Sitting of 3 June 1964

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  PRESTON CORPORATION BILL
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF AVIATION

    Fairey Delta 2 Aircraft
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Minister of Aviation if the cost of modifying the Fairey Delta 2 and of the subsequent flight test programme to be undertaken by the Royal Aircraft Establishment is to be shared by the British and French Governments in view of its direct application to the Concord programme; and if the money for this work is included in the original estimate of £150 million for development of the Concord.
    The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Julian Amery): No, Sir. The modification of the Fairey Delta 2—now designated BAC.221—was undertaken in 1959 as part of our general research programme on supersonic flight. The aircraft was designed for research on problems associated with slender delta wings and was not directed to specific aircraft applications. It is contributing valuable information to the Concord programme, but it is not part of that programme and its costs are therefore not appropriate to it.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is the Minister aware that the Press release by the British Aircraft Corporation said that this work would be directly applicable to the Concord programme? Could he say what the cost of modifying the 221 was and how much other expenditure has been incurred on work connected with the
    1066
    Concord programme which has not been shared evenly by the British and French Governments? If the amount is as extensive as I think it is, does it not indicate that it was a rather unequal bargain?
    Mr. Amery: No, I do not think so. A great deal of work done on both sides of the Channel which contributes to the programme has application to it but it not a direct part of it, but I should like to have notice of the specific points raised by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Cronin: Has not the Estimates Committee already criticised the Minister quite strongly for not sharing with the French the expense of the supersonic transport? Would it not be appropriate in this case if he made sure that we shared these expenses?
    Mr. Amery: My reading of the Estimates Committee Report is quite different from that of the hon. Member. I do not think it criticised us for not sharing the expense on the supersonic transport. It is quite plain that all expenses directly applicable to Concord are being shared on a fifty-fifty basis. There may well be a considerable area of research in both countries which has a bearing on this but which is not a direct part of the programme.

    Private Flying (Aerodromes)
    Commander Courtneyasked the Minister of Aviation what aerodromes listed in the United Kingdom Air Pilot have been closed to private flying over the last three years.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Neil Marten): Apart from small landing strips—used only for holiday joy rides—there have, during the last three years, been nine deletions from the list in the Air Pilot of aerodromes available for civil fliers. Of these, three have been or are being replaced and two military airfields may soon be re-opened as civil aerodromes. During the same period, there have been 15 additions to the list of aerodromes available for civil fliers. I am arranging for the details to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Commander Courtney: Is my hon. Friend aware that since 1939 no fewer than 14 airfields used for private flying and business flying have been closed in

    1067
    the vicinity of London alone? Is this fate likely to overtake aerodromes at Booker and White Waltham?
    Mr. Marten: I do not know about White Waltham, but certainly we hope that Booker airfield will be developed as a civil aerodrome.
    Following are the details:

    AERODROMES LISTED IN "AIR PILOT" WHICH WERE CLOSED TO CIVIL FLIERS DURING THE PAST THREE YEARS

    Civil aerodromes

    Remarks

    Belfast (Nutts Corner).

    Now replaced by Aldergrove.

    Peterborough

    Alternatives are being found.

    Reading (Woodley)

    Another landing strip is being planned in the area.

    R.A.F. airfields

    Booker

    Will probably be developed as a civil aerodrome.

    Horsham St. Faith

    May be developed as a civil aerodrome.

    Duxford

    —

    Lyneham

    —

    Tangmere

    —

    Waterbeach

    —

    AERODROMES LISTED IN "AIR PILOT" WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO CIVIL FLIERS DURING THE PAST THREE YEARS

    Civil aerodromes

    Barrow in Furness

    Enniskillen (St. Angelo)

    Blackbushe

    Halfpenny Green

    Chalgrove

    Hucknall South

    Compton Abbas

    Nottingham (Tollerton)

    Dundee (Riverside Park)

    Shobdon

    Sunderland (Usworth)

    R.A.F. airfields

    Binbrook

    Northolt

    North Weald

    West Raynham

    R.A.F. (New Aircraft)
    Mr. McMasterasked the Minister of Aviation what is the average time taken between the formulation of a requirement for a new aircraft and the aircraft coming into service with the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. J. Amery: The times taken for typical aircraft now in service have ranged from 4½ years to 10½ years according to the nature of the requirement.
    Mr. McMaster: What is the Government's policy with respect to formulating requirements sufficiently far in advance that aircraft will be in service to meet the transport, and particularly the strategic transport, requirements of our Armed Forces?
    Mr. Amery: The Staffs try to look as far ahead as they can. Most of our transport requirements are met by adaptations from the civil field The freighting side is rather different, because civil freighting has not developed as far as many people had hoped. As my hon. Friend knows, both the Belfast and the HS 681 are being developed on a purely military basis.

    Short Brothers and Harland
    Mr. McMasterasked the Minister of Aviation if he will give the number of persons at present employed by Short Brothers and Harland; and what is the average number he estimates will be employed by the firm in each of the next five years.
    Mr. J. Amery: The number at present employed is about 7,300. As to the future level of employment, I have nothing to add to the statement which I made during the debate on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill on 19th March.
    Mr. McMaster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable apprehension in the firm about a serious run-down of employment in three or four years' time? What steps is he taking to place further orders with Short Bros. in order to prevent this run-down of employment and to maintain a balanced design and production unit in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Amery: I am, of course, aware of the different statements which have been made. It was my impression that the firm had gone back somewhat on one of the statements made which had caused some despondency. I stand by the earlier statement which I made that the figure of employment will not fall, we think, much below 6,000 for the rest of the decade.
    Mr. McMaster: Could the Minister be a little more specific in telling us what he means by "much below 6,000"?
    Mr. Amery: I should not like to be pressed into exact detail, but I should have thought within a few hundreds of 6,000.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the Minister bear in mind that there is a growing

    1069
    feeling in England, which I share, that it is time that the industrial parts of England received attention from the Government in matters of this kind?
    Mr. Amery: I fully see what the hon. Member means, but Northern Ireland has a very serious unemployment problem.
    Mr. Rankin: So has Scotland.
    Mr. Amery: The Northern Ireland problem is perhaps the most serious in the Kingdom at the moment, and we must pay some attention to it, even if it involves certain sacrifices.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. When the general conversation in the House has reached an end, I will call Mr. Pounder to ask the next Question.

    British European Airways (Buses)
    Mr. Pounder askedthe Minister of Aviation if he will give a general direction to British European Airways, in the public interest, to provide buses of about 20-seater capacity to connect with British European Airways domestic flights which will leave for the city terminal approximately five minutes after the flight arrival for the convenience of passengers travelling with cabin luggage only.
    Mr. Marten: No, Sir; the timing of these services and the type of vehicle used are management matters for which British European Airways are responsible.
    Mr. Pounder: Is my hon. Friend not aware that at London Airport, in particular, there is often a delay of 15 to 20 minutes between the arrival of the flight and the departure of the coach for the city terminus? Is he not aware that this is due to the time taken for luggage collection? Is he not aware that normally it takes two coaches to meet the requirements of each of these domestic flights? Will he consider using one of them for business men travelling with hand luggage only?
    Mr. Marten: Both these are questions of management for the airline and not questions on which I could agree to give a general direction, which is the subject of the Question on the Order Paper.

    Buses (Non-Smoking Accommodation)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of Aviation if he will give a general direction, in the public: interest, to the Air Corporations to provide nonsmoking accommodation on buses running between airports and air terminals.
    Mr. Marten: No, Sir. This is a matter within the Corporations' own sphere of judgment and responsibility.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: As my hon. Friend probably has a good deal of influence with the Corporations, will he not ask them to realise that before or after an air journey is about the last possible time that a non-smoker wants to be alongside a pipe, cigar or cigarette?
    Mr. Marten: My influence is probably no more than my hon. Friend's influence. B.E.A. certainly pay attention to the trends of public opinion in these matters. I can tell my hon. Friend that B.E.A. will shortly be having double-decker buses going out to the airport, and perhaps they might consider having the top deck for smokers and the bottom deck for non-smokers.
    Mr. Snow: Is the hon. Member aware that there is support in this matter from at least one hon. Member on this side of the House?
    Mr. Hilton: More than one.
    Mr. Snow: I said at least one. Is he aware that the public demand should be impressed upon the mind of the managements concerned?
    Mr. Marten: The Question raised in the House today and the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tam-worth (Mr. Snow) will make an impression upon the minds of B.E.A.
    Mr. Rankin: May I take it from what the Minister said that he is sympathetic to the idea that some attention ought to be paid to the non-smoker as well as the undeserved attention which is paid to the smoker? As he knows, I have tried on many occasions to get non-smoking arrangements on aircraft. Those attempts have been turned down. Does he hope to be more successful in his

    1071
    efforts to impress on B.E.A. the need to provide non-smoking accommodation at least on the buses?
    Mr. Marten: The second part of the supplementary question raises another question. I am always sympathetic with opinions of this nature expressed in the House.

    B.O.A.C. (VC 10 Aircraft)
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Minister of Aviation (1) what approval he has given for compensation to be paid for the cancellation of VC 10 aircraft by British Overseas Airways Corporation to the British Aircraft Corporation; and what is the amount per aircraft;
    (2) what liability Her Majesty's Government are accepting for compensation to the British Aircraft Corporation for the reduction of the British Overseas Airways Corporation's order.
    Mr. Diamondasked the Minister of Aviation how many VC 10 aircraft British Overseas Airways Corporation now propose to take out of the original order of 45.
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Aviation whether he will make a statement on the future VC 10 requirements of the British Overseas Airways Corporation.
    Mr. J. Silvermanasked the Minister of Aviation (1) if he will consult the Secretary of State for Defence with a view to diverting some of the 42 VC l0s ordered by the British Overseas Airways Corporation to the Royal Air Force;
    (2) if he will give an assurance that the unemployment position in Northern Ireland will be taken into account when considering the diversion of surplus British Overseas Airways Corporation VC l0s to the Royal Air Force as an alternative to ordering Belfast Freighters from Short Brothers and Harland Limited.
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Aviation how many VC 10 aircraft will now be required by the British Overseas Airways Corporation; and what financial arrangements will be made with regard to VC 10 aircraft ordered in excess of the Corporation's requirement.
    Mr. J. Amery: I have nothing to add to the Written Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house) on 13th May.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Minister aware that the reply which he gave before the Recess was quite inadequate in that all he said was that he was giving consideration to the Question? Is he prepared to deny that the original order which B.O.A.C. made for the VC 10 is being substantially reduced, and that the original order was made as a result of Ministerial direction? Arising out of this, what responsibility does the Minister accept for compensation to be paid to the manufacturers who are losing the order received originally from B.O.A.C.? Will he answer Question No. 8 on liability?
    Mr. Amery: The hon. Member is anticipating a number of matters. Had I been in a position either to confirm what he said or deny it, I should have done so. I have given the answer which I have given because all this is still under consideration in the Corporation and is a matter of discussion between the Corporation and my Department.
    Mr. Lee: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Sir Giles Guthrie has undertaken a route study and that, as a result of that study, we shall know whether there is to be cancellation of some VC l0s or whether some of the Boeings will go? Will the right hon. Gentleman say that he will undertake to let the House know the contents of Sir Giles Guthrie's Report and that he will make a statement in the House about it, and that within it we shall know whether compensation is to be paid and how many VC l0s are being laid off, in order that we may judge whether the compensation is fair?
    Mr. Amery: The hon. Member has asked a number of questions. Plainly we shall have to tell not only the House but the Corporation what Sir Giles intends. This is something which I shall have to tell the House when we deal with the accumulated deficit. But I hope to be able to make a statement well before that.
    Mr. Diamond: In these circumstances, is it not the case that we shall possibly be denied the opportunity of discussing

