owners, together with all the charming collections of valuable works of art which are to be found therein?

1033
We are very fortunate in these things. On the other hand, we are unfortunate in being the most heavily taxed country in the world. There has been—it is still going on—a great redistribution of wealth, and the people who own these valuable works of art are those who are most hit by this redistribution of wealth. I will undertake to say that, by and large, no work of art is sold except with great reluctance by those who have to use the money to pay taxes or to meet expenses thereby. If an excellent work of art from all our great wealth goes abroad to America or to Canada, or even to the Argentine, need we be too jealous of the fact? The noble Lord who has just spoken remarked that Canada paid 90,000 dollars last year—that is, about £30,000—on the purchase of works of art, under the leadership of its Governor-General who is a keen connoisseur. But we must remember that Canada is starting from scratch. When I was in Montreal about five years ago, there was not a gallery worth seeing at all. They have to build up their collection; we have built up ours. Therefore I do not think that that is really a comparable example.
Of course, I am anxious that we should keep up the value of our great collections. I chink that an allowance of £12,500 for the National Gallery is derisory, and for the Tate Gallery I think it was £10,000. I understand that my noble friend Lord Crawford is so modest as to ask for an extra £80,000. Even that, mean financier that I am, I would not deny him. Therefore, we can be agreed on that point. Similarly with the Tate; I think they need to have a little more money. But of course, larger sums are indeed asked for. The speeches which fell from the last noble Lord who spoke and many others show that they have larger figures in mind. I asked Lord Silkin at the end of his speech what figure he had in mind; he said £1¼ million. The impression I gathered from the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, was that his figure was considerably bigger than that.
The only comment I would have to make upon the interesting speech of Lord Cottesloe is that it seemed to me to indicate a tendency to buy at the top of the I market. The noble Lord gave me the impression that if he had had the money he might have paid £105,000. I think that is buying at the top of the market. We do not want to become involved this
1034
evening in discussion on the value of works of art, but I should have thought that these French Impressionists, as sold at Sotheby's yesterday and at several other places, are right at the top of the market; and whether it is wise for our National Gallery and other authorities to buy at the top of the market is very questionable.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, the whole point of my speech and that of the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, was that we are now compelled to buy at the top of the market, whereas if we had a proper annual grant we should be able to buy in the ordinary way, privately, as between willing buyer and willing seller. The whole trend of our speeches was the opposite to the impression we appear to have given.
LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, I do not think that is quite right.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: My Lords, perhaps it was our fault if the House has been misled.
LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, what I mean is that these French pictures are now in fashion, but I do not know whether the noble Lords, Lord Crawford and Lord Cottesloe, in 1900 were as keen on French pictures as they are to-day.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: My Lords, I was only born in the last month of that year.
LORD BLACKFORD: I rather doubt whether the predecessors of the noble Earl, and the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, were keen about French pictures at that time, when Renoirs and others could be bought for as many shillings as they cost pounds to-day. In fact, the disproportion is much greater than that. I would remind the noble Earl, who knows it better than I do, that there are great fashions in pictures, and French pictures are all in the fashion now. Surely the thing is to buy pictures when they are out of fashion.
I should like to tell the House that it is not entirely a one-way traffic. Within the last three months two Turners and two first-class Constables have come back from America; and even I, in my modest way, have bought a charming little

1035
Gainsborough landscape sketch, also returned from America. These pictures are being re-sold to this country by the Americans, in order, I suppose, to make wall space for the French pictures which are now all the vogue. I believe that the right policy of the trustees of our national museums, not able, admittedly, to afford these top-of-the-market prices, is to wait for a few years and to fill the gaps when Van Gogh is not as popular as he is to-day, and meanwhile, to look at pictures which are now and have long been completely out of fashion.
At the risk of being completely laughed to scorn by the cultured Arts people, I should like to mention Land-seer, a great Victorian painter. I have heard him referred to as the "English Reubens"—and not by some Philistine like myself but by a real art critic. Land-seer's pictures fetched big money in the Victorian era and then went out. They can still be bought for a very low price. I challenge the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, or anybody else to deny that in certain aspects of art Landseer is a great painter. Therefore I would say that, with the limited funds at their disposal, it is up to the trustees of our national galleries to see whether they can hunt about for bargains, and not be so upset because they have an occasional gap in their collection; and to carry on in that way with the limited funds at their disposal.
The reason I am against these requests for £1 million here and £2 million there, and for smaller niggling sums such as we were talking about the other day; the reason why I am against payments to Members of Parliament and expense allowances to Members of your Lordships' House (though they may be justifiable, and it is easy to argue in favour of them) is that the fact remains that the greatest danger to which this country is subject is the danger of inflation. Everybody knows that, but nobody does anything much about it. Here there is argument in favour of more money, perhaps only to the tune of a million or two; and it may be said, "Don't worry about it; it is only a matter of perhaps £5 million out of a Budget of £5,000 million." But these things pile up. What chance have Members of the House of Commons now to argue wage restraint to workers, when they have only just raised their own pay?
1036
It is that kind of psychological point which has to be borne in mind in dealing with a universal suffrage democracy such as that under which we live to-day.
I maintain that it is not for us to encourage inflation, even in a small way. On the contrary, it is for us to undertake, whenever it may be necessary, the unpopular task of arguing in favour of economy and cheeseparing. It is a hateful job, and everybody hates to have to do it, because we all want to spend money on those things to which we are inclined and to economise on things for which we have no mind. I feel very much in agreement with what has been said this afternoon, but I believe it to be economically wrong. If more money is wanted for the Arts it should be provided on a voluntary basis. The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, who is Chairman of the National Art Collections Fund mentioned that Fund in his speech this afternoon. It is an excellent Fund, very well administered, on most economical lines, by the noble Earl and Sir Alec Martin, the auctioneer at Christie's. It does splendid work, but it is not supported nearly enough.
I do not know whether the National Art Collections Fund authorities take enough trouble to push themselves before the public. I do not know whether they ought not to have at the entrance to every museum in the country collection boxes bearing some suitable inscription such as: "If you have enjoyed your visit, remember the National Art Collections Fund," or something of that kind. That might not bring in a great deal of money, but it would keep the Fund before the public mind. The minimum subscription is only one guinea, and if only one million people would pay the minimum subscription each year we should have gone some way to meeting the position. But I am afraid that is too much to hope for.
There is one other thing which we might do—charge for admission to our museums and galleries. I should be sorry to see that done. I like the idea that we can all walk freely into these beautiful places and enjoy them. On the other hand, we do not object to paying half a crown or more to go round a beautiful country house, and feel we have had value for our money when we have done so. It might be legitimate to make a

1037
small charge for admission to the National Gallery. I have had letters of complaint, and I have no doubt the noble Earl has too, from people who say that the National Gallery is somewhat misused by people going in to use the seats to sleep on; and that there are children running about inside who ought not to be there. I had a most irate letter from a lady on this subject the other day, and I said I would mention it to the noble Earl the next time I saw him. As I have not seen him since, I do so now. There are complaints that the National Gallery is not being used as it should be, that too many people are crowding in and so on. They might be somewhat deterred if they had to pay a small fee. An entrance fee of 6d., or even 1s., for our museums would bring in a very considerable sum.
In the present state of national financial emergency I feel that any help should be on a voluntary basis. Those who love the Arts and wish to enjoy them, should be asked to pay a little to do so. Thus we should get the funds which the noble Earl and others require in order to fill gaps in our collections and make improvements which are so eminently desirable. My Lords, that is all I have to say except to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for the fact that I have to dine at a quarter to eight, and therefore I am afraid it will be impossible for me to enjoy the very admirable speech which he will certainly make about that hour.
6.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, and others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Croft, on a most excellent maiden speech. I am sure we all enjoyed it, and we shall look forward to hearing him make often in this House speeches of the excellent quality of the one which we have enjoyed to-day.
I think it is a curious thing that if one wandered around this House and talked to Members individually one would find almost universally—with perhaps the exception of Lord Blackford, who has just sat down—that there is agreement on the necessity of maintaining the Arts in some form. I will go further than that and say that I think that if one talked to Members of Her Majesty's Government in their private capacities they would all agree
1038
also. Yet when it comes to a Motion asking the Government to be more forthcoming with the necessary finance, you will inevitably be given the word "No". You will inevitably be stalled off with some excuses about economy.
I was a little disappointed in regard to one point in what I thought was an excellent speech by Lord Silkin. I should have liked it to be more emphatic, and for the Motion to have "moved to resolve" and to be pressed to a Division. I think that that is the only way to bring our feelings to bear with some effect. What surprises me most of all, perhaps, is the fact that the Minister of Education is not here. He may be unwell or there may be some excellent reason why he is not in attendance—I do not know. But surely in the case of a debate such as this, the Minister of Education, who is responsible for our schools, our art schools and some of our museums, should at least have been here to hear our views and, if possible, to take part in dealing with our criticisms and suggestions.
The subject I particularly want to raise this afternoon is one which so far has escaped the attention of your Lordships—it surprises me very much that it should have done so—and that is the art of literature. We have in this country a tradition—f say this without any fear of contradiction—and it is the finest tradition of literature in the world, certainly in the Western world. We do not have to go far back into the past to think of men like Milton, Shakespeare, Marlowe, Ben Jonson or the great writers of the 18th century, the great novelists, the great philosophers, the great economists, the great poets. It is a wonderful tradition. And we have great writers to-day. What is the position of those writers? What is the position of literature in this country to-day? What is happening to our authors? Are they struggling? Are they prospering?
These are very interesting questions. I have been fortunate in that the Society of Authors, which is the equivalent, one might say, of a trade union for the writers and authors of this country, carried out a research some two years ago. They sent out among their members a questionnaire. I should say that, roughly, their members comprise most of the serious writers in this country. The aim of the questionnaire was to ascertain many things, among which was the