    1073
    the matter at all in this Parliament? Was that one of the elements entering into the consideration which the Minister has given to this matter—that this is the last Question Time when he will be top of the list before this Parliament ends?
    Mr. Amery: I am told that it is not the last occasion. It is possible that this consideration enters into the hon. Member's mind, but it does not enter into mine. Apart from that, I naturally wish, as I am sure does Sir Giles Guthrie, at the first opportunity to tell the House, the Corporation and the country what is intended.
    Mr. J. Silverman: When the Minister talks about telling the House at an early opportunity, will he give the House an assurance that he will make a full statement upon all the issues involved before the House rises for the August Recess? Will he then be able to tell us what consultations he has had with the Minister of Defence with respect to transferring some of these aircraft to the Royal Air Force, and other matters which I have raised in my Question?
    Mr. Amery: The hon. Member realises that it is not my task to decide the policy of the Corporation in these matters. I have to receive a recommendation from the Corporation. I hope that I shall be able to make a fairly early statement about it, but there are a number of considerations, some industrial, some affecting the Corporation, which the Government will want to consider in detail. Defence matters may be raised, as the hon. Member said. I cannot give an undertaking on when I shall make the statement, but I should like to make it as soon as possible, because there are a number of seriously interested parties who want to know.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: While appreciating that my right hon. Friend will need time to come to the right conclusion in this matter, can he in the meantime say whether or not the Government directed B.O.A.C. to order the number it ordered? This should be cleared up. In view of the importance of this whole matter, will my right hon. Friend consult the Leader of the House with a view to making a special statement, or perhaps having a short debate, because many millions of
    1074
    pounds are involved and this is a matter of debating a policy?
    Mr. Amery: I should have thought that we will be debating the questions and answers put by the Estimates Committee on Transport Aircraft—
    Mr. Stonehouse: Answer the question.
    Mr. Amery: This is the answer. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) asked whether I might arrange for a short debate to be held. That was the main point of his question and I was dealing with it first. I was saying that I should have thought that in the normal course of events, through the usual channels—although this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House rather than for me—the House would be likely to debate the position generally on the Report of the Estimates Committee on Transport Aircraft. That would enable hon. Members to discuss the whole question of Government policy and any suggestion of pressure, although I would deny that there had been any direct pressure.
    Mr. Lubbock: Will the Minister say whether or not an opportunity will occur for him to make a statement before the Summer Recess and that when Sir Giles reports to him that Report will be published in full and not as a bowdlerised version of it?
    Mr. Amery: I could not possibly give that assurance, because I do not know what that Report will contain or what sections of it Sir Giles will wish to keep confidential.
    . Mr. Diamondasked the Minister of Aviation whether he approved the cancellation of three VC10 aircraft, at a cost of £600,000, out of the original order of 45 by British Overseas Airways Corporation.
    Mr. J. Amery: In 1961 British Overseas Airways Corporation decided to alter the proportion of Standard and Super VC10 aircraft on order. At this time, with the agreement of the Ministry, it negotiated the cancellation of three standard aircraft in order to comply with my precedessor's stipulation that the estimated cost of the whole order should not be increased.
    Mr. Diamond: If, as I understand from the Minister's reply, the cost of cancellation in this case was £200,000 per aircraft, what credit is to be attached to the report that the figure being considered for cancellation in the new circumstances is £1½ million per aircraft, or seven times as much? Does not this question relate directly to the question which his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) asked about pressure being put to increase the number of aircraft ordered by B.O.A.C.?
    Mr. Amery: It is not my job to comment on reports in the Press about matters which are discussed between others. Even if I were a party to them, they are still very far from firm.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Aviation why British Overseas Airways Corporation ordered 20 more VC10 aircraft than their first estimate; and why an option for 10 aircraft was made into a binding contract.
    Mr. J. Amery: B.O.A.C.'s order in 1957 was for 35 Standard VC 10s. This was related to its estimated future requirements for southern and eastern routes. In 1960 it exercised an option to order 10 Super VC l0s for its transatlantic routes. To improve operating flexibility, these orders were revised in 1961 to 12 Standard and 30 modified Super VC 10s.
    Mr. Rankin: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that because he refused permission for B.O.A.C. to buy Boeing 707s but tied the Corporation to the VC 10 programme, which has now fallen into confusion and disarray as a result of the incompetence and incompetent handling of himself and those concerned with him, B.O.A.C. is now being compelled to use aircraft which it would normally be grounding—this at a time when the traffic figures of B.O.A.C. have enormously increased and the load factor is now 60 per cent. greater than a year ago? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the sooner he makes his long-delayed statement on the subject of aircraft procurement the better it will be for B.O.A.C., and when will he make that statement?
    Mr. Amery: I said earlier that I hoped to make a statement as early as possible, but I am sure that the hon. Member would not wish to stand here and give the impression that he was backing American
    1076
    aircraft against British aircraft. I am sure that he would not wish to give that impression.

    Aircraft Accidents (Compensation to Holidaymakers)
    Mr. Milneasked the Minister of Aviation if he will introduce legislation to provide for the payment of compensation to holidaymakers who are involved in aircraft accidents.
    Mr. Marten: The Carriage by Air Acts, 1932 to 1962, already provide for the payment of such compensation.
    Mr. Milne: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this does not go far enough, because an increasing number of aircraft are being pushed into service during the holiday period which places strains and stresses not only on aircraft personnel but on the aircraft themselves? Does he not agree that the people operating this highly lucrative industry should have greater responsibility to the people they are transporting?
    Mr. Marten: If the hon. Member is referring to the travel agents who organise this, then if they have a contractual relationship as principal with the passenger they, of course, have a liability.

    Staff Applicants (Educational Qualifications)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on the requirements relating to the educational qualifications of applicants for posts in his Department, with particular reference to the distinction he makes between candidates who have passed the 0 level in Scotland and the General Certificate of Education examination in England to the detriment of the former.
    Mr. Marten: Recruitment for the general service classes and Departmental grades in the Ministry of Aviation is generally carried out through the Civil Service Commission. Particulars of the educational qualifications required in each competition are given in the relevant competition regulations. I am satisfied that there is no discrimination between candidates who have passed the O level in Scotland and those who have passed the General Certificate of Education in England.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Parliamentary Secretary remember the case of the educated young Scottish lady about whom I wrote to him recently, a person who was suitable in every way for a post in his Department but who was rejected? Does he deny that she was rejected because she was Scottish and not English, and will he give up this racial discrimination?
    Mr. Marten:The is no racial discrimination in this, unless it be that the applicant had a number of 0 levels but did not have a pass in English, which she had to have.

    London Airport and Northolt (Identification)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Aviation if he will have the words "Northolt" and "Heathrow" painted on the tops of the gasholders near Northolt and London Airports so as to avoid confusion and possible accidents arising from the use of runway 26 at Northolt instead of runway 23 at Heathrow.
    Mr. Marten: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's suggestion and I am glad to say that the North Thames Gas Board is now painting distinguishing markings on the gasholders near Northolt and Heathrow Airports so that pilots of aircraft approaching Runway 26 at Northolt and Runway 23 at Heathrow shall not confuse them. A flight check has shown that marking on the sides of the gasholders are likely to be more effective than on the tops and that abbreviations of the names of the respective airports are more suitable than the names in full.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my hon. Friend express appreciation to the North Thames Gas Board for this, because it seems that this will get over the difficulty of pilots, such as the American Boeing pilot and the Lufthansa pilot, mistaking Northolt for Heathrow?
    Mr. Marten: I am grateful for those observations.

    Directorate of Technical Costs (Report)
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on the findings of the internal working party which was appointed to review the functions,
    1078
    methods of working, organisation and staffing of the Directorate of Technical Costs, and which has now reported.
    Mr. J. Amery: This working party has not yet reported.
    Mr. Lubbock: While the working party is considering these questions, has the Minister got nothing to say about the fact that people in the Technical Costs Department start at £712 per year and that less than half a dozen among the 300 employed in that Department have an engineering qualification? Does he not consider this an urgent enough matter on which to make a decision now?
    Mr. Amery: Although the hon. Member's observations might form part of a separate Question, it would, in any case, be inappropriate for me to deal with pay and salary scales and similar matters until we have received the report of the working party and, preferably, also the report of Sir John Lang.
    Mr. Diamond: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to receive those two reports?
    Mr. Amery: I cannot give a date when I will receive the internal departmental report. That is a departmental matter. There is a Question down about the Lang report with which I shall be dealing presently.

    B.O.A.C.-Cunard Limited
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Aviation what profits have accrued to British Overseas Airways Corporation as a result of their agreement with the Cunard Company.
    Mr. J. Amery: B.O.A.C.'s accounts for 1962ߝ63 show that from the inception of the company in June, 1962 to March, 1963, B.O.A.C.-Cunard Ltd. lost just over £1 million, of which B.O.A.C.'s share was £744,000. Although the accounts for 1963ߝ4 are not yet available, B.O.A.C. tells me that the results will show a marked improvement.
    Mr. Lee: The information we now have is that there will be a considerable profit during the current year. If that is so, can the right hon. Gentleman say how it will be divided? Is it within the agreement that shareholders of Cunard will receive dividends from the profits made

    1079
    by B.O.A.C.-Cunard, despite the fact that B.O.A.C., as such, is still many millions of £s in the red; in other words, that the nationalised sector will carry very heavy capital debts while shareholders from Cunard are bound to be given dividends as a result of the agreement?
    Mr. Amery: Losses or profits are shared between B.O.A.C. and Cunard in proportion to the capital invested by each in the company. Cunard has shared in the losses with B.O.A.C. over the last year; if there are profits, it will share the profits.
    Mr. Lee: I do not think the Minister understands the point. B.O.A.C. still carries a very heavy debt—the right hon. Gentleman has refused to write off £80 million. Within this, we have a small segment of B.O.A.C. that will be profitable. Do I take it that while B.O.A.C. still has to write off deficits B.O.A.C.-Cunard can pay dividends, or has to pay dividends, if there is a profit shown on the B.O.A.C.-Cunard side of the arrangement?
    Mr. Amery: That will be so, of course, but I am sure that the hon. Member would not want to question that. For example, B.O.A.C. has a number of other associated agreements with Cathay Pacific and others. If those were to be individually profitable, the hon. Gentleman would not wish those companies not to be paid a dividend because B.O.A.C. was not making a profit.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Should not one take a broad view of these matters? The fact that this joint enterprise is now showing a profit may to some extent be due to the organisation of Cunard in North America, which is throwing its weight into the sales organisation.
    Mr. Amery: I have no doubt that Cunard has helped considerably on the sales side and, by rationalising the competition previously existing, both associates have been made conjointly more successful than they would be in rivalry. Some of the associated companies have not been so successful, as I had to explain in the debate last autumn, but when we have a successful association, I should have thought that that the House would have been pleased about it.
    Mr. Paget: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the difference between rationalising competition and eliminating it?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Amery: Of course I shall answer. It is a perfectly understood principle of economic operation that very often economic forces join together for the development of a particular market against intensive foreign competition.

    V.T.O. Aircraft Engines
    Mr. Turnerasked the Minister of Aviation how many types of aircraft employ British designed and built vertical take-off engines.
    Mr. J. Amery: Apart from helicopters, four existing aircraft types are fitted with vertical take-off and landing engines of British design and manufacture—the British SC1 and P1127, the French Balzac and the German VJ101c.
    Aircraft under development which will be powered by British lift engines are the P1154, the Mirage III V and the experimental Dornier 31.
    Mr. Turner: In view of those encouraging facts, and the fact that complete and developed aircraft are the best way of promoting sales, can my right hon. Friend say that every possible stop is being pulled out—to use commercial jargon—to get these aircraft into the air so that customers overseas can see them and, possibly, buy them?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, indeed. The first four I mentioned are already flying—the SC1, the P1127, the Balzac and the VJ101c. Of these, the SC1, the Balzac and the German aeroplane are predominantly research aircraft. The P1127 could be an operational aircraft. The other three have not yet flown, but these will all feature one or other British vertical take-off techniques. I know of no vertical take-off technique of any other country that is being applied to any particular aeroplane.
    Mr. Cronin: Would not the export of vertical take-off aircraft have been encouraged if the right hon. Gentleman had not rejected the P1154 in favour of the American Phantom?
    Mr. Amery: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence has specifically adopted the P1154 for the Royal Air Force. The only question that faced us was whether to develop a second version of the P1154 for the Royal Navy. To have done so would, on our best estimate, have added a formidable bill—over £100 million—to what would have to be spent if we bought from overseas the relatively small number of aircraft required. That is why we have been investigating the possibility of buying the Phantom aircraft from the United States to meet the Royal Navy, as distinct from the Royal Air Force, requirement. Tests on this are still going on, but the Royal Air Force requirement will be met by the P1154.
    Mr. McMaster: Can my right hon. Friend say what further research and development is being undertaken in this country into the Rolls-Royce multi-jet vertical take-off and landing system? is it not a shame that the "know-how" in this important field should be lost to French and German interests?
    Mr. Amery: I do not think that the "know-how" is being lost. Apart from the British SC1, the German experimental Dornier 31 is the subject of a joint study which is being undertaken between Hawker Siddeley and Dornier with British engines. Our own view, which must be tentative at the moment, is that the Rolls-Royce concept is better suited to transport aircraft than to combat aircraft, where the minimisation of weight is the most important consideration.

    Exports
    Sir A. V. Harveyasked the Minister of Aviation if he will state the volume of aircraft, aero-engines, guided weapons and electronic equipment exported since 1959.
    Mr. J. Amery: In the period 1959 to 1963, total exports of aircraft, aero-engines, guided weapons and parts of these equipments, together with complete electronic equipments, were valued at £840 million, or an annual average of £168 million. During this period, exports of aero-engines and parts of aircraft and engines slowed a substantial rise.
    Exports of complete electronic equipments have increased each year
    1082
    since 1960. It is estimated that in 1964, total exports will maintain the 1959–63 average, but next year should see a substantial increase, as large export orders for the latest: types of aircraft and guided weapons are then programmed for delivery.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a very fine achievement by the British Aircraft industry, and does he think that those figures could be sustained if our aircraft industry were nationalised? Further, what steps are the Government taking to deal with American competition in the N.A.T.O. countries, where more orders should be forthcoming?
    Mr. Amery: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that this is a creditable achievement. I think that it gives the lie to the persistent efforts of some hon. Members opposite to "knock" the efforts of tie British aircraft industry. We are doing our very best in N.A.T.O. and outside to support and encourage the export of British equipments. We face very serious competition, particularly from the United States We are doing our best to meet it, and meet it on the same terms
    Mr Lee: Can the Minister say who are the "hon Members opposite" who have been trying to "knock" the aircraft industry? Would he agree that in the years concerned in this Question there has been a rather disappointing response in the export of airframes—that, indeed, we owe a great deal to the export of aero engines and pay tribute to the firms concerned, but that if this complacent attitude towards airframes is to be adopted, when, in fact, exports are not increasing as they should, we cannot expect to get an adequate return on the great public expense incurred? As to nationalisation, to which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) referred, perhaps the Minister can tell him that 75 per cent of the French aircraft industry, which has a far better export record than we have, is nationalised?
    Mr. Amery: Am I to interpret the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question as an argument in favour of nationalisation? If so, I am grateful to him, and we shall proceed on the assumption that that is what he

    1083
    is maintaining. When the hon. Gentleman asks who has been "knocking" the industry, I would say that the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) himself has been fairly prominent in doing this, and even more prominent—though he is not here at the moment, and I have not been able to give him notice that I would mention this—is the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who never stops knocking the TSR2 and every other serious project on which we embark. It would not, I think, be difficult to find a list of substantial quotations from other hon. Members opposite. The right hon Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition himself has probably prejudiced the export of a substantial amount of equipment, particularly in regard to the Buccaneer aeroplane.
    Mr. G. Brown: Does the Minister realise that there is a great difference between criticising, as is our right and duty, doubtful aspects of Government policy and being accused of "knocking" the industry? Is he aware that if he talks to any leading manufacturer in the industry he will find that he himself is the man whom they regard as the one who has done the most damage?
    Mr. Dudley Williams: Who says it? Who is he?
    Mr. Amery: I am in pretty regular contact with the leaders of the industry. It is possible that they are very diplomatic because they are sure that we are going to win the next election, but they certainly do not speak in the kind of terms which the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has suggested. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there could be and should be a difference between legitimate criticism and knocking, but I fail to notice the distinction in the spokesmen of the party opposite.

    Heathrow and Gatwick
    Sir A. V. Harveyasked the Minister of Aviation what plans he has for the future development of Heathrow and Gatwick.
    Mr. Marten: Our policy is to develop both airports to their fullest capacity. We reckon that a third airport for London will be required in the early 1970s. The plans for Heathrow involve the construction
    1084
    of piers from the passenger buildings, a second short-haul passenger terminal, a new freight area, runway extensions, additional car parking facilities and the redevelopment of the Bath Road frontage. At Gatwick we are doubling the size of the terminal building and extending the runway. Our plans for Gatwick include the construction of an office block over the terminal building, apron and car park extensions, a second runway and a second maintenance area.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: While appreciating that the long-term plans will go a considerable way to meet the widespread dissatisfaction about the amenities at London Airport, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he will take into account that this year they are considerably worse than last year—the congestion and lack of space and capacities? Will my hon. Friend take remedial action right away to give passengers at London Airport the reasonable services which they are not getting at the moment?
    Mr. Marten: We constantly have this question under review and I go to London Airport from time to time to look at these matters; but it is true to say that the number of people going through London Airport increases greatly each year.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether plans for developments include the provision of retractable gangways such as have been in operation in American airports for a number of years?
    Mr. Marten: If the hon. Member is referring to the aero-bridge which joins the aeroplane to the pier, that is a question for the airlines. I understand that B.O.A.C., for example, hopes to bring these into operation as soon as possible.
    Mr. Doughty: When will the new runway be completed, and will it enable four-engined jet aircraft to take off fully loaded?
    Mr. Marten: I cannot give the completion date. The plans have not been finalised, but I imagine that when they are the runway will cater for modern jets to take off fully loaded.

    Eagle Airways
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Aviation to what extent British European Airways in appealing against the decision of the Air Transport Licensing Board regarding the air service licence granted to Eagle Airways for the Glasgow route based their appeal on Section 2(2,c) of the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, 1960; and what inquiries he made about the terms and conditions of service of the employees of Eagle Airways.
    Mr. J. Amery: This was not an issue in the appeal and so I had no occasion to make any such inquiries.
    Mr. Rankin: Is not it the case that Section 2(2,c), which I mention in the Question, lays on the Board the need to consider whether an applicant takes unfair advantage over other operators? Has the right hon. Gentleman looked into the terms and conditions of employment of pilots in B.E.A. as compared with those employed by Eagle Airways? Is he aware that the senior pilots of B.E.A. are paid £1,000 a year more than those of Eagle Airways, and that the flying hours and duty hours of B.E.A. are much shorter than those of Eagle Airways? Does not the Minister realise that this is a case of defying the conditions of the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act? Can he say whether or not the Air Transport Licensing Board took into consideration these facts when it granted Eagle Airways permission to fly between London and Glasgow?
    Mr. Amery: I am sure that this matter has been considered very carefully. In licensing Eagle Airways on this route in 1961 the Board said that it was satisfied that Eagle Airways was complying with the criteria in Section 2(2,a-c). In appealing in December, 1961, against the licensing of Eagle Airways on this route, B.E.A. did not quote Section 2(2,c) among its grounds of appeal and, therefore, the matter has not been formally presented to me. It is significant that the Board said that Eagle Airways was complying with the criteria when the Board made its decision and that B.E.A. did not quote these arguments in its appeal against Eagle Airways. After all, those are the two parties principally concerned.

    Ferranti Limited
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Aviation when he now expects to receive the report of Sir John Lang's Committee on the Ferranti Bloodhound contract; and when it will be published.
    Mr. J. Amery: Sir John Lang has been pressed to produce his report as soon as possible. While accepting the need for speed, he has stated that it will not be possible to make the first part of the report, which deals with the Ferranti profit, available to the Government before the second half of July. It will then be published as soon as possible. The second part of the report, on organisation and procedure, will not be available until later this year.
    Mr. Allaun: As this Parliament ends for good next month, may I ask whether this means that there will be no possibility of the House discussing the Lang report: Will the Minister be prepared to accept the long-standing Parliamentary position that the Minister bears responsibility for what goes seriously wrong in his Department? Lastly, since the Lang investigations started, has Ferranti made any offer to repay the excessive profit?
    Mr. Amery: The hon. Member has asked a number of questions. I hope and believe that it will be possible for the House to have the Lang report before the House rises. I had undertaken to the House that Sir John would make it available by June but this was before Ferranti agreed to open all its papers to Sir John. The bulk of these is pretty considerable. It will, therefore, take slightly longer than I thought, but I still hope that it will be possible for the House to have the report before we rise, and this should give some opportunity for discussion of it. The other part of the hon. Member's supplementary question would best form the subject matter of a separate Question.
    Mr. Diamond: Is not it the case that the new information which will be made available to the Lang Committee, and which will be helpful to that Committee and in due course helpful to the House, is additional to the information which

    1087
    was first expected to come from that Committee? Is not it the case that the Committee is concerned with matters within the Ministry and not specifically with the precise £ s. d. of the profits of an individual company? Would it not, therefore, be beneficial to the House to be told in an interim report whether the Ministry Department over which the present Minister has control has carried out its duties efficiently or not?
    Mr. Amery: I should have thought that the hon. Member, for whom I have the greatest respect, is misrepresenting the wishes of the House in this matter. I thought that the first thing that the House wanted to get down to was how the Ferranti profit arose, what went wrong, and an analysis of this particular case. Obviously we are all very concerned whether there are some general lessons to be learned from this, but I thought that the first thing with which we were all concerned, and certainly about which the Government were most concerned, was to find out what happened in this particular case. That is why I was so very anxious to get Ferranti to show all its papers to Sir John Lang. I had hoped at the time of the recent debate that when I was able to assure the House that Sir John Lang would have all the papers the anxieties that remained in the minds of hon. Members opposite would be at least postponed until that inquiry was completed. At least some hon. Members felt that Sir John's report would not be worth much unless he had access to all the books. Now that he is to have access I should have thought that his report on Ferranti would be of the very greatest value. The other matters are of equal importance but of a long-term character and in no way affecting the credit of the Government.

    Blue Streak (Launching Project)
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on the launching of Blue Streak from Woomera; and if he will indicate his further plans with regard to this project.
    Mr. J. Amery: The E.L.D.O. Convention came into force on 29th February, 1964, but since November 1961 an agreed programme of work has been in progress in member countries.
    1088
    A first attempt to fire the Blue Streak was made on Monday last week but was frustrated by weather. A second attempt on the Thursday had to be postponed because of a minor defect in an electronic component. By the time this was repaired, the weather had again deteriorated. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Do not knock the project.
    A third attempt was made yesterday, at which I was present. The count-down went satisfactorily to within three seconds of launch, when a negative signal on the checking-out system brought the firing to a halt. It has now been definitely established that automatic stop action was initiated by check-out equipment when one of the break-up system receivers, which is located on the far side of the rocket from the ground transmitter, ceased to indicate required response to transmissions. As examination has revealed no faults in either ground or rocket equipment, the authorities at Woomera have come to the conclusion that this receiver dropped out owing to fall in signal strength caused by irregular transmission conditions which are known technically as anomalous propagation. There is evidence in support of this view from the behaviour of other equipment. Steps are being taken to ensure that such effects on the receiver in question will not again cause stop. The next firing attempt is planned for Friday, 5th June, that is, Friday this week.
    The first firing of the complete rocket is scheduled for the autumn of 1966.
    Mr. Cronin: Are not these technical delays rather disappointing, after the expenditure of £100 million and years of work on the project? Is not the Minister aware that there is widespread disappointment among British scientists that it is not a purely British launcher development? Is he delaying and restraining British scientific effort in this respect purely to ingratiate himself with the Common Market countries?
    Mr. Amery: In suggesting that we should be worried about these postponements, the hon. Gentleman entirely misunderstands the nature of rocket development. The Black Knight programme, about which a great deal less has been said, encountered a great many difficulties of this kind. The first two Atlases blew

    1089
    up on the pad in the United States, and so did the first Thor. The kind of difficulties we have encountered so far have been weather for the best part of last week and two minor defects in the electronic components. There has been no question of any failure of the test, and I am personally confident that the test will show, and show quite soon, that the Hawker Siddeley-Rolls Royce designs are valid and that the telemetric and radar observation facilities at Woomera are valid.
    The hon. Gentleman will realise that one of the reasons why the rocket has not been launched over the past weeks is not that it could not be but that, with the cloud cover as it was, it was not possible to follow the rocket in all its phases, and the value of the test would be greatly reduced unless we had absolutely clear sky for the occasion. We had absolutely clear sky yesterday. I was there. We thought that it would go off, and the test went down to 3 seconds count-down, but, as I have said, a minor electronic defect postponed it. I know of no basic reason why it should not work next week, but time alone will show whether I am right or not.
    As to the morale of our scientists, I was with them on the spot yesterday. It remains extremely high.
    Mr. Shinwell: May we have an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman is not to pay a second visit to Woomera? At the same time, will he inform the House—this is very important—what was the cost of his visit to Woomera and how long he remained there? Will he also inform the House what this device is intended to achieve? Is it to be part of the British independent nuclear deterrent, or what is its purpose? Is it not, in fact, going to prove just a white elephant?
    Mr. Amery: My visit to Woomera, which was, indeed, long overdue—I tried to go there a year ago—was only a part of a visit I was paying to my colleague Mr. Alan Fairhall, the Australian Minister of Supply, many of whose functions overlap with mine. I took the occasion to go to Woomera. I heard that the launch was likely to take place, so I tried to be present at it.
    As to the incidental expense of my additional time at Woomera, I cannot measure this at the moment, but it would be very small.
    1090
    As to the purpose of Blue Streak, the concept is that, together with our French, German, Dutch, Belgian, Italian and Australian friends, we should be able to put a payload into orbit for commercial or scientific purposes, as may seem best to the Governments concerned. What we are trying to do at the moment is to develop the launcher. Blue Streak is to be the first stage of this launcher, and the Woomera range, with all the facilities built up by Australia and Britain over the last 12 years and more, is to be the essential testing ground for this experiment.

    B.O.A.C. (Trooping Contracts)
    Dr. Brayasked the Minister of Aviation if he will allow the British Overseas Airways Corporation to submit tenders for trooping contracts.
    Mr. Marten: My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the reply to the Question by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) on 15th April, 1964.
    Dr. Bray: Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that this is an aspect of airline operation which needs rationalisation? Does he think it sensible for B.O.A.C. to be flying planes only half full over routes for which trooping contracts are being let but for which it is not allowed to tender?
    Mr. Marten: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to ad hoc trooping rather than long-term trooping contracts. The value of ad hoc trooping work is by no means negligible to B.O.A.C., and I understand that, over the past 12 months, B.O.A.C. has secured contracts of this kind worth the best part of £1 million.
    Mr. Lee: Is not this as disgraceful as the Minister of Transport's attitude in refusing to allow British Railways to tender for trucks and other things? We are not asking for a monopoly of this kind of work for the nationalised Corporations, but is not the hon. Gentleman aware that, where large amounts of public money are involved, it is right and proper that the two Corporations should have the right to tender along with the independent aircraft operators? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to stop "knocking" the nationalised Air Corporations to the tune of hundreds of thousands of £s of public money?
    Mr. Marten: There is no question of "knocking" here. As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, this goes back in history to the Civil Aviation Licensing Act. The independents attach great importance to these trooping contracts and, until they have gained enough in the way of licensing under the Civil Aviation Licensing Act, we cannot justify a change in the present trooping arrangements. But my right hon. Friend has the matter constantly under review.