1039
income earned from writing by members of the Society. The figures which came in were, I think, extremely interesting. There were about 600 replies which gave the incomes of the people concerned. Five per cent. did not reply at all. The 600 replies were analysed, and these are the gross earnings from writing, before expenses or tax are deducted. I should say that "writing" includes the writing of novels, serious works, articles, textbooks, journalism, and so on.
Of the 600 some 4 per cent. were earning over £2,500 gross a year; 8 per cent. were earning between £1,500 and £2,500; 10 per cent. were earning from £1,000 to £1,500; 15 per cent. were earning from £500 to £1,000; 18 per cent. were earning from £250 to £500, and 40 per cent. were earning less than £250 a year. That is to say, 58 per cent., or a little over half of them, were earning £500 gross a year, and 40 per cent., or, shall we say, a little under half, were earning under £250 gross a year. I hope you will agree with me that it is disgraceful that our young writers, our middle-aged writers, and our old writers are in this position—that is to say, in many cases they are living in a state of absolute penury.
I wonder what is the reason for this. I think to a large extent it is really due to the libraries. There is a very curious position in the world of literature. An author generally earns about 10 per cent. of the published price of a book as royalty. It is not exactly that, because very often there is a sliding scale and over a certain amount the percentage may go up. But, roughly, we can say that the author receives about 10 per cent. of the published price of a book. Now an author is not doing badly if he sells 2,000 copies—I am not talking about best sellers or the more popular types of literature. Most of these 2,000 copies are bought by libraries: that is to say, the book is sold by the publishers to libraries—either public libraries or booksellers or private libraries. It has been estimated by the libraries that the average life for borrowing of a book is somewhere in the order of 120 to 200 borrowings. After that, the book has to be rebound if it is to have a longer life. That is not to say that every book is borrowed 200 times, but you do get a
1040
situation in which one copy of a book may well be read by 200 persons or, giving a total number of readers for that book of 400,000. Yet the author gets paid royalties on only 2,000 copies—probably 1s. 6d. per copy or something like that.
I think that that is a most unfair and damaging position. The most serious writers are often not the best sellers. It is not to be wondered at that they are becoming discouraged, and that the profession is becoming regarded as being hardly worth while to enter. What can we do about it? The libraries have an added benefit: they buy their books in bulk. The public libraries get 10 per cent. off the price, and the booksellers' libraries will get up to 33⅓ per cent. off any books they buy. Various schemes have been suggested. The best I have heard is one by which the borrowers would be asked to pay 1d. a volume each time they borrowed a book. My own view is that the fee should be 2d. Certainly I think that some small levy should be paid by the person taking the book from the library, and that 20 per cent. of that money should go to meet the expenses of running the scheme and the rest to the author. It would not be difficult to operate, because a book is always stamped when taken out of the library, so that at the end of the month the number of times it has been taken out could be counted and the money paid to the author.
What are the objections to the scheme? First, there is the traditional view that the public library is a free institution. Public libraries were started last century to provide for people who could not afford to buy books, and often books were donated from wealthy collections; but I think that times have so changed that in these days nobody would grudge paying a penny or twopence to borrow a guinea or fifteen-shilling book, particularly if they knew that they were helping the author, the creator of the book. The second objection is more valid. It comes from the librarians themselves. A questionnaire was sent out to find out their reactions to this scheme. A few were in favour, but I must admit that the majority were against it. The librarians said that it would entail much more work. They were already extremely short of funds, and consequently of staff, and the extra

1041
work put on them by this scheme would make it far too difficult. I think that this is where the Government might come in and play a part. I would strongly suggest that they should make a grant to public libraries, which, on the whole, are really in a bad way. There should, however, be the proviso that a scheme on the lines I have suggested should be worked out for the benefit of our writers. I do not think that anyone would be against such a scheme.
There are alternative ideas. One is that of paying a penny a book. In Scandinavia, for instance, they already have a scheme of the kind, in which the borrower pays a fixed amount according to the number of books in the library. The general principle of all the schemes is that those who use the library should pay a small levy. Another way in which the author could be helped is by an additional grant to the Arts Council, to enable them to give scholarships to promising young authors who have produced perhaps one book and need to study and work on another, and who might well work on a book for a whole year and make only £200.
I had intended to talk about museums, but so many noble Lords have discussed this matter, pointing out the inadequacy of the purchase grants, that I will say only a few words, and in regard particularly to the Tate Gallery. The Tate Gallery have an enormous responsibility to keep up to date by buying modern pictures. They have to keep up a continuous exhibition, which no doubt some day will increase in value, just like the Old Masters in the National Gallery; yet the total fund for the purchase of pictures is only £10,000 a year. That is really derisory. As the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, suggested, the Tate need not buy the pictures of the most fashionable artists. To buy a Picasso might cost as much as £30,000, but many gaps in the Tate Gallery could be filled at reasonable figures if they only had the funds from which to buy. I agree with the remark of the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, that the Government, by giving such a small grant to the National Gallery, end up in paying a bigger price for pictures. That seems to me to be deplorable.
I saw in the Press the other day that during last year roughly £5½ million worth of works of art left this country.
1042
They were not all paintings, but among them must have been many paintings which our national collections should have had a chance of buying.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the noble Earl will bear in mind, when he looks at that table, that a very considerable number came in during the same time.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I agree. But how many of those that came in went into our national collections? I think that the noble Lord will find that they were very few. The noble Lord will find that there are many gaps to fill in the Tate Gallery, and I imagine that the National Gallery also has a good many gaps to fill. However, I do not want to go on about the museums. Every noble Lord has supported the principle that they should have an increased grant. I should have thought that the sum should go up to £80,000 for the National Gallery and to an equal amount, or more, for the Tate. I could not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, except on one point, when he suggested that there should be an entrance fee to the galleries. I should prefer to have them open without payment, but when there is this tremendous shortage of money that would be a way of raising revenue. I should have thought that a small charge of sixpence or, at the most, a shilling, would not be objected to, and would bring in some revenue to help in the purchase of paintings.
Finally, I should like to say a word about living artists. I hope that something can be done for them, and I think that the best help would be an additional grant from the Arts Council. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the Council have an immense field of obligation and responsibility—for opera, ballet, orchestras, the theatre and so on. They cannot even begin to cope with them all; and they are unable to give any help to our writers because they just have not enough money. They do help with exhibitions for artists, but only on a small scale because they cannot afford to do more. I suggest that it would be a wise and advantageous move on the Government's part to increase the grant
There are other things that could be done. Some time ago I made a suggestion to your Lordships, and I do not mind repeating it. It was that perhaps

1043
2½ per cent. of the cost of public buildings might be set aside for sculptures, murals and other decorations, as is done in France. That would be some encouragement. More could be done in buying statues for our parks. The pamphlets and posters for which the Government are responsible might, with advantage, be better designed. I think that, on the whole, our advertising posters are of an extremely low level. If we could set a better standard, maybe trade would follow. What is important is not the volume of this work, but the lead it would give to local authorities. If they saw that the Government were interested in helping the artists, no doubt they would be much more forthcoming in their own help to artists.
I suggest that the real trouble is that the Government have a wrong attitude towards this matter. We are always being told that we cannot spare the money for things like the Arts. The trouble is that if the Government have been very economical and parsimonious they will say: "We have had to economise; we cannot spend money on something like the Arts." If, on the other hand, they have been rather extravagant—for example, if they have given Members of Parliament extra pay—they will say: "We have done all that; you cannot expect us to do more." So, whichever way one argues, one is always at a disadvantage. I suggest that, fundamentally, the point that material objects are the only things that matter, that as long as you provide a person with a comfortable home, food, clothing, a television set, and perhaps a motor cycle or motorcar, everything is fulfilled, is wrong. I do not think it is; nor do I believe that members of the Government think it is. But we need pressure to make them not only realise it but, if I may say so, disgorge the necessary money that will help the Arts and enable our theatre, opera and museums to survive, and our artists, authors and all the creative people in this country to get a decent living and produce what we want them to produce.
7.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for drawing attention to this important matter. I
1044
can assure him of my warm support in everything he has said. This debate has of necessity, I think, been a series of complaints and a variety of requests on one thing and another. How else could we bring in these little bits of a jigsaw puzzle, which is really what the Arts are, and build them up into one great picture, without telling the House of our specific desires and complaints on these different subjects? After all the Government are the only people who can help.
I am speaking solely for Scotland, and I assure noble Lords that the needs of Scotland are every bit as great as those of England. We must not regard Edinburgh as just another provincial city; it is the administrative and cultural capital of Scotland. Last year I believe there were 1,300,000 visitors to Edinburgh; and, as your Lordships know, we now hold there one of the great annual European Arts festivals. I would, then, briefly enumerate what I believe are the priority needs of Edinburgh. First, as regards galleries, in Edinburgh there is no gallery of modern art the equivalent of the Tate Gallery in England, and the lack of this is keenly felt by modern artists and by their public. After all, unless they are rich men (and how many artists are rich to-day?), unless they can afford to travel abroad, they are obviously deprived of that contact with the visual Arts. How can they be expected to develop their talent?
A national gallery of modern art, housing a permanent collection and with space for showing temporary exhibitions from time to time, is one of the prime needs of Scotland to-day. A Royal Commission expressed the need for it in 1930, and three Reports of the Royal Commission did the same. A site has been agreed upon by the Secretary of State, and he gave this assurance in 1951 in another place:
" That a gallery of modern art, for which plans will be prepared when opportunity offers, should be built on the site of York Buildings in Queen Street."
York Buildings, although scheduled for demolition, are still occupied by Government Departments, and it looks as if they will be for some time to come. I gave notice of this question to the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate, and I should be grateful if he can tell us what chance there is of a gallery of