    Civil Aircraft Projects
    Dr. Brayasked the Minister of Aviation what is now the policy of his Department towards the manufacture of civil aircraft primarily for a British specification rather than for a world market.
    Mr. Marten: Under the policy announced in February 1960, the Government are willing to consider affording financial support for promising civil aircraft projects. In considering applications, full account is taken of the export potential of the projects as well as the extent to which they meet domestic requirements.
    Dr. Bray: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the experience with the VC 10 suggests that the initial specification for an aircraft needs very careful watching in relation to world markets and that any pressure by the Government on the aircraft industry to manufacture to a purely British specification would in the future be a mistake?
    Mr. Marten: It is too early to judge as regards the VC 10, until we have seen it in airline service for a little while, when, I hope, orders will come in.
    Mr. Cronin: Could not the Government give the British aircraft industry much more help in the export market if they extended more credit facilities to it?
    Mr. Marten: The Government, in principle, match the credit facilities of foreign countries in exports.
    Mr. Lubbock: From his recent visit to the Biggin Hill Air Fair, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the efforts being made by Beagle Aircraft to sell its very promising light aircraft in export markets. Could the hon. Gentleman say what help has been given by the Government to this project?
    Mr. Marten: The R.A.F. has purchased 20 Beagle 206 aircraft, which I think has been a great help in getting the 206 off the ground. I know that Beagle Aircraft is making a very determined effort to sell this splendid little machine overseas.

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
    Brucellosis
    Mr. Farr: The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) has asked me to give notice that on Friday, 19th June, he will call attention to the problems of brucellosis, and move a Resolution.
    Automation
    Mr. Hiley: On behalf of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran), I beg to give notice that on Friday, 19th June, he will call attention to the problems and opportunities of automation, and move a Resolution.
    Property-Owning Democracy
    Mr. Graham Page: I myself beg to give notice that on Friday, 19th June, I shall call attention to the rapid progress made towards the aim of a property-owning democracy, and move a Resolution.
BILLS PRESENTED
  FISHERY LIMITS
  Bill to extend the British fishery limits and amend the definition of "sea-fishing" in the Sea Fisheries Act 1883; presented by Mr. Christopher Soames; supported by Mr. Brooke, Mr. Noble, the Attorney-General, Mr. Peter Thomas, and Mr. James Scott-Hopkins; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 151.]
  AREAS OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST
  Bill to make provision for the better protection of areas of special scientific interest; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Marcus Kimball; supported by Sir Jocelyn Lucas, Mr. Prior, Mr. Vane, Mr. John Biffen, Mr. Timothy Kitson, Mr. Angus Maude, Sir James Duncan, Mrs. Evelyn Emmet, Mr. Ian Gilmour, Mr. John Farr, and Mr. Alan Brown; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 12th June, and to be printed. [Bill 152.]

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (MEMBERSHIP OF TRADE UNIONS)
3.33 p.m.
Mr. John Diamond: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to invalidate rules of friendly societies discriminating against membership of trade unions.
I hope that the House will not think me presumptuous in asking for a facility which I have been accorded on two previous occasions, namely, permission to introduce a Bill dealing with a matter which. I believe, has the sympathy of both sides of the House—the important principle of the liberty of the subject and, in particular, the liberty of an individual to join a trade union of his choice.
I want to make it clear that I have an interest in this matter as a member of a trade union—the Association of Supervisory Staffs, Executives and Technicians. This is the union particularly affected by the Bill which I seek leave to introduce. I further hope that, inasmuch as there are members of this union on both sides of the House, I shall receive this courtesy, particularly because the Prime Minister has been good enough to write a letter, to which I will refer shortly, supporting this general principle.
Supposing that we were in a situation in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) found himself unable to resist the demand of the people that he should take over this distinguished office, there is no reason to believe that he would be less sympathetic, since he, too, is a member of the same union.
The purpose of the proposed Bill is simply to invalidate any rule in a friendly society which makes it impossible for a member of that society to join a trade union of his choice. Since there is only one friendly society of which I know which incorporates such a rule, it follows that I should describe the society in some detail. It is known as the Foremen and Staff Mutual Benefit Society. It was established in 1899 as a friendly society to provide sick benefits and pensions for its members. There are two classes of member—one the employer and the other the employee, being a foreman or a person
1094
holding a position of trust or employed on the management, or in a technical office or commercial capacity. These are the kinds of employments referred to.
If this friendly society were acting as a friendly society pure and simple, I should not be troubling the House. But this is not the case, because the society provides in its rules that a member who joins a trade union shall automatically cease to be a member of the society, or, alternatively, shall not be allowed to join a trade union, and once he ceases to be a member of the society all benefits are lost—not only the contributions made by the employer, but the contributions made by the employee. This is a severe deterrent, or, if one wishes a stronger word, open blackmail, against any supervisory staff wishing to join a trade union.
Had this occurred in 1899, one might have understood it, but the particular offending rile was amended last year, in 1963, when it was brought up to date under an executive council recommendation for
"a strengthening of the trade union rules."
As I have indicated, this provided that any ordinary member—that is, a supervisory employee—who, after admission to the society, joins a trade union
"shall immediately resign from the Society."
and that he shall
"cease to have any claim on the funds of the Society either by way of benefits or return of contributions or premiums or any part thereof or otherwise,"
and he shall be liable to expulsion from the society.
This is obviously a grave offence against the liberty of the subject in a matter which we all hold very dear. At present, when certain law cases are being considered, people feel particularly sensitive about this matter. It is not surprising, therefore, that the secretary of my union, A.S.S.E.T., wrote to the Prime Minister drawing his attention to the situation and received the following extremely helpful reply from 10, Downing Street, dated 22nd April.
I omit the first paragraph, which is purely introductory. The second paragraph reads:
"The Government attach great importance to the principle that workers should be free

1095
to join trade unions. They apply this principle in relation to their own employees. The principle is also applied to employment on Government contract by Clause 4 of the Fair Wages Resolution which provides that contractors must"—
and I repeat "must"—
"recognise the right of their workpeople to be members of a trade union. As you know, the Resolution lays down that any question whether the requirements of the Resolution are being observed must be referred to an independent tribunal if it cannot be disposed of in other ways "
We have, therefore, the most authoritative statement from the Prime Minister's office on policy and providing for the method of solving the problem of disposing of a complaint, namely, by reference to an independent tribunal.
However, I now wish to refer to a report in The Times dated 20th April, 1964. A reference by the Ministry of Labour of just such a dispute was made to a tribunal, namely, the Industrial Court, and, unfortunately, the right of the Industrial Court to settle the problem was challenged by the respondent, that is, the employer in question. The reference had been made by the Minister of Labour and the firm in question denied the right of the Court to settle the dispute.
Therefore, we are in the situation that the Prime Minister has said that Government policy is to give freedom to any employee to join a trade union but that
1096
there is an organisation which prevents a man in a supervisory capacity joining a union. The machinery under the Fair Wages Contract, which is a Government document, has been denied and the Court has not come to a conclusion about it. Therefore, one must find some other solution, and the only other solution is to provide by means of a one-Clause Bill that any friendly society which incorporates in its rules a clause to the effect that a member shall not join a union—or, to be more precise, that if he joins a union, he will lose all the benefits which he would otherwise have enjoyed, which comes to the same thing—should be invalidated.
I seek the leave of the House to bring in a short Bill which will have that effect.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Diamond, Mr. J. Silverman, Mr. H. Butler, Mr. Rankin, Mr. Malcolm MacMillan, Mr. Parkin, Mr. Swingler, Mr. Stonehouse, and Mr. Ledger.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (MEMBERSHIP OF TRADE UNIONS)
Bill to invalidate rules of friendly societies discriminating against membership of trade unions, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 12th June, and to be printed [Bill 153].
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EMERGENCY LAWS (RE-ENACTMENTS AND REPEALS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.42 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Green): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The main significance of the Bill lies in the fact that it brings to an end the last few of the Defence Regulations as such. It is only a few months short of 25 years since both Houses of Parliament, on 24th August, 1939, passed within the space of a few hours all stages of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act. That was the Act under which the Defence Regulations were made and which gave the Government the widest possible powers over almost every aspect of the life of the country.
  The other day, I looked at the volume of the Defence (General) Regulations—which is the largest and the principal series of Defence Regulations—as they stood in the middle of the war at March, 1943, and I noticed that they ran to well over 300 pages of print. The Defence Regulations themselves were, of course, only the beginning of that story. The Statutory Rules and Orders which were issued under Defence Regulations and other emergency powers were vastly more numerous. Those issued in 1943 alone made a printed volume of over 2,000 pages. This remarkable chapter in our legislative history is coming to an end.
  Hon. Members may remember, in broad outline if not in detail, the course of events since the end of the war. After V.E. day, quite a large proportion of the Defence Regulations were revoked within a matter of months, but many of the widest and most important Regulations were continued in force by the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, and by the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946.
  The purposes for which Defence Regulations might be used were extended by the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Act, 1947, to cover the peacetime economic needs of the country as judged by the Government of the day.
  1098
  The statutes provided for the life of the Defence Regulations to extend to December, 1950. and thereafter for further periods of not more than one year at a time by Order in Council.
  Within this statutory framework, there has been over the past 15 years a vast reduction in the number of controls and orders of all sorts, a process which, it is only fair to say, was begun by the party opposite and which we accelerated after 1951 as the economy gained strength.
  It may be remembered that in 1958 we undertook a thorough review of the whole subject and we set out the results in detail in a White Paper, Cmnd. 563. We decided that the time had come to sweep away the emergency legislation—that is to say, the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, and, with minor exceptions, the Acts of 1945 to 1947, to which I have referred. We undertook instead to provide fresh legislative authority far such powers as were still required and to put a strict limit on their use.
  There were at that time 13 substantive Defence Regulations still in force. We decided that five of them could best be embodied in separate legislation, that three could lapse without replacement and that the other five, to whose contents I will come presently, should be retained for a further limited period. Our proposals for this purpose were presented to the House in November, 1958, in the Bill which became the Emergency Laws (Repeal) Act, 1959.
  In addition to continuing those five Defence Regulations, the 1959 Act continued in force certain temporary powers which had been conferred upon the Ministry of Supply—powers, for example, to produce articles required for the defence of Commonwealth countries and power, which had later been transferred to the Board of Trade, to trade in jute and jute products. The Act also covered the powers under the Ships and Aircraft (Transfer Restriction Act), 1939, to control the transfer or mortgage of British ships in the interests of national defence.
  The life of the 1959 Act was limited to five years. As a result, it is due to expire on 31st December next. We have accordingly been considering which, if any, of these various powers should be allowed to lapse and which need to

  1099
  be continued either permanently or for a further limited period. We have regarded the question throughout as a practical one and not one which could sensibly be approached in any doctrinaire spirit. We have examined each case on its merits and considered whether the retention of the powers in question could properly be regarded as necessary in present-day conditions.
  We came to the conclusion that there was one power, potentially a very wide one, which it would be right to allow to lapse at the end of this year. That is the power under Defence Regulation 55 and 55AB under which the Government can control the price and supply of any article if a shortage has arisen, or is expected to arise as a result of an emergency overseas and if that shortage is such as to threaten either our national defence or the welfare of the community.
  We are not proposing to give up these powers without putting anything in their place. In a country as dependent as ours upon imported fuel, food and raw materials, that might be rash. The House will remember that we are awaiting Royal Assent to a Bill, which we considered a few weeks ago, to amend the Emergency Powers Act, 1920. This will enable the Government of the day to control the supply and distribution of food, fuel, light and other necessities in the event of an emergency arising, whether at home or overseas, which is likely to deprive the community of the main essentials of life.
  These powers are less widely drawn than in the existing Defence Regulation powers and Parliament is given greater control over their use, as is clearly right in peace-time conditions. We think, however, that these new powers go as far as is necessary in practice or as could be justified in permanent legislation.
  The Emergency Powers Bill to which I have referred deals also with another of the Defence Regulations powers which has been continued for five years by the 1959 Act. This was the power under Defence (Armed Forces) Regulation 6 to employ troops on agricultural or other urgent work of national importance. It is now being made permanent.
  There was one other set of powers continued under the 1959 Act which we
  1100
  thought could be dealt with most appropriately in separate legislation. This is the group of powers, which I mentioned earlier, originally conferred on the Minister of Supply, and now on the Minister of Aviation, and they relate to the supply of defence materials and experimental work. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation is at present considering which of these powers he should ask Parliament to continue, and he will be putting his proposals to the House shortly.
  For the rest, we thought that it would be most convenient to present our proposals relating to these various powers in a single Bill, despite the fact that several of my right hon. Friends are concerned. The alternative course of putting forward ten or so short, separate Bills would, I think, have been somewhat confusing, and it would have meant a good deal of duplication of effort since many of the ancillary provisions are common to most or all of the different powers. The House will have observed that we have spelled out the powers afresh and have not sought to retain them by reference to preceding Acts.
  This brings me to the content of the Bill. There is a general point which I should explain: in no place have we added to or widened the existing statutory powers. In every case we have either retained them as they stand at present or have restricted them.
  Clause 1 continues the Government's power to regulate the terms of hire-purchase and credit-sale agreements as one means of restricting the growth of excessive credit in the economy. As hon. Members know, the control operates in practice on the size of the down payment and on the period allowed for payment of the balance. Except for intervals in 1954 and 1958, the control has been imposed since 1952 with varying degrees of severity, dependent on the economic situation.
  It is an essential requirement of the Government's economic policy that the rate at which total demand grows should be containable within fairly narrow limits. Demand must be allowed to grow fast enough to maintain a high level of employment but not so fast that the value of the currency at home or abroad is put in danger. The ability to forecast and

  1101
  diagnose current trends has been improving in recent years, but we cannot ignore the possibility that, to keep demand under adequate control, measures may sometimes have to be taken quickly, possibly on a substantial scale, between Budgets.
  Moreover, even if the growth of demand could be counted on to remain within the range which is safe under normal conditions, it is always possible that unforeseen events at home or overseas may on, occasion require rapid action. Hire-purchase control, of course, is only one of the ways in which the Government can regulate demand. But monetary measures tend to be slow working, and fiscal measures are not always sufficiently flexible.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer fully recognises that hire-purchase controls have certain disadvantages. But they possess the important advantages that they can be used at any time and have a quick effect on demand. For these reasons, we regard the power to control hire-purchase terms as an important weapon in our economic armoury, and we propose that the statutory provisions should be made permanent.
  Clause 2 continues certain exchange control powers which experience shows are needed to complete the powers available under the Exchange Control Act, 1947. The additional powers are needed to prevent what could become an unacceptable loss to the foreign currency and gold reserves of the United Kingdom.
  The Exchange Control Act provides virtually no powers to control transactions within the sterling area, and the control which it gives over assets in the United Kingdom held by residents outside the sterling area does not cover gold or Treasury bills. The existing powers used for this purpose depend upon Defence (Finance) Regulation 2A, which makes no distinction between countries in the sterling area and others. Clause 2 makes these powers permanent.
  The power to control Treasury bills and gold held by residents of countries outside the sterling area is not currently being used, but is needed in order to be able to block such assets quickly in emergencies. It is desirable that such power should continue to be available without having to call on special emergency legislation.
  1102
  Powers to control transactions within the sterling area are at present used in two ways. First, the existence of a free currency market in Hong Kong makes it necessary to regulate the use in the United Kingdom of Hong Kong assets. A direction was made in 1950 for this purpose. These assets may be used for ordinary day-to-day trading, but the control prevents their use for irregular arbitrage transactions. Secondly, since 1957 the disposal in the United Kingdom of foreign currency securities by residents in other sterling area countries has been controlled. This effectively prevents a loss to the reserves from the acquisition of foreign currency securities through the free markets in certain sterling area countries.
  Clause 3 has two main and closely related purposes. Subsection (1) gives the Board of Trade certain of the powers needed to prevent the supply to the U.S.S.R., China and other Communist countries of strategic goods and materials. Our international obligations require us, in our own interests and those of our allies, to prevent these goods from reaching such countries. The export of strategic goods from the United Kingdom is controlled by the Board of Trade using powers under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act, 1939.
  But these powers are not in themselves sufficient to enable us to carry out our international obligations. Besides controlling the supply of strategic equipment to Communist countries from the United Kingdom, it is also necessary to prevent the sale to these countries of strategic goods located in third countries.
  In addition, to complete the international control system the Board of Trade issue import certificates which enable other participating countries to permit the export of strategic goods to the United Kingdom with the assurance that the goods will not be transshipped or re-exported by the British buyer to a forbidden destination. The Clause will enable the Board of Trade to continue to exercise those powers which are at present exercised under Defence Regulation 55(1)(a)
  Subsection (2) gives my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport power to prevent the building for foreign

  1103
  owners of ships which are either embargoed under agreements made by the Government or which are of a type which in the interests of defence policy at the time should not pass into the possession of a particular foreign Power. The particular types of vessel to which the latter restriction will apply will vary with circumstances and cannot be defined in advance. The powers are exercised by means of a licensing system. Shipbuilders are given general licences to build all kinds of vessels for United Kingdom and Commonwealth owners. Only when they wish to build a ship of 100 gross tons or over for a foreign Power do they have to obtain an individual licence. It is a system which I understand, in practice, causes little trouble to shipbuilders.
  One hesitates to assume that the powers given by this Clause will be wanted in perpetuity. On the other hand, we must keep—and show that we are keeping—the powers necessary to carry out our international obligations. For this reason, subsections (4) and (5) provide that these powers shall initially continue in force for five years and that subsequently they shall be renewable for further periods of up to five years by Order in Council, subject to affirmative Resolution of both Houses.
  Clause 4 makes permanent the present powers under which my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and Secretary of State for Scotland by means of Orders provide a welfare foods service for the benefit of mothers and young children in Great Britain. Originally introduced as an emergency service in war-time, the scheme continued after the end of the war and has become part of the normal welfare services for mothers and young children.
  Under the scheme, as the House knows, expectant or nursing mothers and children up to 5 can get one pint of milk a day, liquid or dried, at a reduced price. In addition, they can buy concentrated orange juice, cod liver oil and vitamin tablets at roughly cost price. Mothers and children of families in need can get tokens entitling them to milk and other welfare foods free. I doubt whether there is any Member of the House who will not agree that it is right
  1104
  to regard this as a proper normal peace-time service, and that it is, therefore, right to put the necessary statutory powers on a permanent basis.
  Clause 5 confers permanent powers on my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland to control the maximum prices of medical supplies required for the purposes of the National Health Service Acts and to obtain information that they may require for this purpose from firms concerned with such supplies. These powers are necessary in those circumstances which arise in the National Health Service where the Health Departments are not the direct purchasers of medical supplies, but their cost is, nevertheless, borne from moneys voted by this House. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has a great deal of experience looking into these matters.
  For example, drugs are prescribed by family doctors and dispensed by chemists under the National Health Service who are then reimbursed by the Exchequer. The maximum prices charged to chemists by their suppliers are regulated by the Voluntary Price Regulation Scheme agreed with the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry, but this voluntary scheme needs the backing of statutory powers to make it effective in the event of the refusal of a firm, possibly one which is not a member of the Association, to conform to its provisions or to provide the information upon which negotiations depend.
  The powers now being made permanent are at present contained in Defence Regulation 55AB(1)(c) and Defence Regulation 55AA. They have never been used, and my right hon. Friends hope that it will not be necessary to use them. They do, however, believe that it is necessary to have them in reserve for the reasons I have given. They do not wish to retain the powers in Defence Regulation 55AA(1) itself to obtain information in respect of services required for the purposes of the National Health Service Acts. These powers are, therefore, being dropped.
  The present powers extend to medical supplies generally, but as this is wider than is necessary they are now to be limited to medical supplies for the

  1105
  National Health Services in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The competent authorities for this Clause are, as I have said, the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland. For Northern Ireland, the powers are exercisable by the Secretary of State, who may, under Clause 21, delegate them as he considers proper to an appropriate authority in the Northern Ireland Government.
  Clause 6 continues the present powers of my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland to control the prices to be charged for liquid milk, but it specifically limits the powers to the prescription of maximum prices. The present powers, which derive from Defence Regulation 55AB, are used only for this purpose. We propose to take powers to control maximum prices only.
  Hon. Members may remember that the need to continue the price control of milk—the only food still subject to this control—was reviewed by an independent committee—the Thorold Committee—which reported in 1962 on the remuneration of milk distributors. In view of the concentration of most of the milk distributive trade in a few hands, the Committee recommended that price control should be continued for a further period after which the question should be reconsidered, in the light of changes in the price structure which, they hoped, would make possible greater competitiveness in the trade.
  The Government have accepted this recommendation, and my right hon. Friends are considering, with the milk industry, the implementation of various changes recommended by the Committee. But, as the Committee foresaw, some time must pass before decontrol of retail prices can be considered, and we are, therefore, continuing these powers, in the first instance for five years, to the end of 1969. The power may be further continued beyond that date, for periods of up to five years, by Order in Council, again subject to the affirmative Resolution of both Houses.
  The next group of Clauses—that is, Clauses 7 to 15—together with the First Schedule, contain provisions supplemental to the substantive provisions which I have described in Clauses 1 to 6. I will not go through these Clauses in
  1106
  detail, because I do not think that any questions of policy or controversy arise on them. These are all provisions which we have thought it necessary to carry over from the disappearing emergency legislation and Defence Regulations. To take a single example, Clause 12, dealing with offences by corporations, follows the wording of Defence Regulation 91.
  But I should make it clear that we have not just written the various Defence Regulation provisions into the Bill blindly. We have, in fact, looked very carefully at each provision to see whether it is really necessary to keep it or whether it could be either dropped altogether or narrowed in scope. In some cases we decided that the power could safely be allowed to lapse. For example, paragraph 1 of the Third Schedule to the 1959 Act provided that any Order made under any Defence Regulation should override any inconsistency with other Statutes or Instruments. So sweeping a provision seemed to us neithter necessary nor appropriate in peacetime legislation, and we propose that it should lapse. In other cases we have cut back the scope of the Defence Regulations provisions. For example, the powers of entry and search under warrant issued by a justice of the peace, which are proposed in the First Schedule to the Bill, are much more limited than the present Defence Regulation powers of entry and inspection of premises on a warrant issued by a departmental official.
  So much for Part I of the Bill, which is wholly concerned with powers at present exercised under Defence Regulations. Part II of the Bill continues in force two further sets of powers.
  Clause 16 continues after the end of 1964 the powers of the Minister of Transport to control the transfer and mortgage of second-hand British ships. These powers were originally granted by the Ships and Aircraft (Transfer Restriction) Act, 1939. They were very wide in scope—as befitted wartime powers—but the 1959 Act severely restricted their scope and limited their life to the end of 1964. These powers are complementary to those concerning new ship construction, and to the Board of Trade's powers of control over strategic goods outside the United Kingdom, both of which I described under Clause 3 of

  1107
  the Bill. We propose that they should be continued on exactly the same basis as the powers contained in Clause 3; that is, to the end of 1969, with provision for extension for further periods of up to five years by an Order in Council subject to affirmative Resolution of both Houses.
  As they are at present administered, the exercise of the powers is not burdensome either to the Government or to the shipping industry; and it is our policy, as it is with other items on the strategic embargo, to keep the restrictions enforced by these powers to the minimum.
  Finally, Clause 17 provides for the continuation of certain of the Board of Trade's powers in relation to jute goods. The power to trade in raw jute, which has not been exercised since 1954, is being given up, as is also the power to produce jute goods. This Clause provides for the retention, until the end of 1969, of the remaining powers to acquire and dispose of jute bags, jute cloth and jute yarn.
  As the House knows, public trading in jute goods, through the Board of Trade Jute Control, is the means used to protect the jute industry in the interest of employment in Dundee and district, where the industry is concentrated. A good deal has been done, and is continuing to be done, to diversify Dundee's industrial life—and this is the right way to solve the problem—but there is still a need to provide some protection for the jute industry in the interest of local employment.
  That is the last of the Clauses of substance in the Bill, and there is little more that I need say. As is explained in the Financial Memorandum on the front of the Bill, the Bill gives the Government no powers additional to those which they have already, and it will accordingly involve no additional expenditure. Indeed, the only item in the Bill which involves any substantial expenditure is the Welfare Foods Scheme.
  I trust that the House will accept the Bill in the spirit in which it is presented—that is, as a realistic and practical way of dealing after the present year with these last survivors of the Defence Regulations and with certain other temporary powers.
  4.10 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: I am sure that the House is obliged to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for his careful explanation of the Clauses of the Bill. No one listening to the hon. Gentleman would think that he was lighting another bonfire. Perhaps this time it is only a little one. It is difficult to rekindle the flames on the ashes of the past.
  The Measure in 1958 was a very different proposition. Passed in March, 1959, it was called a repeal Act. This is a repeal and re-enactment Bill. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, this Bill or some alternative action is necessary before the end of the year because a number of powers in the 1959 Act run out on 31st December, and unless something were done they would automatically lapse, which would not be the wish of hon. Members on either side of the House.
  There is no guile in the hon. Gentleman. That is one of his most engaging characteristics. There is not very much in me, but I am bound to be a little political in my introductory remarks. After the circumstances in which the previous Bill was introduced, I am sure that on these benches we shall be forgiven for looking at this Bill a little more closely than might otherwise be the case. Had the General Election taken place this month, as was generally expected, the Government would probably have left the Bill to the incoming Government. There would have been time for a new Government, whether formed from the benches opposite or from this side of the House, to consider what they wanted to do about the 1959 Act before the end of the year.
  But with the postponement of the General Election until the autumn, I am charitable enough to assume that Her Majesty's Government thought that it would be unfair to do nothing before the General Election and leave an incoming Government, almost certainly a Labour Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is no good hon. Members continuing to pretend that they are not on the way out. They are.
  Sir Douglas Glover: Wait and see.
  Mr. Houghton: I repeat—almost certainly a Labour Government, coming