1045
modern art for Scotland being built in the near future. We see plenty of other buildings going up, but how often do we see any building being built connected with the Arts?
If we turn to the Edinburgh museums, we find much the same story. I am a trustee of the National Museum of Antiquities in Scotland, and I can assure your Lordships that the present building is totally inadequate and quite unsuitable for the collection which it is supposed to house. Here again, although the Standing Commission have twice recommended the urgent need for a new and larger museum which will allow the present building to become available for the congested National Portrait Gallery, we are told that we must wait for the City of Edinburgh's new development plan, which will not come out until 1962, when we understand that the compulsory purchase of property will be possible if—and only if—a building was expected to be started in ten years' time. So it seems that, in any case, we have to wait five years, and possibly we shall have to wait fifteen years, before even the plans for a new National Museum of Antiquities can be put on paper.
I should like to say a word or two about the Royal Scottish Museum. This is the largest and principal museum of Scotland, Edinburgh's great industrial, historical, scientific, natural history and general arts museum, somewhat corresponding to the British Museum in London. But it has no lecture hall. It is an astonishing fact, and there can be few museums in the country of comparable size that lack such accommodation, which to-day, when films are so widely used for educational purposes, is considered an essential item of equipment in a museum. The scheme has been long projected, the site is there, the plans are in the hands of the Ministry of Works and have been. I believe, for years, and are awaiting the approval of the Fine Art Commission. Yet every time we think something is going to happen, down comes the economy axe, and we are told there is a period of financial stringency. We feel rather like the well known lines:
" How long, how long, in infinite pursuit, Of this and that endeavour and dispute "—
perhaps I should not go further into that. It is not as if the attendance figures at the Royal Scottish Museum were falling;
1046
they are, in fact, rising. There were 30,000 more visitors last year than there were the year before, which shows that, as other noble Lords have said, there is great interest in museums.
I do not want to detain your Lordships for much longer, but I should like to say a few words about the National Library of Scotland. My noble friend Lord Crawford and Balcarres had not time to deal with all the Scottish matters in his speech, and he has asked me to mention the National Library of Scotland, of which he is a trustee. We have a new National Library in Scotland, a magnificent Library which was opened by Her Majesty the Queen last summer. A new library puts on the shoulders of the trustees new responsibilities to the public. It is essential, if it is to be run efficiently, that it should have an adequate staff. I am told that the staff must be increased by more specialists, with more clerical ability, if the library is to be run as it should be. The purchase grant here is quite inadequate. It is only £1,000, and it should be increased six times if all the old Scottish books and manuscripts which should be housed there are to be bought and acquired. I would ask the Government whether they could be rather more generous to this fine new Scottish library than they were to the old one.
I was going to deal at some length with the local and provincial museums, but these have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, and I will not say a great deal about them except that we feel that the State has an equal responsibility to provincial museums as they have to the great national museums in our big cities. After all, they recognise that by giving a grant. It is a meagre grant, but it is a grant. In Scotland, there are twenty-nine local authority and twelve private society museums, but they are nearly all poverty stricken. They are starved of finance. Many of them are running at a deficit, and may have to close down. The total grant for forty-two provincial museums is only £210. That works out at about an average of £5 per head. The local authorities give small grants, but I believe they have no legal right to do so, and often have to look for loopholes to do so, or so I am told.
LORD MANCROFT: Is the noble Lord sure about that? I am not an authority on Scottish law, but I am on English law.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: I am told that the local authorities have to work hard to find loopholes in the law in order to be able to finance their provincial museums. That is my information. I would not say that it is absolutely the case, but that is what I am told.
Noble Lords have already mentioned to-day that it was strongly recommended by the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art that these grants to local and provincial museums should be largely increased, but I believe the advice was rejected on the grounds that museum services in the Provinces are purely a local matter. Possibly the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in replying to the debate may be able to throw some light on what view the Government take today. I have no more to say, but I would just remind your Lordships that the secret of life is in Art. I think Wilde wrote that, but how true it is, and let us not forget it. We cannot do without Art. Our lives without Art become sterile and dry. Let us remember that our museums and galleries are the repositories of the nation's cultural heritage, and it is our duty to see them stocked with the best collections that we can acquire, not only for our own benefit but, in these days when air travel is so rapidly shrinking distances between nation and nation, for the benefit of the millions of people who visit us from overseas.
7.14 p.m.
EARL HAIG: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about the position of the painter and the sculptor. We have heard a great deal this afternoon about the scarcity of money available from the State for the benefit of artists. I feel that the money that is available is widely scattered over a large number of individual artists, and that each of those individuals is getting a comparatively small sum of money. I should like to see some money concentrated on a few of our more promising artists, those whose work is likely to be recognised in future years—and spent on them at a time when they can really benefit from it. And that money should not be too meagre a sum.
1048
After the war there was a tremendous risorgimento of young artists in this country. The war had raised young people out of the rut of their lives: it had given them a wider vision; and new æsthetic ideas and concepts were allied to provide a richer and deeper way of life. Waves of young people passed through the arts schools, at not inconsiderable ratepayers' expense. Since that time, young people have been taught that there is not always an entirely rosy future for artists, and there has been a much more down-to-earth tendency. But remember that among those thousands of young people there were a few highly trained and highly talented artists. These young people have been looked after very well by the Arts Council, the British Council and the Tate Gallery, who are spending taxpayers' money shepherding these young artists through their formative years. To some extent, these organisations are playing the part of the old patrons—enlightened amateurs who collect both for their own enjoyment and for the benefit of the artists. The sums received by these artists enable them to work as artists, but they have to look elsewhere to earn enough money to complete their budget. Such a system keeps them going, but it was not designed to enable them to live the sort of life through which they might turn out first-class work.
There seems to be, in particular, a lack of patronage for the group of artists who are on the verge of becoming masters. One sees only too often painters who have a fairly successful show in the Gallery. They may sell, say, half of their collection. That money comes in, then they have to wait another three years before they get a further addition to their income. When they reach that stage they are handicapped in a way that I feel is unnecessary. Too many of them are having to undergo the drudgery of teaching several days a week in an art school, whereas they ought to be given a little less load and greater freedom of choice of movement. Once the grade of recognition is reached, they will suffer no lack of patronage, because anyone buying their pictures will know that in doing so he is likely to be making a good investment.
What is needed is someone with knowledge and discrimination to back these

1049
young artists through this critical stage of their development. I should like to see the Government appoint some enlightened individual to act as patron. He or she would act like the private patron of days gone by, and would be able to give to the whole problem that individual approach which is not always possible with a committee. Such a person might be given a small salary for himself, together with a few thousand pounds which could be spent on the artists; and that money would be placed in his hands without any strings or inhibiting conditions, except perhaps that it should go to those artists who were between the ages of twenty-four and fifty. I suggest that such an individual, who would be chosen for his discrimination and his lack of bias in favour of any particular school of art or group of artists, should keep in touch with the work of the studios during the two or three years of office, and at the end of his time he might exhibit to the public the collection he had made. It would be shown to the public with the works of the Arts Council and the British Council and perhaps finally end up amongst the national collections. I make this suggestion knowing that something must be done to remedy the serious situation of British painting and sculpture today. Some way must be found to cultivate a group of major artists who will be enabled to make a real contribution both within the nation and to the rest of the world.
At the present time, the public's money is being spent well and wisely over a wide field by these various organisations, and I feel that by allocating a little more money, from the system I suggest the Government would augment the work which is being so ably carried out by the Arts Council. Thanks to their efforts, an increasing number of people in this country are really interested in and appreciative of the new trends in art; and for their sakes, as well as for the sake of the future of the British people, I feel that we should be justified in this extra expense. In this way we should be contributing to our future heritage and our future capital wealth. A gesture of this sort, made in a generous way, would help to raise the standard of British painting and would help the British artist to hold his own once more and to give forth that particular message which is in the native tradition. I feel that unless some increased
1050
incentive can be given, with some increased prospects of success in this profession, then in future years there will be a shortage of people taking it up.
The price of pictures, unlike practically every other commodity that one can think of in this country, has not gone up. But the cost of materials has gone up, and modern techniques, which often involve the use of materials for their own sake, are not always economical on materials. This implies either very good husbanding of resources on the part of the artists—and they are not often good at that—or it implies an austere way of life, teaching long hours and living a rather hard life, with the increasing cost of living which produces worries and very little joie de vivre. Someone said that the artist was the equivalent of the court jester in the old days: he had a specialised position from which he could create for the pleasure of the rest of the country. I am not suggesting that we should have a lot of Picassos—Picasso being the court jester in France—in this country. We already have our own artists, who have the British temperament; but we suggest that they should be given the chance of a decent standard of living. Picasso's art depends very much on his leisure. Most of the great painters of the past have either had a private income of their own, or have been the recipients of private incomes.
So, if we attempt to give some special treatment to our promising artists, we must select very carefully. Using a bucolic analogy, the owner of the herd, if he wishes to win a championship, selects those of his beasts which he thinks are likely to win a prize; and to those beasts he gives special food. I feel that in the world of painting we may possibly do the same thing. It may be said that in this particular herd there are a great number of variegated strains and that the situation is very complicated; but I would say that good painting is good painting, whatever school it comes from, and can always be "spotted". In this country we have a very great potentiality, far greater than there is in most other countries. But only if we can give this support to our artists will they do us credit.
I should like to say just one word in support of my noble friend Lord Haddington, when he advocated a gallery at Edinburgh. I know that the Scottish

1051
Modern Arts Association (which is, I suppose, the equivalent of the Contemporary Arts Society) has stored away a fairly large representative selection of pictures which they cannot exhibit. As the noble Earl said, there is nowhere in Edinburgh where people can go, on an ordinary occasion, to see modern pictures. I should like also to support the view that we should do something to increase the number of galleries in the smaller provincial towns. Too often we see travelling exhibitions, very interesting exhibitions, sent round by the Arts Council, and they are shown in nineteenth century buildings where pictures do not have a proper chance of being enjoyed. I would add just one word in support of the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, in favour of using 2½ per cent. of the cost of public buildings on embellishment. I know that in Scotland a large number of small commissions are being given to the artist craftsman but very few of the larger commissions which are so badly needed. I am very pleased to have taken part in this debate, and should like to give my support to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.
7.28 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, in 1954 I put down a Motion to draw attention to the Report of the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries. This was a Report which your Lordships will remember shocked the country. I put down a Motion so that it would be debated in your Lordships' House. I was asked to withdraw that Motion because it was understood that the Government were going to do something to help these institutions. From the very eloquent speech that the noble Earl, Lord Crawford and Balcarres, has made this afternoon, than whom no one speaks with greater authority, it is evident that that promise or expectation has not been fulfilled. That is why I am very glad that my noble friend and Deputy Leader, Lord Silkin, has put down a Motion this afternoon, so that the subject can be debated in its widest aspect. At this stage of the debate I do not wish to speak for very long. I should like to confine my few remarks to the Tate Gallery. May I say how pleased I am to follow the noble Earl, Lord Haig, a distinguished artist who speaks with great experience of these questions?
1052
One of the ways, of course, in which the young and struggling artist can, and should, be helped is by the purchase of his works for public galleries and institutions, of which the Tate Gallery is one of the most important. I am glad that it was a Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Party on this side of the House who in 1946 gave the Tate Gallery its first grant. Before that it had never had one at all. Furthermore, I am glad that successive Chancellors of the Exchequer of the Party on the other side of the House have raised that grant by a small amount every year. But this is still completely insufficient for the requirements of the Tate Gallery. Noble Lords this afternoon have mentioned the sum of £10,000. That was the grant for this year, but it was rather larger than normal because of a special purchase of sculpture that the Tate wished to make. In actual fact the real annual grant is only £7,500.
As has been pointed out this afternoon—it is a fact that I should like to stress—the Tate requirements are most important, because it is responsible for maintaining not only a representative collection of British art, painting and sculpture of all periods, but also a representative collection of modern Continental art. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the Tate to feed the National Gallery with modern pictures as they no longer remain modern. That it is doing in a most admirable way. Therefore it is most important that the Tate should be given sufficient money to look ahead.
Here I should like to say how much I agree with a good deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, said—I am sorry that he is not in his seat at the moment, because I think he would find that, for my part, I do not disagree with a great part of his speech. As the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, pointed out, the reason why it is necessary for the Tate to have a larger grant is precisely so that it can buy pictures not when they are at the top of the market but when they are comparatively cheap. It can do this in two ways: it can buy pictures by promising young artists when one can still buy them cheaply. I only wish that twenty years ago I had had a few hundred pounds to invest in pictures, because I can remember pictures by some of our modern British artists that used to be

1053
sold for £50 and are now sold for nearly £1,000. That is the type of thing that the Tate wants to be able to do.
They also wish to have sufficient money to negotiate privately for pictures. I think an example of this would be the Matisse Portrait of Derain, which was bought a year or two ago for over £7,000. When the original owner bought it in the early 'thirties he paid just over £200 for it. What a pity it is that the Tate Gallery did not have a grant in those days so that it was able to do the same kind of thing!But a great deal is done now. For instance, in 1949 an important early Picasso was bought privately for a very reasonable sum. A few months ago an equivalent Picasso of equal importance—a very well known picture—was sold by a private collector in this country to America for ten times the amount that the Tate was enabled to buy the other nearly eight years ago. If they could do that with one picture, how much more could they do if the grant were increased!
As has been pointed out, they are not able to fill the gaps in their collection. Here I am afraid I must disagree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Blackford. It is the responsibility of a gallery curator to fill the gaps in his collection, irrespective of whether he likes a particular picture or not, or whether it is fashionable or not. It is not a question of buying something because it is fashionable, but to fill a gap in the collection. An artist such as Landseer was mentioned. I have a certain amount of admiration for Land-seer. He is an artist who may very well come into his own again. But the Tate is full of Landseers—they do not want any more Landseers. What they want is, for instance, an important futurist picture. They were not able to buy an important picture of this kind by Severini, The Portrait of Madame S, because they had not sufficient money. There is no Picasso later than 1932; there is no Braque later than 1928, and there is no major Matisse painting, if I may just give examples from the three leading European painters.
There is another aspect. I wonder if it is generally realised by the public how many of the paintings in the Tate do not belong to the Tate at all, and also how many of them have been donated by
1054
private collectors. It is rather disturbing, when one goes round the Tate, to see how many labels there are which say "Presented by So-and-so" or "On Loan". We owe a tremendous debt to the private collector, particularly to the late Samuel Courtauld—in fact, practically all the important impressionist pictures in the Tate were presented by him. But, as your Lordships will remember, the other half of his collection he gave to the institute which he founded and which is named after him. These are in the possession of the Home House trustees. Most of them are on loan at present to the Tate, but they are destined eventually for the new Courtauld Institute when the new building for it is completed as part of London University in Blooms-bury. When one thinks that the Home House pictures comprise paintings of the quality of Manet's Bar at the Folies Bergère, of Renoir's La Loge, and Serrat's La Pondreuse, I think one realises that a tremendous loss is going to be effected if those pictures are removed. A great number of pictures have also been loaned by private collectors. For instance, the other day I saw in the Tate the only Soutine picture which has been loaned by a private collector. The only Brancusi sculpture is one that has been loaned by a private collector.
I should have thought—and here I am trying to follow the argument which was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Blackford—that even from the most materialistic point of view it would be worth the Government's while to invest in pictures. For instance, the Van Gogh in the Weinberg collection that was sold yesterday at Sotheby's for £31,000, was purchased in Berlin in the early 'thirties for just over £1,000. I wonder whether the Government broker has ever been able to invest in industrial shares which have increased by that amount in that period of ime. I should very much doubt it. There is also the question of the dollar-earning capacity of these pictures. So many visitors come to our shores. How many more would come if they felt that here were several important and unique pictures which they could not see elsewhere!The educational advantage has also been stressed by my noble friend Lord Methuen.

1055
My Lords, I should also like just to touch on the question of finance. The recent Finance Bill allowed presentation of works of art in lieu of death duties. That measure was generally welcomed. I hope Her Majesty's Government will also consider the American scheme whereby the collector of a painting is enabled to present it to a museum, and for its equivalent value to be taken off his income for tax purposes. That is a system which has worked very well in America. I am informed that it is not even necessary for the collector to part with the picture immediately. He is able to obtain his tax advantage in one particular year and to keep the picture, even for his whole lifetime. Then, after his death, it passes to the museum in question.
Think of the very fine and rich private collections there are in this country of 19th century French pictures. I am not speaking at all of Old Masters, but I want to stress 19th century paintings, and particularly of the French impressionists, which, as they were painted less than a hundred years ago, are not protected by the Export of Works of Art Regulations. There are some very fine and important collections in this country. One cannot but think that some of these collectors, out of their generosity, might wish to present some of their important examples for our national collections, especially the State collections. The State, in its turn, could repay their generosity by helping them from the tax point of view.
I believe that this proposal was considered by the Waverley Committee but they did not report very favourably on it at the time, although I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Crawford and Balcarres, is now very enthusiastic about it since his visit to the United States, as he stated in a letter to The Times newspaper on June 25. But this system, excellent as it can be, can be no more than a subsidiary help to a gallery like the Tate. The main problem for the Tate is to have its grant considerably increased. The trustees have asked for a sum of £20,000. They admit that this is a very modest amount. It is not nearly enough. They need something like £32,000, so that their Gallery can be built up, and (if I may pursue the materialistic argument, for I feel that is one which particularly appeals to Her
1056
Majesty's Government) so that the Gallery can be built up into a really important financial asset.
7.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS AND MARCH: My Lords, this House, and indeed the whole country, are very much in the debt of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for initiating this debate, in the course of which some extremely sound suggestions and strong pleas have been made to Her Majesty's Government, to all of which I hope they will pay great attention. A great deal has been said on this very wide subject which I do not intend to repeat. I should like, however, to reinforce one remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, who made a plea for more centralisation of responsibility for artistic matters under not quite so many different Ministers. It would be a good thing if artistic matters could be the beloved wife or daughter in one house, instead of the Cinderella in so many.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned forms of art in which this country was or was not pre-eminent. I should like particularly to refer to what has been described as this country's "greatest contribution to the visual arts"—the country house, including its contents, its amenity land, and including also some of the smaller houses and buildings of all kinds—in short, all those places in which the National Trusts are mainly interested, whether they own them or propose to acquire them, or are acting only as spokesmen of the private owners and others in whose hands they still remain. I speak for both the National Trusts, but particularly for the Scottish one.
I believe it is well known that whenever the question of preserving a house or something of the kind arises it is becoming progressively more and more difficult to get together—I might say scrape together—all the money that is needed for the purpose. The increasing poverty of private owners is notorious, and there may be—indeed, I believe there have been—a great many cases where the whole project falls down just for lack of the last £10,000, or whatever the sum may be. I therefore strongly urge upon the three Historic Buildings Councils, on the Minister of Works and on the Treasury that they should make the fullest possible use of their existing powers (at