  1109
  in in the autumn, being left with this question of what to do about the 1959 Act.
  I think that the Government thought it would be considerate on their part to do something about that Act before the General Election. As I say, I am charitable enough to assume that that was in their mind. Why have the Government thought it necessary to introduce a Bill on these detailed lines instead of a holding operation, an extension of the date 31st December, 1964, by a single, small, one-Clause Bill that would at least have given the incoming Government time to think and act without being committed on the lines of the Bill before the House at the moment?
  In 1958, when the previous Bill was introduced, the Government by a Motion of the House, extended the life of many of the controls covered by the Measure for a further period of 12 months, or the date of the passing of the Bill into law, whichever was the earlier. I recognise that no similar method of extending the life of the 1959 Act can be adopted this time. It would need legislation. The question I am putting to the Government is: why have they chosen to legislate in this detailed fashion so close to the end of this Parliament, instead of providing, as an interim measure, for the extension of the life of the 1959 Act, and giving the incoming Government the time and the opportunity to decide what they want to do about the future of these emergency powers?
  I said a moment or two ago that we on these benches must be forgiven for a little suspicion about the time and circumstance in which these Bills come before the House. In November, 1958, when the previous Bill was introduced, I think that it will be generally agreed—I hope to have the assent of the Financial Secretary—that there was a Machiavellian touch about the way the Government acted. The Emergency Laws (Repeal) Act, introduced in November, 1958 and which became law in March, 1959, was described by the then Economic Secretary, now the Minister of Power, on 12th November, 1958, as follows:
  "The Bill is, therefore, an exercise in constitutional propriety."
  That was just pious humbug, because the cat was let out of the bag by the
  1110
  then Lord Privy Seal, now the Foreign Secretary, who, at the annual meeting of the Central Council of the National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations, had said—I am quoting now from an account of his speech in column 426 of the OFFICIAL REPORT on 12th November—that the Bill was intended to prevent
  "a Socialist State being brought in, as it were, by the flick of a switch."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 12th November, 1958; Vol. 595, c. 415 and 426.]
  The Times, to which we look for moral guidance in many matters these days, rebuked the Government for introducing a Bill with any such intention, because, they rightly pointed out, if a Socialist Government did come to power it would be by the will of the people, and an outgoing Government had no right to put any handicap or hindrance upon the activities of a freely-elected Government.
  The circumstances in which this previous Bill was introduced led my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against its Second Reading. We challenged some of its provisions in Committee and we voted against the Third Reading. I do not know what it is in the coincidence of arranging the business of the House that brings obscenity immediately after emergency powers Bills on two occasions. The Third Reading of the Emergency Laws (Repeal) Act on 16th December, 1958, was followed by a debate on obscenity, and this debate is to be followed by one on obscenity. Is this a sense of humour that the Leader of the House has acquired, or is it just coincidence? Whatever it may be, it is of interest to note how these things happen. It may be an association of ideas; I do not know.
  This Bill, too, is being introduced in the last months of this Parliament. On the first occasion, the Government had from 1951 to 1958 to decide what they would do about emergency powers, and they decided to do something in the last months of the last Parliament. This time they have decided to do something—admittedly, in present circumstances they must do something—and they have decided to do it this way fully and completely in the last months of this Parliament.

  1111
  I do not know whether the Government think that there is any political advantage in doing this now. I do not know whether they think that the headlines in some of the newspapers have been politcally helpful. The Times said:
  "Most wartime laws to end".
  The Guardian said:
  "Emergency ends at last".
  It may be that there are some unsuspecting people who think that the Tories are good for "knocking Whitehall in the eye" and "Down with bureaucracy" and all that sort of thing, but it would have been better had the Government introduced a holding operation instead of trying to legislate for the next Parliament at this late hour of this Parliament.
  I now turn to the Bill and enter a protest. The introduction of the 1958 Bill was accompanied by a White Paper. No similar White Paper accompanied this Bill. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill is confined to a Financial Memorandum of only a few lines and figures. Yet in the newspapers, in The Times, for example, appeared a full-length account and explanation of the Bill's Clauses. Virtually the Financial Secretary's Second Reading speech was reproduced in The Times and in the Guardian there was a fairly full summary of the Bill's provisions.
  I inquired where was to be found an explanation of the contents of the Bill. I was informed by the Library that there was no White Paper and no memorandum available to hon. Members, but there was a Press handout, a Lobby document given to the newspapers at the time of the publication of the Bill. Unfortunately, no copy of that was available. The Library got on to the Treasury; unfortunately, no copy was available. When the Treasury was asked if there was any hope of getting one by this afternoon, the reply was that there was no such hope. It is an outrageous scandal that Members of Parliament cannot even have an explanation of the Bill which we are to consider this afternoon, even though it was handed out to the Lobby several weeks ago. When is this nuisance to stop?
  I will give this positive assurance to the House: under a Labour Government hon. Members will not be treated with this contempt. We will see that
  1112
  hon. Members are better served than this. We are entitled to have before us any explanation which is available of legislation to be brought before the House. I have complained time and again about this, but nothing has been done. That is all I have to say about that, but I feel very deeply about it because it is an insult to the House. Why should newspapers be better served than hon. Members? Lobby? Forsooth! Hon. Members cannot even have a document addressed to them.
  The hon. Gentleman has told us that the Bill is divided into three parts—powers to be given up, powers to be retained for a limited period and subject to renewal, and powers to be made permanent. Consideration of the Bill's Clauses may be undertaken with better advantage in Committee, when we can look at them more closely, but there are one or two comments which I should like to make now. As the hon. Gentleman has explained, to some extent the powers to be given up are to be replaced by alternative powers regarding the emergency in which the Government may be called upon to act to safeguard the essentials of life of the community.
  Prompting me a few moments ago, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) suggested that I should ask the Government if they would kindly say what an emergency was. I suppose that an emergency is what Her Majesty's Government at any time think is an emergency—if there is a threat, if there is a danger or fear, it is in the judgment of the Government to act to use the powers which an emergency gives them.
  On the powers to be continued temporarily or subject to Parliamentary control, the subject of jute will certainly receive close examination. It rather looks as though the Government are proposing for the time being to retain the power to buy and sell jute yarn, jute cloth and jute bags and to extend that power only to the end of 1969, subject to renewal, while the power to trade in raw jute is to lapse at the end of the year. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the jute industry to be able to say how important discarding the latter power is, though I notice that

  1113
  it is said that it has not been used of late. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) will undoubtedly seek to catch your eye on this matter, Mr. Speaker.
  Hire-purchase control is to be made permanent, along with a number of other very important provisions. We all recognise the significance of hire-purchase debt in the economy today and the need to retain power to regulate it, in conjunction with the other regulators of the economy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer may feel it important to have at his disposal; similarly with transactions in gold and securities.
  I am sure that hon. Members on this side of the House agree that the power of control of welfare foods should be made permanent, though it rather looks as though, in practice, this is of greater significance in relation to welfare milk than orange juice and other welfare foods. A few years ago, the Minister of Health lifted the controlled price of orange juice and similar welfare foods, which are now issued at cost price. To that extent, I suppose, it constitutes a price control. We would agree that this control is now a built-in feature of our welfare services.
  I now come to Health Service medical supplies. I feel rather ashamed to confess that I was unaware that this control existed. To think that I have gone through many hours of work as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, grilling the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Health on this tiresome question of pharmaceutical services, drug prices, monopolies and the rest, without being able to produce the ace of trumps and ask him, point blank, "Why have you not used these powers to control the price of medical supplies?"
  I have heard a great deal about the voluntary price regulation arrangements, which appear to have been more or less voluntary. Some of them have not been watertight, because there have been suppliers outside the scope of the agreement, and not long ago we were asking questions about the activities of certain firms who were outside the voluntary price regulation arrangements.
  1114
  The House should not only confirm this as a permanent arrangement, but should ask the Minister when he is going to use these powers. Safeguards, precautions, and other forms of reserve power are important, and sometimes very influential, but it is surely no great credit to the Government that they have never been used if circumstances exist—and I rather believe that they did and do—when these powers should be used.
  One of the most difficult things to explain to e Americans is this curious hybrid National Health Service which we have. They talk about socialised medicine, but we know that it is not socialised medicine really. It is private doctoring at public expense, and the weakness of the Ministry in keeping control of drug prices lies in the fact that in the normal course of events the order for the supply of goods is not given by the Ministry at all. It is given by the thousands of individual doctors in the Service. When they write out a prescription, they give an order on the account of the Ministry of Health to a private supplier, and that constitutes the main difficulty about price control in drugs, medicines, and appliances in the National Health Service.
  I will not dwell any longer on this, because I do not want to go too deeply into the merits of the matter, but it is clearly a power which the Government should have. I think that it is for the Minister to consider when is the appropriate time, if not to use it, to pull it out of the drawer and to begin to finger it ostentatiously during the course of negotiations with the other side. That might save him having to use the power. If he brandishes it before people, it may be enough. Anyhow, one way or another, something has to be done to keep under control the price of drugs and all the monopoly tendencies in the world of medicine.
  The maximum price of milk is another control to be written permanently into our law, and I think that the House will agree with that, too. It follows the recommendation of the Thorold Committee that the Government should continue to control the maximum retail price of milk, and recent circumstances have shown that that is a desirable power for the Government to have.
  That, I think, will do for my initial review of the provisions of the Bill. I

  1115
  hope that I have not made too much mischief in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but they cannot expect to get away with a completely clean bill of health in respect of emergency laws, having regard to the very doubtful ancestry of the Bill.
  It will be for the incoming Government to consider the whole machinery of government, the powers which they have, and the powers which they may need, to carry out policies in the best interests of the country. We do not feel that we need to have any serious quarrel with the Government about the provisions of the Bill, although, as I indicated earlier, we would have preferred not to have a detailed Bill before us at the moment, but some acknowledgement of the transient nature of the phantoms opposite and the prospect of a Labour Government being elected in the near future.
  4.34 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) worked himself up into a frenzy of suspicion about the Bill, but when he considered its terms he had nothing but praise for it. The suspicions are clearly quite unfounded in view of the assurance given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary in his very clear introduction of the Bill, when he said that this had been looked at entirely from the point of view of administration, and without taking into account any doctrine one way or another.
  That must surely be the case when we come to the question of State trading in jute. State trading in jute cloth and jute yarn is a matter to which many of us who are interested in the textile industry have seriously objected for many years, and, indeed, it is the precedent on which at one time—though I am not sure now—the Wilson plan for the textile industry, and particularly the cotton textile industry, was founded. Whenever we objected to the plan, we were told by the party opposite, "You have a very good precedent in the case of jute. You have done nothing to alter State trading in jute cloth and yarn. How can you object when we extend it to cotton cloth and yarn?"
  I do not believe that it is a good thing to continue this indefinitely. I do
  1116
  not understand why it has gone on for so long, and why it is to go on for another five years. I am not sure that it is really in keeping with our international obligations in the matter, because it undoubtedly breaches the principle of freedom of import and export to which we adhere rigidly when it comes to any question of protection for our cotton and man-made fibres.
  It seems to me that to continue it for another five years for certain, and thereafter for an indefinite period, is something which is not commendable to this side of the House. But, at any rate, whether it is commendable or not, it shows quite clearly that the suspicions of the hon. Gentleman that this is somehow a slanted Bill—slanted in favour of the Government—are completely untrue. If anything, it is slanted the other way.
  The hon. Gentleman found nothing seriously wrong with the Bill, and nor do I. The suggestion that we ought to have had a holding Bill, and then presumably this Bill next year—two bites at the cherry instead of one—surely is an abuse of Parliamentary time. My only small criticism about this method of legislating—and it is one which perhaps concerns my profession rather more than the House as a whole—is that it makes it very difficult to find out what the law is if one has an omnium gatherum Bill like this one, instead of Bills amending the subject matters concerned.
  For example, on exchange control, in Clause 2, it would surely be more convenient, neater, and better for good order and government if that had been made an amendment to the Exchange Control Act, and so on, throughout the Bill. But that is a small complaint, and I have no doubt that with the excellent cross-indexing which we now have we shall get over that difficulty.
  This is a courageous thing for the Government to have done, because a lot of the things which the Bill makes permanent are not altogether palatable to some of my hon. Friends. But with the assurance of my hon. Friend that the Government have looked at this not from the doctrinal point of view one way or the other, I suggest that we should pass it, and pass it quickly.
  4.39 p.m.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: I hope that the House will understand and excuse me if I concentrate my remarks entirely on Clause 17, which has been referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). This is the life-or-death Clause for the City of Dundee—part of which I have the honour to represent—and that is why it is in the Bill, despite the doctrinal objections of many hon. Gentlemen opposite, to which the hon. and learned Member for Darwen has just given voice.
  Clause 17 contains the protective device on which the employment of a large number of my constituents depends. I want to remind the House and the Minister exactly what the realities of the situation are in Dundee and in South Angus. In Dundee, 17,000 people are still directly employed in the jute industry. That is in one medium-sized industrial city, geographically isolated from alternative sources of employment. If employment in the jute industry is substantially reduced in that area, people who lose their jobs in it—failing diversification and the provision of alternative jobs—will have to move completely away from Dundee.
  Despite splendid progress in the diversification of industry in the area, dependence on the jute industry is still very great. Nearly 40 per cent. of the manufacturing jobs in Dundee are still directly in the jute industry, and if we add in those jobs which are indirectly dependent on the prosperity of that industry the proportion is very much higher. It has been calculated that of the 17,000 jobs in the jute industry in Dundee about 12,000 hang on the continuation of the jute control contained in Clause 17.
  Having said that, it may be thought that I ought to be very happy that the Government have inserted this Clause extending the provisions of Government jute control for five years, until 1969. But I would have been very much happier about the position if it had not been for the events which took place almost exactly a year ago. I count it a fortunate coincidence that the Treasury Minister who has had the job of moving the Second Reading of the Bill was Minister of State, Board of Trade, nearly 12 months ago, when he came to Dundee
  1118
  and announced to the jute industry that the Government were proposing substantial reductions in the level of protection within the device of Government jute control.
  Mr. Green: I would remind the hon. Member that the level of proposed protection in the first year, if I remember the facts correctly, was just about equivalent to the mark-up that had been given by the Jute Control.
  Mr. Thomson: The changes proposed originally by the Minister last July were estimated to bring about, in the course of a year or two, a reduction of about 5,000 jobs out of a labour force of 17,000 in Dundee, and perhaps a rather heavier reduction in the constituency of South Angus.
  I do not think that the Minister was surprised by the intensity of the opposition that was aroused by these proposals. As a result of that opposition, from many different quarters, the Government were forced to retreat from their original proposals. They set up a working party to look into alternative methods of safeguarding employment in the United Kingdom jute industry, and as far as I know that working party is still carrying on its considerations. At the time when it was set up the then Minister of State, Board of Trade—the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury—said that if the inquiry did not produce satisfactory alternative arrangements a uniform percentage markup would be introduced in a year's time for the equated and excluded goods.
  I do not want to bore the House with the technicalities of this proposition. Suffice it to say that in clue course it would have meant a substantial reduction of employment in the jute industry. This is the proposal which, on the Government's public statement last August, is presumably to be implemented this August. My immediate purpose in speaking on the Bill is to seek from the Government an unequivocal assurance that, in the light of the political developments of the last 12 months, they are retreating from this statement. I want an assurance from the Minister that whatever the working party finally reports no decision will be taken by the Government to reduce the level of protection for the jute industry until the people of Dundee and the whole country