1057
the moment I am speaking only of their existing powers) and produce funds, as they have done in the past, in the form of specific grants for repairs, and so on, to buildings and works of art; annual grants for upkeep, and grants for acquiring by purchase or in other ways such objects of art, whether through the death duties scheme or otherwise. I also ask them to use the powers which they have to give endowments, in suitable cases, to properties of national importance. The well-known Gowers Report in these matters has been only partly and imperfectly implemented, and in the matter of endowments I should like to remind all those concerned of these powers.
I wonder if the Historic Buildings Councils and the Minister of Works have not almost forgotten that they have these powers under, I believe, Section 4 (2) of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act, 1953. Parliament intended these powers to be used, and, with the greatest respect. I would say that it does not lie with any Minister to decline to use these powers which are there. Out of respect for the feelings for Sir David Eccles, who was Minister of Works at the time, there was a reluctance at first to recommend these endowment grants, but surely since those days a great deal of water has flowed under the bridge and a great deal of money has been spent Is it not about time to begin? Very often the acquisition and repair of a property can be arranged but will be of no use without the endowment being offered and promised. It may be that in some cases the reverse is true. The prime need is for flexibility in our plans and for a combination of all possible sources of supply of funds, whether from National Trusts, private sources, charitable trusts, such as the Pilgrim Trust and others, or from the Government and from local authorities. All are required to help in this vital task, and time is passing rapidly away.
I include in my plea the hope that something may be done for the open country—the national parks, and things of that nature, including the terrible problem of the prevention of litter. In Scotland we have a special case to put forward here. We have no such thing as National Parks, and in the opinion of a great many of us who have considered the matter we do not wish to have them. Instead, we should very much like to
1058
have some kind of more widespread arrangement whereby money could be provided to help local authorities and others in the care of beautiful country, of which we have still a great deal, and also of the smaller beauty spots. Think of Loch Lomond, for example, where the prevention of litter and the care of beauty is the responsibility of nobody but the unfortunate landowner and one single county council.
Money, of course, comes into this question, yet in nearly all the matters I have mentioned, the money is already there—or am I too late: ought I to have said, "was there"? Without fresh legislation the National Land Fund can be used for most of the things I have mentioned. Under the Finance Act, 1946, it may be used to recoup the Revenue when they have accepted land or chattels from executors of deceased persons in lieu of cash death duties. Then again, under the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act, 1953, this fund can be used to recoup the Minister of Works when he gives grants by way of endowments or for acquisition of historic buildings and chattels. In the matter of National Parks and protection of the countryside generally, I admit that legislation would be required. But is one precluded from asking for legislation? We have the Historic Buildings Councils which work very well. What about some "countryside councils," or bodies with some such name? They might be developed out of the Royal Fine Art Commission or something of that kind.
My Lords, it has struck me, as it has struck many other people, that at this particular juncture, with this debate pending, it was particularly inappropriate that Her Majesty's Government should have decided to deplete the National Land Fund by no less than five-sixths of its total amount, without, so far as I am aware, consulting any of the amenity bodies who might have had an interest in this sort of thing—certainly neither of the National Trusts. This Fund, or most of it, as Lord Esher has said, has been quietly removed from underneath us on the plea that there is "no foreseeable need" for it. We could have taught some of these 5,000 (or was it 50,000?) civil servants that there is indeed a foreseeable need for this fund. We could have taught them how to foresee. Have

1059
they forgotten the recent cases of Petworth and Ickworth? And, of course, they may not have read in this morning's paper about Saltram House. These are only three examples out of many from the past, of a process which is clearly going to increase like a snowball.
Surely something is required—though perhaps I am out of date: I do not know what the arrangements will be—for Chatsworth and its priceless contents. In Scotland alone, there are pending two cases (of course they may not come off, though I hope they will) which will use up something like £250,000 of the Land Fund straight away. That is in Scotland only. Under existing legislation, the Land Fund, for which it is said there is no foreseeable need, could be hit twice over, first for acquiring property and, secondly, for endowing it. The Financial Secretary in another place has said that this is only a matter of book-keeping. I do not understand finance, and I cannot make this out at all. All I know is that I had the personal word of the right honourable gentleman, Dr. Dalton, who founded this Fund. He told me that in 1946, when he put it there, this was real money: it really was there. Now we are told that it does not really exist. Then in the next breath we are told that if any of it is spent it has to be put back. The only thing I can conclude is that the Treasury must have "blown" it and will not confess it.
I am reminded that, long before my time, in Basutoland there was a distinguished native chief named Jonathan Molapo who had made a great deal of money from the sale of stolen diamonds. Stolen diamonds and the money derived from them are just as real as money derived from the sale of surplus war stores. The chief was persuaded to stop keeping the money buried in a box under the floor of his but and to put it into the bank. He then formed the habit of going round to the bank every so often and asking to see his money. He insisted on being shown the money lying in the safe. I think he was right. Although we may have progressed in financial understanding from his day, there is a great value—or there was a great value—in knowing that this Land Fund was there. Sixty million pounds, I should be only too ready to admit, would be rather on the generous side, but the knowledge that
1060
something was there would have the greatest possible propaganda value. I think that the great depletion of the Fund is an example—and not the first—of the Government's lack of publicity sense. What better way could there be of trying to bring along some of our local authorities than by showing them that the Government have this money and the desire to spend money on this sort of thing, even though it might be to a much more limited extent than has been suggested? I hope that it is still not too late for something to be done about this particular point, and for some small part of this Fund, above the £10 million which it is proposed to leave there, to be kept for a little longer, at least until further consultations have taken place with the National Trusts and other bodies who would be only too glad to advise Her Majesty's Government what to do with the money.
7.57 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I shall make only a very short contribution to this debate. I make it on the rather slender excuse that I suppose I come within that classification mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, when he spoke of "aristocratic recreation," seeking escape from boredom in military service abroad—or something to that effect. In my case, my military service abroad, I seem to remember, included spending some twenty summers or so in morning temperatures of something like 110 degrees in the shade. Whether that is to be defined as escaping boredom, I do not know. My only excuse for contributing to the debate is that I happen to be fond of music. I spend a lot of spare time listening to good music and I have on certain occasions managed to have certain orchestras. I want to suggest this as a principle: that just as it is said that a people get the Government it deserves, so every country, every community, every city, every village, gets the Art it deserves. That applies to pictures, music and so on.
It is within that context that I want to draw attention to the legislation to which Lord Silkin, referred—and Lord Methuen also, I think—that is, the Local Government Act, 1948, Section 132, which permits local authorities to levy up to sixpence on the rates for encouragement of the Arts. If a city such as Liverpool cared to take full advantage of that legislation, I am informed that it could raise