  1119
  have had an opportunity to decide what kind of Government they want at the forthcoming General Election.
  It is a very great consolation to many people in the Dundee area who are not remotely Labour supporters that there will be a General Election very shortly, and that, whatever they may think about it from other points of view, it is likely that a Labour Government will be elected in the autumn. It is because of this prospect that we are entitled to a clear statement from the Government that since the General Election has been postponed to the legal limit of the life of this Parliament they will not make any new changes in respect of the protection given to the jute industry until the election has taken place.
  That is the main thing that I want to urge on the Government. I conclude by reminding the House that in Dundee at least there can be no doubt about the importance of the election decision to be taken in the autumn. It is clear beyond partisan political argument that the level of employment in the jute industry is at risk if a Conservative Government is—in the unlikely event—elected in the autumn.
  Sir D. Glover: It will be more at risk if your party gets in.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Not my party.
  Mr. Thomson: I hope to prove it to the satisfaction of the hon. Member. There can be no doubt that it is the desire of the party opposite to make a substantial reduction in the level of protection for the jute industry. We had a very frank expression of the general view on the Conservative benches in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Darwen. He repeated frankly what the Minister said to the jute industry in July last year, but later solf-pedalled because of the amount of opposition that it aroused, and also because, regrettably, we had a by-election pending in the City of Dundee at the time.
  In the debate on 24th July, 1963—in the early hours of the morning, as the hon. Gentleman may recall—the Minister made a quite fair and frank statement of the Conservative attitude on this matter, when he said:
  1120
  "… it is in the interests of the jute industry of Dundee that we get a change in the method of protection as well as in the level of it as soon as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1963; Vol. 681, c. 1698.]
  It is for that reason that I tell him that the jute industry is at risk if his party remains in power.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who has an intimate knowledge of these matters from his period of office as President of the Board of Trade in the Labour Administration, has made it clear time and time again, as the hon. and learned Member for Darwen confirmed, that a Labour Government would use the economic power of the State to prevent full employment in the jute industry being put in peril. Therefore, there can be no doubt that it is in the overwhelming interest of the overwhelming majority of people in the Dundee area that there should be a change of Government.
  My immediate point, however, is to make it clear that because of the postponement of the General Election the Government should give the House a clear undertaking that their statement of last August—that in 12 months they would take certain action—will no longer be carried out.
  4.50 p.m.
  Sir James Duncan: There was much that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. Thomson) said with which I entirely agree and which I support, particularly that part of his speech when he was not political and came down to the real bread and butter of Dundee and the surrounding district. I represent South Angus, which has quite a lot of jute, and the constituencies of Fife and Perthshire are also interested.
  I am glad, in a way, that the working party has not reported. I hope that even if it does report—I support the hon. Gentleman here—no decision of the Government will be made before the General Election, because, whatever the decision might be, it would be likely to provoke a great deal of argument in the constituencies. I do not believe that it is right that at the tail end of a Parliament any decision should be made pending a General Election. I strongly support the hon. Gentleman's argument

  1121
  that if any further action is required a statement should be made by Her Majesty's Government now.
  The hon. Gentleman became a little more political later, and tried to make out that the jute trade would be safer under a Labour Government than it would be under a Tory Government. I am not sure. The Labour Party believes in State trading and the hon. Gentleman has quoted his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) as saying that he would use the economic power of the State to keep the jute trade alive. 'What does that mean? Will he nationalise it? Will he subsidise it? What will he do? "The economic power of the State" is a very vague expression. I very much doubt if the electors of Dundee will be taken in by an intellectual expression like that. What the voters of Dundee and district want to know is how the jute industry is to be preserved.
  My hon. Friend has said—and the hon. Member for Dundee, East quoted him—that there may have to be a change in the method of protection, and that that is what the working party is trying to evolve at the moment. I hope that it will be able to evolve a change in the method of protection. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) does not like it. The Board of Trade does not like it. One of the troubles that we have always been up against is that the Board of Trade does not like it. I put to the hon. Gentleman this point that on the basis of theoretical politics the exception can prove the rule. The jute industry is concentrated in Dundee. In a very small and isolated area the life of 17,000 men and the life of the city depends on the industry.
  It is the exception that proves the rule that private enterprise, broadly speaking, is better than State trading. I am not quite sure where the Labour Party stands on State trading. Are we in for a period of a mixed economy, or what? We know that some industries are to be renationalised. We have read such vague statements in Signposts for the Sixties, but we do not know' what will happen to a lot of other industries, and we certainly do not understand what is meant by "the economic power of the State". Does that mean, for instance,
  1122
  that the jute industry should cease to be economic, and rely on a Labour Government and the economic power of the State to keep it going, efficient or inefficient?
  Personally, I think that the jute industry is now highly efficient £12 million or £13 million has been put into it. It is fiercely competitive with the Indian cloth that is coming in, with paper, and now with plastic bags, and it seems to me that, provided that we do not interfere with it, we shall be able to support it quite logically on the ground that it is facing very severe competition and is bound to be efficient if it is to survive.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will assure it that, if there is to be a change in the method of protection, the level of certain grades, at any rate, will not be reduced until 1969 and perhaps, by a further Order under Clause 17 of the Bill, after 1969. I believe that this is an industry which, by the very nature of its case and what it produces, is bound to be efficient to survive. If the Board of Trade takes away its protection by one means or another, I believe that it will fail to survive the competition not with India only, but with paper and plastics. The industry deserves the utmost help which Her Majesty's Government, or any Government, can give it in the future.
  4.56 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Doig: I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. Thomson) that it is necessary that the Government should not take any decisive step in relation to the future of jute protection until after the next election. I believe that it is absolutely necessary that we have this breathing space to find out just what the public of this area and the country as a whole think in relation to the protection of the jute industry.
  If we go back to the Board of Trade's original proposals it gave three reasons why there should be a change. First, any of the substitutes would make it uneconomic for jute to compete evenly on the market. Let us take one or two of the points. We have paper bags, which are the chief contendent against it. The people who use paper bags will continue to do so whether there is protection for

  1123
  the jute industry or not, because they are approximately only half the price of jute bags. Therefore, the protection would have no effect whatever. Those people who were using paper bags now would continue to use them and there would be no incentive for anyone else to change whether there was jute protection or not.
  We come to the argument that there would be another drop in the use of jute because of the use of bulk transport vehicles. Again, this would have no effect whatever, because this method is much cheaper than any other form of container for firms which can use it on a large scale. So there can be no question of substitutes having any effect on the need for protection of jute.
  The second point made was pressure from India. India's total exports to Britain amount to only 5 per cent. of India's total exports, which is a negligible amount and would not influence the situation in any way. We have been told in the past by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East that it would adversely affect Pakistan if we took this step, so by placating one member of the Commonwealth we would be antagonising another.
  The third reason which it gave was the decision of the Restrictive Practices Court. The jute industry case at the Court was, first, that serious and persistent unemployment would result if effective protection was not continued, and, secondly, that internal price agreements were necessary for this industry. The Court agreed with the first of these submissions and disagreed with the second. Therefore, there is absolutely no need for the Government to scrap the existing protection to the jute industry under any of these three heads.
  Sir J. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman w ill make clear that, the jute industry having accepted the decision of the Restrictive Practices Court, there is no price agreement now.
  Mr. Doig: I know that, but the Board of Trade does not seem to have accepted it yet. It has given no final decision. None of these three points is valid any more, so why do not we say that we will keep protection as it is and then
  1124
  everyone will be happy? The reasons for making a change have ceased to exist.
  I wish to quote one paragraph from the judgment of the Restrictive Practices Court:
  "The evidence which was laid before us, and the statistical comparison of operating costs between the United Kingdom and similar costs in India and Pakistan, left us in no doubt that the concessions envisaged by the Working Party of 1948 in their admirable comprehensive and valuable Report, as justifying protection of the home industry, continue to apply, and, so far as can reasonably be foreseen, will continue to do so."
  Even the Restrictive Practices Court recognised the need to continue this protection for jute goods produced in this country for as far ahead as could be foreseen to make up for the difference in cost created by the use of cheap labour which is still obtainable in India.
  The hon. Member for South Angus asked whether a Labour Government would subsidise the jute industry. I wish to draw his attention to the fact that this Government do not subsidise jute. In fact, it is a case of subsidy in reverse. The Government rake in as protection money no less than £750,000 every year. This is equivalent to every jute worker in Dundee paying nearly £1 a week as protection money to the Government for his job. So the Government do better out of this than even Al Capone did in his heyday in Chicago. I do not think that there is any question of a subsidy, in fact it is the opposite. This is a highly profitable investment for the Government. There is no question of a subsidy for Dundee, Forfar or the jute industry; the subsidy goes to the Government.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have agreed that the area in question is isolated. Why is it isolated? Simply because the Government will not build a road to connect up the whole of the East Coast of Scotland. Even the railways, 100 years ago, had the sense to connect up the whole of the East Coast of Scotland with the East Coast of England. Whether we like it or not, three out of the four Scottish cities are situated on the East Coast. The two most difficult physical hazards have been or are being overcome by the building of road bridges over the Tay and the Forth.

  1125
  This has been done under a Tory Government after a great deal of pressure. It is the fact that despite this pressure the Government, through the Secretary of State for Scotland, have refused even to consider building a road across Fife to connect up the two bridges. Their plans for a dual carriageway road go as far as Newcastle and then stop. We have the farcical situation that traffic up the East Coast of Scotland gets to Scotch Corner and then goes to the West Coast to compete with the West Coast traffic on the already overcrowded roads there, until it gets into Scotland then it goes back to the East Coast again.
  That farcical situation exists simply because the Government will not agree to building two fairly short stretches of good modern road. That is why the jute industry area is isolated. We can blame no one but the Government for that.
  I think that the jute industry is efficient. It has fought for survival for 100 years. Regularly, people have forecast that the industry was dying, but it still survives every new invention, obstacle and competitor. It does so because of its very efficient research department which was paid for entirely by the industry. A vast amount of money, over £13 million, was spent on modernising equipment and plant on the strength of promises made by the present Minister of Defence and the Tory Government. After the money had been spent those promises were broken. No wonder the people of Dundee will not trust Tory promises.
  Let us look at the statements made by the respective party leaders during the recent by-election and we shall then see in which party people in the industry are likely to place their faith. In a statement to the Tory candidate in the Dundee, West by-election the Prime Minister said:
  "The people of Dundee have shown how readily they can develop the skills needed for industries which have already settled there. We shall strive to attract more industries to Dundee. But Scotland needs its older industries as well as new ones and we intend to ensure that the long association of jute with Dundee is maintained by an efficient and self-supporting industry."
  I am sorry; I should have said, "efficient and viable industry". I said "self-
  1126
  supporting" because I discovered that this is what "viable" means. Until then I did not know what it meant. I sometimes wonder whether the Prime Minister knew, when I compare some of the statements which he made with what happened later, and with things said by Ministers in the Government.
  The next statement which the right hon. Gentleman made related to the Tay road bridge; that work had started on it and would be of great importance to Dundee. It would provide a direct road to the South and be a boon to industry setting up in the area. But the direct road to the South has a big gap in it where there is not a good road. When we asked Ministers of the Government what they were proposing to do about the gap, in view of what the Prime Minister had said, we found that they had no plans to do anything. So this direct road to the South seems to me something about which the Prime Minister did not know. He had forgotten that there is a county called Fife and that a good road is required from Edinburgh to Newcastle.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the development of skills needed in respect of industries already settled in Dundee. It was fortunate for the people of Dundee that there was a Labour Government after the war. That was when the new industries came to Dundee and it was the result of legislation passed by the Government of that time. Most of the industry which has come to Dundee since then and in the lifetime of this Parliament consists of extension of industries which came during the period of office of the Labour Government. It is not possible to extend something which was not there already, and if the Labour Government had not successfully attracted industry to the area there could have been no extension.
  It would be interesting to discover—I shall put down a Parliamentary Question in order to do so—how many new industries as distinct from extensions of existing industries have come to Dundee during the 12 years that this Government have been in office. The figure would be found to be surprisingly small. No wonder the Prime Minister said that the people of Dundee have to continue with the existing and older industries. It is certainly necessary that this should be so, if Dundee is to be a prosperous area.