1061
£200,000. I believe that, from the Arts Council point of view, Liverpool and Birmingham are "good boys". This legislation, it seems to me, has rather got lost sight of, and not enough attention is paid to it. The Arts Council have certainly recognised the principle, and they have indicated that they will extend help to the extent that local authorities are prepared to show that they are ready to help themselves. There, it seems to me, is the sanest and soundest kind of development. If a town wants its help, the local population must show first that it is deserving of that help.
The point is, you do not necessarily create Art by giving more money to the Arts Council. You may encourage it and help it, but you create absolutely nothing so far as Art is concerned. If local authorities are prepared to spend more, then it seems to me that the Arts Council also must spend more, and therefore the Government must make more money available to the Arts Council. So the final remedy for this position lies in the hands of the public themselves.
It is against that kind of background surely that one judges developments abroad. The case of Paris has been cited and of La Scala, Milan. I should like to quote the case of the Vienna State Opera. That costs the Austrian taxpayer far more than all that the Arts Council spend on all the Arts in this country. The only reason why the Austrian Government are able to do it is that they know very well that that is the way the Viennese want it. Long before the people of Vienna had enough to eat, they were planning to rebuild that great Opera House, where to-day there is the finest opera stage in the world Compare that attitude with the attitude of any town council in this country, where an increase in the local rates proposed for the purposes of the Arts immediately becomes a matter of local politics. Indeed, it would need a member of rare courage, particularly round about the time of the municipal elections, to suggest such an increase. I am not opposing more money for the Arts Council. On the contrary, let us have this £2½ million, by all means, but let it be related to the proven needs of the people and the proven desires of the people in a local sense.
I want to make a mild charge against the Arts Council. It seems to me that, as
1062
parents of their children, the Arts, they are not quite vigorous enough in blowing their own trumpet. One rarely hears a member of the Arts Council or of one of their panels getting on the public platform and advocating ways and means of raising money for the Arts or telling the public exactly what his own council is up to. The annual report is published, but I suspect that few people read it. Nevertheless, the Council expect the public to take their achievements for granted. I suggest that they need more advertisement, more sense of public relations, because if they do not develop them, surely the public in turn will look back to the suggestion of the creation of a Ministry of Fine Arts.
Finally, I want to refer to one important and rather complicated feature of the task of the Arts Council, as I see it—the question of musicians in orchestras. I am not suggesting that the last increases to orchestra musicians awarded by the independent tribunal, over which a Member of your Lordships' House presided, were not warranted. Indeed, I understand that musicians had had no increase in pay since 1952. But there is a tendency for the Musicians' Union, which is in no way whatever concerned with the standard of art or with art for art's sake, to seek terms for performances and rehearsals which raise the price of concerts and which could be regarded as not justified. I wonder whether the Musician's Union, when they make these demands, take the trouble of consulting their whole membership. I believe that these demands are not always in the interests of the musicians themselves. I believe that we are justified in regarding the Arts Council as the custodian of Art for the taxpayer. The Arts Council is a charge on the taxpayer, and not unnaturally the citizen needs to be satisfied that the Council is not distributing funds so that the dictated and unreasonable demands of the Union may be satisfied. I think that an answer is due both to the citizens who listen to music and to the musicians who feed their needs. But, of course, in a general sense, I do support more money for the Arts Council.
I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who said that sculpture is the art of thinking in space, and music the art of thinking in sound. Whether, in the case of sculpture, he would to-day include

1063
some of those cement blocks with holes through the middle which pass for representations of the human anatomy, I do not know. But in an age that tends more and more to have its thinking done for it, an encouragement of Art is also an encouragement to think. Therefore, by all means let us have more money for the Arts Council. In that sense, and with these minor qualifications, I most certainly support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.
8.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, for allowing me at this late hour to stand between him and your Lordships for a few moments. I had not intended to speak at all in this debate, but in view of the references made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to Covent Garden and Sadler's Wells—and I would assure him that his friendly comments will be warmly appreciated by those responsible for the conduct of these two institutions—I feel that I ought not to let the occasion pass without offering a few observations.
In regard to Covent Garden, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned a particular figure. I doubt whether I could myself go into details without some risk of being guilty of a breach of confidence, but the situation is simply this. The Arts Council, I understand, have indicated to the Treasury a sum which in their opinion would be the minimum upon which Covent Garden could be expected to conduct their affairs satisfactorily, but they find that the total resources at their disposal are not sufficient to enable them to make that sum available. There is a gap, I believe, of the order of £50,000. The Arts Council, I understand, are now engaged in a study of the possibilities of effecting economy by some process of readjustment, possibly administrative readjustment, without impairment of artistic standards. We at Covent Garden, of course, take no exception to that. We do not know what the outcome may be. But I must say, quite categorically, that I should regard it as wholly unsatisfactory, and indeed intolerable, that the considered judgment of such a body as the Arts Council should be turned down by Whitehall for the sake of effecting a relatively small saving.
1064
A similar situation, I believe, arises in regard to Sadler's Wells. I could develop this argument, if time allowed, by reference to what I consider should be the relation between the Arts Council and the Treasury in matters of this kind, but for the moment what I have already said will perhaps suffice. I am making no attack whatever on the Treasury. I know their problems and I sympathise, and I feel that it would be utterly unseemly if I, as an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, were to indulge in what might be regarded as captious criticism.
Before I sit down, may I refer briefly to two other points? I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred in appreciative terms to the action of the Ministry of Works in assuming control of the Royal Opera House. They have, indeed, become lessees of the Royal Opera House.
LORD SILKIN: If the noble Viscount will allow me to interrupt, I would clarify that point. I was merely stating the fact.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: It is a fact. What I wanted to add, because the understanding of the fact necessitates that I should add it, is that the arrangement between the Ministry of Works and the Covent Garden Properties does not involve relieving the Opera House to any degree at all. The whole burden assumed by the Ministry of Works, as superior leaseholders, is passed on to Covent Garden: the cost of maintenance, the cost of upkeep of a very old building, rates and so on, all have to come out of the already inadequate grant through the Arts Council to Covent Garden. That is a very serious burden.
My only other point is this. As noble Lords probably realise, Covent Garden from time to time make substantial profits as the result of tours abroad. I would take the view that such profit should either be carried to a special reserve fund, to be available for use in undertaking experiments in themselves wholly warranted but of doubtful economic value, or should be employed in reducing the large overdraft from which we at Covent Garden suffer. However, it is not so. The profits from foreign tours are added to the resources otherwise available and applied to defray current expenses. I think that that is a very bad thing and,

1065
from some points of view, a rather discreditable arrangement. Finally, I should like to say how grateful. I am sure, we all are to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for initiating this debate, and how warmly I personally support him in his plea for a more liberal attitude on the part of the Government.
8.12 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, many weighty words have been said to-day but, I venture to think, none more weighty than those which have just been uttered by an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, who speaks in the double capacity of the rôle I have just mentioned and that of a great champion of the Arts. I venture to think that any present Chancellor of the Exchequer who sets aside those final words, even if he sets aside words that have been uttered earlier in the debate, will be very rash and foolish indeed.
I had come down to the House with a good deal of material, but I will avoid inflicting it on your Lordships, partly because in many cases it has been used already more effectively by other speakers, and partly because the hour in late and I should have been elesewhere some hours ago. I had intended to devote special attention to the need for more assistance to the National Gallery, the Tate Gallery, the British Council and the whole world of authors, but those topics have already been dealt with thoroughly. I rise, in fact, to say in a few sentences what was said so significantly just now by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley: that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has, placed us all in his debt by putting down this Motion, and by the thorough, balanced, most effective and, indeed, conclusive way in which he has presented it to the House.
I echo almost every word that has been said by all the experts who have addressed your Lordships. I would venture in a few sentences to suggest that these propositions have been entirely made out this afternoon and this evening. First, almost all of us agree that our British civilisation would benefit immensely from an appreciable increase in the assistance given by the State to the Arts. Secondly, we agree that in this country of ours we have seriously fallen behind a great number of other countries. Thirdly, we agree,
1066
I think, that in some of the men who have spoken to us to-day there exist the means to make sure that any assistance to the Arts will be economically and fruitfully administered. Fourthly (there was a little more argument about this, but not a great deal, although I suppose it is something to which the Minister will address himself) we are nearly all agreed, I think, that there could be a substantial increase in State assistance to the Arts without any danger whatever to our national economy.
The first three of those points have been developed so throughly that I will say nothing about then. As regards the last point, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who always speaks so well, will depart, so far as humanly possible, from the orthodox Treasury line—he surely must have received every possible encouragement from the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer who has just addressed your Lordships. One speaker only, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Black-ford, warned us about the dangers of undue self-indulgence. He was a lonely, though most welcome, prophet for austerity; and not unnaturally, having sustained the heavy burden of that all day, he left for an early and, I hope, excellent dinner—it may have been a late high tea; I do not know what form of austere meal the noble Lord undertakes in these parlous times; but, in any event, it has prevented him from being here now.
I am sure we all appreciated the fact that he put a point of view which should not go unrepresented. Surely nobody supposes that the relatively small sum, £1 million or £2 million, that has been referred to—or whatever sum of that order is fixed—is likely to "break" us. However, the argument developed—and it was right that it should be developed—by the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, was that if we were to spend an amount on the Arts, we should be descending a slippery slope; that it was the thin end of the wedge, and that the masses would be encouraged to make all sorts of dangerous wage demands. I venture to think—the noble Lord is absent, and the hour is much too late to pursue the argument fully—that behind that kind of contention lies the thought that the Arts are ultimately a luxury; that in spending a

1067
little more on the Arts, we are doing ourselves rather well—we are like children having a few extra sweets. I venture to protest—and here I think the whole House will agree with me—not against the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, who is one of the most popular Members of your Lordships' House, but against any suggestion that might emanate from elsewhere that the Arts are a luxury or a frill; that they lie on the periphery of our civilisation. I think we should all agree that the Arts are part of our civilisation. Civilisation without the Arts is a contradiction in terms. Therefore, I support with much conviction what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin: that what is required is a new approach to the Arts in our national life.
I should venture to think that the individual members of the Government—and if it is not an impertinence to say so, I have reason to suppose particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself—are cultivated people, interested in the Arts, who, if they were meeting us in a private capacity, would agree that the Arts should occupy a higher position in Britain than they have ever occupied in the past. I feel sure that that would be a sentiment with which they would readily accord. But one has the uneasy feeling (I hope I may be wrong) that in their corporate capacity they will be held back, as Governments have all too often been held back, from giving effect to what I am sure is their inner private conviction. If they are held back, what is it that will restrain them? It would be, I venture to think, a misplaced timidity; a fear that the people would not "stand for" it; or, if you like, rather on the line of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, that it would be misunderstood in the country and regarded as paving the way to a general orgy of self-indulgence. But there again, I venture to express the hope that the Government—if that is their attitude, and, as I say, I hope I shall prove to be wrong tonight—will read this debate carefully: not, if you like, so much the words of professional politicians, but the words of those who have spoken to us from all the many different points of view.
Whether we have been addressed by politicians or artists, we have had almost
1068
every point of view represented in the House this afternoon. We have had what I think may fairly be called the aristocratic point of view, the æsthetic point of view, and what might be called the radical point of view. On that last subject, I should like to recall something to which Mr. Ernest Bevin used to refer—I think he was quoting John Burns. Many years ago, John Burns, the great Labour leader, used to express a desire not only to eliminate material poverty in this country but also to eliminate poverty of desire. No doubt in the past, when the masses were pressed close to the starvation line, there was a relatively small interest in the Arts. That was at any rate feasible. But now that the worst extremes of want have been abolished from this country, I think it is generally recognised, wherever we look, whether among the rich or among the working classes, that there is a desire to know more about art, an increasing appetite for art, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said at the beginning.
Though I cannot speak to-night for anybody in particular, I had the honour to be asked by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to wind up for our side. I cannot say what is thought by the average "pub crawler" or the average clubman. I do not think any of us would undertake to offer opinions of that sort. I venture to think that the opinions expressed in this House to-night are representative of all that is best in public opinion in this country, in whatever walk of life one looks for it. I therefore ask the Government to take courage, and to give effect to what I am sure are their own best convictions. I hope that we shall have something encouraging from the noble Lord to-night. I cannot expect a final statement, but I hope that he will indicate a new approach, a new trend, in Government thinking.
The question is quite simple. In this struggle, are the Government going to take the side of the Philistines or the side of those who are opposing them? I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mancrot, shows himself to-night a strong enemy of the Philistines. He may be restrained by the thought that Samson finally overcame the Philistines by pulling down the walls of the temple on himself. I think that the Government fear that a full-out attack on the Philistines might be disastrous in ways of that kind. I

1069
venture to think—though I cannot predict any long life for the Government in any case—that their chances of immunity might be increased by a really bold attack in the spirit I have in mind. Far more serious than any Party consideration are the profound convictions which have been voiced from all sides of the House to-night. This country of ours, magnificent in many ways, is feeble and stingy in the assistance it is giving to the Arts. We beg the noble Lord to give us something to-night that will send us away encouraged, and still more to suggest that the Government for which he is so expert a spokesman will recognise that, as time passes, a higher and higher position must come to the Arts, because without a great extension of State assistance to the Arts I believe that this country will fail to occupy that place in the civilisation of the world which we all in our hearts know to be her due.
8.24 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was forced to postpone his debate. He has been rewarded for his patience by a speaker's list of eighteen noble Lords, many of them experts. Many of them dealt the Government a sound buffet or two. Many of them were so depressed to think about the speech which they all told me they were sure I was going to make that they could not stay to see if I actually made it. They must forgive me, therefore, if I do not answer all the questions in their absence which they put to me in such profusion.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, poses difficult questions. He asks me how much this State—not any State—should support the Arts. What, he asks, should be the ratio of support between the private art lover, the ratepayer, the taxpayer, industry, the charitable bodies who foster the Arts, and the State itself? He argues, quite rightly, that there has lately been a great increase in appreciation of all the Arts. The effect of the war, broadcasting, television, a plentiful supply of good, cheap books on Art, has all led to a greatly increased appetite. Twice as many people went to the National Gallery last year as in the year before the war.
A distinguished French commentator, observing the queues waiting to go inside the Van Gogh exhibition at the Tate Galley in 1947–48, stretching from the
1070
Tate Gallery half way down Millbank to your Lordships' House, said, "A country which can queue in the rain to see pictures is pretty civilised." I thought that if the queue had been matched by another queue, stretching from the Tate Gallery and trying to get into the public gallery of your Lordships' House, we would consider ourselves wholly civilised. But there has been, without doubt, a greatly increased popularity of concerts, opera, ballet and all forms of Art. I labour this point in order to suggest to your Lordships that an increased appreciation by the man in the street of the Arts, and increased participation in the Arts, is really preferable to constant shots in the arm from the Exchequer.
Several of your Lordships have dwelt on the decay of patronage. The Arts can no longer look to the rich patrons as they did in days gone by. Surtax and death duties have killed the rich patron and someone, I suggest, must take his place. This point was borne in upon me only a few weeks ago when we were mourning the death of Jimmy de Rothschild. Rothschild, Courtauld, Cunard and Beecham—these names have all an honourable place in the patronage of the Arts in this country. They have all gone. The only thing wrong with John Christie of Glyndebourne is that there is only one of him. Their place has been partly taken by bodies like the National Art Collections Fund, the National Trusts, other voluntary and semi-voluntary bodies, and, of course, the local authorities—and we give them our tribute.
I take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, by the noble Earl, Lord Haig, and by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I am sure there is a need now for a new patronage of the Arts to take the place of the rich patron who has gone, rather than falling back of necessity on the State, not only to rescue works of art from travelling abroad but to support the new young artists; to be a patron in the old sense of the Arts, not in the bitter, sour sense of Dr. Johnson in his terrible letter to Chesterfield, but in the sense of the patronage displayed by a man who has always been one of my heroes, Lorenzo the Magnificent, who said:
" The true patron seeks to detect the sparkle of a gem before its value is generally apparent."

1071
Those new patrons are to a certain degree coming along. The T.U.C. has recently commissioned a statue by Epstein. Rolls Royce gives support to the Derby Repertory Company. Imperial Chemical Industries and Dorman Long assist the Little Theatre at Middlesbrough. Guinness give prizes for poetry, probably casting an envious eye over their shoulder to Copenhagen, where the Arts, I gather, are almost entirely supported by Tuborg and Carlsberg. The Observer, the Sunday Times, and the Evening Standard are offering literary prizes. The Church still plays its prominent part: Epstein has produced two of his most magnificent works in Cavendish Square and Llandaff Cathedral. I labour this point because I feel that there is an increased need, with much room for new patronage by public bodies, public authorities and industry. After all, it is the public's behest that has ousted the old patron, and I think it is the public's job to find someone to put in his place.
I turn from the patrons to the taxpayer, because that is the man with whom the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has been principally concerned this evening. The taxpayer—your Lordships and myself, that is—does a bit more, I think, than a listener to this debate would have gathered this evening. He does it, of course, at the box office and by voluntary contributions, National Art Collections Fund and so on. And more power to him!I regard that as the most important aspect. But he does it also through the Treasury. Let me remind your Lordships, in case it has slipped your memory, what actually the Treasury, the State, the taxpayer, docs contribute. There is the £4 million a year on the direct Vote—that is, in 1957–58—for museums and galleries as against £1 million in 1945–46. Directly after the war it was £1 million; now it is £4 million—a pretty substantial increase when you compare that with the fact that the Civil Estimates have gone up by only about 50 per cent.
The Arts Council receive £1 million. That is against the £250,000 they received in 1945–46. Your Lordships have heard much of their work this evening. I should like to add my tribute for what they have done in a very difficult task. They are bound to be wrong with some people, but they have carried out their task very well. Thirdly, the taxpayer contributes through
1072
the National Land Fund. The National Land Fund is something about which I am certain the man in the street knows very little indeed. There are the new provisions of the Finance Act, 1953, and the Finance Act, 1956, in relation to the purchase of works of art, and I do not believe they are publicly appreciated. It is true that the scheme was not used in any extensive way until 1956–57.
Your Lordships know the system we have. The Treasury now accept in satisfaction of estate duty great houses and their contents. You and I, as taxpayers, spent £700,000 in this way in 1956–57. We spent £553,000 on Petworth—as your Lordships know we, the taxpayers, have just purchased it—and we have spent £38,000 on Saltram House, near Plymouth, which, incidentally, gives Plymouth a fine new local museum, to which the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss and March, referred in his speech. I should like to pay my tribute to the National Trusts and their fine work in administering properties purchased with the National Land Fund.
Your Lordships realise, I hope, that under the 1956 Act, a particularly fine picture can be taken out of its setting in its house and extracted. Somebody paid £104,000 for a Gauguin. The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, casts his doubts upon the need for that fantastic sum. I wonder how many people realise that we, the taxpayers, very recently paid £80,000 for Lord Powis's Pieta by Van de Weyden, which has now come into the national collection—a magnificent picture. Who is to say whether it is worth this sum or that? It is as well to remember that this sum has been paid by the State, the taxpayer, for one individual, magnificent picture. I must emphasise this. In fact—I am sure that my noble friend Lord Wemyss will not mind my saying this—it is the unpredictability (because we do not know when we or anybody else are going to die) that makes the Land Fund a little unusual in its administration. I am opposed to the idea which some noble Lords have put forward of setting aside a large slice of the National Land Fund for the purchase of works of art for national galleries. I say that for two reasons. The first is that I think that there is a serious risk that by so doing we shall be accused of dodging Parliamentary control. The second is, that it

1073
might be very unfair to the other Arts. So much for the Land Fund.
Now we come to the question of Treasury grants. None of your Lordships, I gather, thinks that the general purchase grants are sufficient—I am leaving aside the Land Fund grants. I hope your Lordships will bear in mind that the Chancellor will make special grants in special cases for individual works of great importance, particularly to avoid their export, though I should like to remind your Lordships that the art world moves both ways; there has been export and there has been a correspondingly powerful import. As we saw yesterday at Sotheby's at that sale which attracted world wide attention, we are regaining our position as the centre of the art market, of the art world. But we shall never keep it unless there is a two-way traffic. Therefore, I do not take too gloomy a view about the export of works of art from this country, although, of course it could easily be carried much too far. Furthermore, I believe that a fine Gainsborough or a fine Reynolds makes a pretty good ambassador for this country when hanging on the wall of a museum or of a house in some foreign country.
But I am perfectly clear as to what noble Lords think about the size of these grants to the museums, particularly the national museums, and especially to those museums who are seeking some particular work, to fill some obvious gap in art on their walls. I have brought this matter to the attention of my noble friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am not in a position to anticipate my noble friend's next Budget—and, frankly, I did not have very much say in this one, either—but he authorises me to say that he is giving consideration to an increase in the next Financial Year in the general purchase grants of those of the national collections which are faced with the problems of purchasing important works of art at present day prices.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether that differs in any way from what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said in March of last year?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I do not know what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said. I have not discussed
1074
the matter with him, but I have discussed this point with my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he has authorised me to say that.
I turn now to another subject which has concerned your Lordships frequently this evening—the question of museums. First, let me take the British Museum, concerning which I think the noble Earl, Lord Crawford and Balcarres, was a little unkind. There is much still to be done there, but he did not tell your Lordships that there has been an increase of staff of eighty-one, since 1953–54. There has been a sum of £250,000 expended on work and there is being expended a sum of nearly a third of a million pounds at the moment; and within the next ten to fifteen years there will be a further sum of £1 million expended. I know that that is not enough from the point of view of my noble friend, and many noble Lords will agree with him, but it is a sum which should be mentioned and borne in mind.
Turning to the question of local museums, I would say that there are getting on for 200 local museums in this country. Would it be too unkind to suggest that one or two of them are really little better than junk shops? I would not dare say which. Your Lordships know the type of museum I have in mind—that broken piece of Roman pottery found under the borough surveyor's office when the town hall was rebuilt in 1874, and the extremely unhygienic collection of birds' eggs and butterflies to be seen in some places. It is not their fault. They ought never to have been accepted, probably, in the first place. I, for my part, would prefer to see twenty good ones made from amalgamations. I am opposed, of course, to local museums being taken over by the State, but I honestly believe that a town gets the museum it deserves.
I believe that the ratepayer must play a much greater part in this matter. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, on this point. He has the power in his hands—I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, that the power extends to Scotland, too—to make his contribution in this respect, and I think many more ratepayers, if they wanted it, would like to do so. I view this matter smugly, with a sense of filial pride, because it happens that my native

1075
city of Norwich has one of the finest provincial museums and provincial picture galleries in the country. They even paid me the compliment of seeking my advice on the subject of the Norwich School picture, so I am prejudiced. Many other cities could produce a little more money for their own local museums.
I turn to opera, and with some trepidation in the presence of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. I think he would agree with me that it is not fair to compare our opera with opera abroad, because opera is not indigenous to this country. That makes it all the more remarkable how much we have achieved. We have admired the enterprise, the novelty and the vigour of the productions we have seen from the five companies. Covent Garden, Sadler's Wells, the Welsh Opera Company, Carl Rosa and Glyndebourne are, I think, a cause of great pride in this country. I suppose everybody will say that there is not enough money, because Covent Garden received only £302,000 from the Arts Council. I think the noble Viscount indicated that he thought it was not enough. But it is six times what it was in 1946–47; and Sadler's Wells receives ten times as much. That is a remarkable increase, although your Lordships would obviously say that it is not enough. I suppose there is a perfectly valid argument for twenty times that sum. But as the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, asked, where does it end?
There has been, I think, some suggestion that there should be more economy of overheads in the administration of Covent Garden and Sadler's Wells. That is difficult ground.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: May I just say that I referred to the fact that a study is now being made to see whether, by administrative readjustments, some economies can be secured. I went on to say that we at Covent Garden took no exception to that.
LORD MANCROFT: I was going to say that. I was going to say how grateful we are in regard to that matter. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is a member of the solicitors' profession. I am a member of the barristers' profession. To us the word "fusion" has a rather delicate connotation, but it has been mentioned in the case of Sadler's Wells and Covent
1076
Garden. I will not trespass on that delicate ground. All I would say is that it appears to me, as a layman, that the case for closer integration between the two companies, both in the interests of money and in the interests of talent, seems to be becoming rapidly stronger.
My Lords, I turn to the theatre. As your Lordships know, the Government have taken a major step to try to help the theatre by removing entertainments duty. That will cost £1¼ million in a full year. There is also a tax concession to the cinema, which will cost about £6½ million. The Arts Council helps individual theatre companies, if it possibly can, when they are in difficulties, and that will cost the sum of £55,000 this year. In its specialised way, the British Council helps too. But nobody can step in—no subsidy can step in and help effectively—where there is a lack of local interest which causes poor attendances. Here again, I would take up the point of view put forward in his interesting maiden speech by my noble friend Lord Croft. The ratepayers must help. Under the Local Government Acts they have the power to do quite a lot. I think that a great deal more might be done in that respect.
Several points have been made about Scotland. The noble Earl, Lord Haddington, spoke in particular in this regard. The Government are indeed aware of the three Scottish needs to which the Standing Commission and my noble friend have drawn attention. I am glad to say that progress has become possible on the most urgent of them, the lecture hall for the Royal Scottish Museum. Plans have been made and agreed with the Museum, and the next stage before building can commence is their submission to the Royal Fine Art Commission, which step is now being prepared. The other two projects will come forward in their turn, but there is a very large museum building and reconstruction programme, and in connection with the Gallery of Modern Art it is only fair to point out that the Government are at present preoccupied with the improvement of existing institutions rather than the creation of new ones, desirable though they may be.
This is a difficult task which has been put before me in putting forward the

1077
policy of the Government, because everybody, including myself, would like to see more spent on it. I have to hold the ring between the point of view which nearly all your Lordships have put forward this evening and that point of view, for which I must say I have considerable sympathy, standing here as I do, put forward by my noble friend Lord Blackford. There has been, however, a marked all-round increase in State aid to the Arts since the war. I think it is right that these points of view should be brought forward. But we, as taxpayers, have since the war made a very much deeper "dig" into our pockets for the Arts. Let those who call us Philistines bear that in mind.
We have to remember the need to reduce taxation, however much that may have been laughed at this evening. We are all prepared to economise except in regard to our own hobby-horse. Expenditure must be cut to the bone—but not my bone. We have heard, frequently, colleagues in another place say, "I am all in favour of economy, but not in my own constituency." Nevertheless, the taxpayer is spending £5 million directly on the Arts in this country, and a great deal more indirectly. I do not think that is a bad record. I think the increase has been considerable. I should like very much indeed to have answered every plea this evening in the affirmative, but where do we end?
My Lords, I have stated what I think the Government's rôle should be. I have told your Lordships what the Government are doing. I ask your Lordships to agree that it is a great deal more than the Government were doing ten years ago. I have given your Lordships an indication that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do his level best to see whether he cannot give more assistance, where there is obviously need for it, in the next financial year. There is further need for three things; first of all, for a much greater appreciation still by the man in the street of the Arts and the need of the Arts, and therefore of more money at the box-office, more money on the subscription lists and more money for the particular appeal for a particular picture. The second is greater support both for existing works of art and for these promising new young artists in all walks
1078
of artistic life by the new patrons—a matter which I outlined to your Lordships a few moments ago. Thirdly, above all, we need better plays, better paintings, better music, better films, better opera and better ballet—but that is another story.
8.46 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like first of all to thank those noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion, and particularly to express my appreciation of the speeches of the younger noble Lords who come here only from time to time, including the noble Lord, Lord Croft, who made his maiden speech—and a very good one it was. I hope he will often come here and address us. I thank also the other noble Lords who have spoken and whom we do not often have the privilege of hearing.
As to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, we often hear him. I am bound to confess that I have not for a very long time heard a more disappointing speech from him or from the Front Bench. I expected him to say that he has great sympathy with what we want, but that he cannot do it. He did not even go so far as that. On Tuesday he had the greatest sympathy for maintaining the St. James's Theatre, and so had the Government. But it could not be done. To-night he did not even say that. What he said was that everybody else should make a contribution—the local authorities, the wealthy people, industrialists and everybody else should help the Arts. But not the Government. All the Government are prepared to do is to consider favourably some time before the next Budget—but we have heard all this before, and I do not put very much store by it. Anyway, it related only to one aspect. All he said was that they would consider favourably the question of purchase grants. He completely ignored all the other aspects that have been raised in this debate by myself and every other speaker.
I am profoundly disappointed, and I am sure that every other noble Lord who has taken part in this discussion will be disappointed too. If there had been more noble Lords here I should have divided the House on this subject. But most people have gone, and I do not suppose that a Division by the few Members that we have here would be of any value—anyway, the Chief Whip wants to get

1079
away and have his dinner. In those circumstances, I can only, with regret, beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

EXCHEQUER AND AUDIT DEPARTMENTS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
JUDICIAL OFFICES (SALARIES AND PENSIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
MINISTERIAL SALARIES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
ELECTRICITY BILL
Returned from the Commons, with certain of the Lords Amendments agreed to; one other agreed to with Amendments, and a consequential Amendment made to the Bill; the said Amendments to be printed.
BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
PORTSLADE AND SOUTHWICK OUTFALL SEWERAGE BOARD BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
  AIR TRAFFIC
  AIR TRAFFIC