  1127
  Let us contrast this rather vague statement by the Prime Minister with what Harold Wilson said when he sent me a message during the by-election.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not refer to another hon. Member by name.
  Mr. Doig: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As I was saying, I would contrast with the Prime Minister's statement the letter which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition sent to me at that time. In it, he said:
  "Not only shall we use Government power to prevent low-cost imports from ruining the jute industry on which the welfare of Dundee still largely depends. Labour's long-term plan for Scotland will also mean that if private firms fail to provide enough new jobs in places like Dundee … then we shall not hesitate to establish new publicly-pioneered enterprises."
  So we conceive that there is a vast difference between what the Leaders of the respective parties have to say in relation to this area.
  We had an example during Question Time today, when the Minister of Aviation was talking about providing a vast airport for London, an area already tremendously overcrowded. Instead of taking some of the jobs away from London, the Government are making plans for introducing new developments there which will attract more industries to it. Yet when the Government say that they want to attract more industries to Dundee they do not do so. They give us no connecting roads and no airports. The City of Dundee has had to try to provide an airstrip for businessmen who want to use aircraft for their journeys. This is far more expensive. Up to now the Government have done absolutely nothing to help Dundee. There is no doubt, therefore, that the interests of the people of Dundee will be far better looked after under a Labour Government than under a Tory Government.
  5.13 p.m.
  Sir Douglas Glover: In 12 years in the House I have never dared to enter a debate which was mostly devoted to Scotland, but this is a debate that really does not apply to Scotland except under one Clause in the Bill. I therefore feel that I shall not be transgressing and become an automatic
  1128
  member of the Scottish Grand Committee by intervening, particularly as I have some very pleasant recollections of being stationed with the 52nd Division in Dundee during the war, where I ran a concert and raised £250 for the Dundee P.O.W. organisation.
  I rise, strangely enough, to oppose what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) has said on the matter of jute. I think that the exception proves the rule and that there is a strong case for the jute industry. I am sure that it would be wrong if the impression went out as a result of this debate that the Opposition held this view very strongly and that we did not. On the other hand, I think that there is a great deal in what the Government suggested when my hon. Friend was Minister of State, Board of Trade, because one difficulty about protection from overseas competition is that if protective duties are too high and, therefore, one increases the price of the commodity on the internal market above the price of competing commodities, one does not increase the employment and the turnover in the industry but reduces them.
  It is also essential in any industry which enjoys protection from overseas competition that there must be no suspicion of co-ordination and marketing practice. The only way in which protection from overseas competition can be justified is by ensuring that there is competition in that commodity on the internal market. I think that that situation is now beginning to apply in the jute industry for the fact that my hon. Friend when he was at the Board of Trade had to look into this shows that the situation was not as desperate as the picture of competition which the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) painted this afternoon. In fact, the hon. Gentleman gave the game away when he quoted what the Restrictive Practices Court said. One cannot have it both ways. The fact that it is all right now that the restrictive practice has been done away with shows clearly that before that happened the competition was not so keen.
  I think that if the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) goes into the Library and looks at the map he will see that the shortest distance from Scotch Corner to Dundee is through Carlisle and not Berwick-on-Tweed.
  Mr. Doig: That is exactly what I said, and that is the way the traffic goes at the present time.
  Sir D. Glover: No, the hon. Gentleman said that there was no road through Newcastle. The shortest route from Scotch Corner is, in fact, to switch over to the West Coast and then back to the East Coast. It is a shorter route.
  The other point I want to raise on the Bill is about Clause 5. Quite honestly, I am surprised that the Minister has thought it right to make this Clause a permanent part of our legislation. I agree that under certain conditions these emergency powers for medical supplies are probably justified, but as the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who is no longer in his place, said, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, that he was not aware that these regulations were available for use if required, it is quite obvious that they have been used so infrequently in years gone by that we have been able to run the Health Service and the medical drugs scheme for that, Service without calling on the powers available under Clause 5. As we have been able to do that up to now, I should like a further explanation from my hon. Friend as to why, if these powers have not been used hitherto, it is still felt necessary to change them into permanent legislation. That is all I have to say.
  I think that most of the matters raised in the Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Repeals) Bill are good and justified. The only thing that surprises me is that the hon. Member for Sowerby, after being a leading spokesman on financial affairs for the party opposite for 13 years, does not seem to have reached any conclusion as to what should happen over these matters. It seems to be thought that we should bring in some hotch-potch and holding operation so that if disaster struck the country and the party opposite came to power it could take several years thinking what to do. I think that we should take action in the matter, but I should like to have more information about the medical supplies.
  5.17 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I think that the form and substance of this Measure is interesting from one general point of view. What the Government claim to have done is to have gone
  1130
  through the Defence Regulations and preserved in the form of Clauses in this Bill those which are still required. When I look at Clauses 1 to 6 I find that every single one of them is, as one would expect, a Clause providing for delegated legislation, and when we are told that there is something unnecessary and oppressive in this, I think I am entitled to look at the Government's view in this matter. They seem to think that some sweeping controls are necessary. I am not saying that I disagree with them, but if we look at the language of Clause 2, which deals with the Treasury's financial controls over securities, gold and so on, we find that not only are securities very widely defined but that the Clause gives exceedingly sweeping powers under very general terms.
  I have no objection to this. I think that control of that sort is necessary and I am glad that the Government recognise it. However, I sometimes wish that they would stop talking nonsense about the perils of having controls and the perils of making Orders. Masses of Orders come to this House week by week from various Government Departments, and some of them, by the nature of the case, produce more than others. Under modern conditions Order-making powers of that character are necessary. What we in Parliament have to do is to see that we keep some control over them in the form of the present arrangements about affirmative or negative procedure and to look at the procedure itself from time to time to see if it is sufficient to give effective democratic control over these masses of Orders.
  A great many of them are local matters and are done under a general authority given by some Statute or other by Parliament. Probably it would be very rare to find an occasion on which Orders of that character have to be examined. Even there, however, one notices that there is a need for a check. The Statutory Instruments Committee from time to time rightly and properly calls our attention to some excess of power or some failure to carry out proper procedure. I accept and note that the Government themselves, facing the problem, have considered it necessary to continue in the form of Clauses in a Bill very sweeping powers. Some may be most sweeping, but all are by no means

  1131
  limited. They contain in several cases general words which no doubt refer to existing powers which have not necessarily been used.
  In answer to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) and others, it does not seem a definite argument that when a power has not been in use for some time it is, therefore, unnecessary. The unused powers may be necessary as deterrents. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) quite clearly pointed that out. I do not think that the hon. Member for Ormskirk can have heard that part of his speech. One can think of many instances where that is obvious other than those which arise directly under this Bill. I always remember the story of a solicitor who had to deal with a rather tiresome person against whom the solicitor's client had some rights, and who was thought to be protected by the Statute of Limitations. At the critical moment the solicitor—a rather astute gentleman—pulled out a drawer in his desk and produced the writ which he had taken care to issue during the statutory period, thereby depriving his peccant opponent of the thought that his case was completely watertight.
  I am not going into details about jute. I do not know enough about them. True enough, I had a relative by marriage who once inspected the Dundee sewers and found them extremely attractive because they had a most engaging mixed smell of jute and oranges. That does not entitle me to pretend to a great knowledge of the industry as it now is. A power is being used avowedly by the Government to protect the industry itself. It may be efficient in some senses and in some inefficient. I am not concerned with that, but the power exists to deal with jute as a method of practically fixing the price, but a power is being dropped because at the moment it is unnecessary. That is the power to deal with raw jute.
  I do not want to go into this at great length now—it is perhaps much more of a Committee point—but at a moment when unemployment is serious in Dundee the existing remedy may not be sufficient. At a moment when a working party is considering the whole question, I should have thought it far safer to retain the power in relation to raw jute as well as
  1132
  in relation to manufactured jute. There is no harm in keeping the power for the time being, even if it is not used. It is very much better in a matter of this sort where men's jobs and livelihood are at stake to keep existing powers, even if we do not need to use some of them, than to drop them. This is a human problem. I regret that the Government have chosen this moment to drop that particular power.
  Sir J. Duncan: No one in Dundee wants these powers.
  Mr. Mitchison: I am not certain if I understood the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) rightly, but I think he and everyone in this House, including members of the Government, are for once agreed that the powers to deal with manufactured jute—and in effect to deal with the price of manufactured jute—are needed. The question is whether the power in relation to raw jute should be retained. That, I understand, was introduced during the war and was partly dropped, I am told, as a result of a compromise between those who wanted to drop it entirely and those who wanted to keep it. It is a pity that that power should be dropped now.
  Sir J. Duncan: I think the reason for the power being put on during the war was to save shipping. To bring in the needed amount, shipping had to be organised, but that no longer applies. The industry does not want this power to continue.
  Mr. Mitchison: We are dealing with men's work and livelihood. There is an existing power and a working party is considering the whole question. I should have thought that in the circumstances it was a mistake to drop that power at the moment.
  That leads me to a broad consideration of the whole business of the Bill. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby that it would have been better to have left the selection of what was to be kept and what was to be dropped to the Government, of whatever colour, that there will be after the General Election. That would have needed a short general continuation Bill for the time being, but there ought to be no difficulty about that. The Government are making a selection now, but

  1133
  they do not know—as none of us knows—whether the next Government will be formed from hon. Members opposite or from hon. Members on this side of the House. In those circumstances, it would have been far better to have left the selection to the new Government.
  I cannot see a new Government from this side of the House feeling itself in any way tied by the particular selection that the present Government have made. It may be more inconvenient to have to deal with the matter again, but it certainly will have to be looked at—and looked at, I think, without any acceptance of the present Government's selection one way or the other. I say that because I can see no reason to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. There may be objections in Committee, but that is another matter. I do not want it to be thought, however, that because we do not oppose the Second Reading we necessarily agree with what the Government have done either by bringing forward this Measure at this moment or by their selection. Perhaps they did not want to be overtaken by the Obscene Publications Bill, as they appear to have been overtaken by a similar Measure last time. We are equally critical because we think that some of the things they propose to drop by this Bill may not be safe to drop at the moment.
  There it is. We on this side of the House feel critical in many respects but not on points which we feel involved opposition on Second Reading. May I add one concluding remark? My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby suggested that there ought to be some definition of the word "emergency". Curiously enough, the only place in which the word "emergency" occurs in the Bill, as far as I can see, is in the Title, and perhaps that does not matter quite so much. In many cases these Regulations were brought in to deal with an emergency, and the use of the word caused a good deal of difficulty. The Attorney-General will no doubt call my attention to the existence of the word elsewhere in the Bill if it is there, but otherwise he would not wish to do what was done once before in a Government Bill—define with precision a word which did not occur in it.
  5.31 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): I have no intention of endeavouring to define a word which does not occur in the Bill—to deal with the last point first. All these emergency powers are linked with the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, which gives Her Majesty power by Proclamation to declare an emergency. When we are talking of emergency powers or of emergencies in relation to those powers, it is in connection with the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, and the declaration by Proclamation of an emergency that they must be read.
  Both the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Michison) have drawn attention to the historical fact that we always seem to discuss this topic in conjunction with the Obscene Publications Bill. The last occasion was the Third Reading of the Emergency Laws (Repeal) Bill on 16th December, 1958, when Mr. Speaker himself, in a different capacity, addressed himself to both topics. History has repeated itself today in a matter of light and shade. One could not say that either the subject or the speeches of today's debate were all airs and graces, but it is nevertheless almost impossible to inject into the subject matter which we are debating any relevant obscenity except by way of an expletive.
  An interesting historical connection struck the hon. Member for Sowerby, who showed great anxiety in that what had occurred in 1959 might have been only the prelude to a General Election and a result which he did not like in 1959. While we have to await the events of a General Election, perhaps in that respect, too, history may repeat itself.
  It may well be that we ought to glance back at the history of these matters. This is no more than a minor clearing up operation in a long legislative history which began at the outbreak of the war in September, 1939. The country was to a great extent controlled, organised and run by Defence Regulations throughout the war. The Labour Government after the war got rid of a very large number of those Defence Regulations which ceased to be necessary, but nevertheless, in October, 1951 there were 215 Regulations still in existence, including the

  1135
  powers of controlling production, of controlling distribution, of controlling consumption and of controlling the prices of goods of any kind whatever, if the Government thought it necessary. They operated at that time on most foods, including sweets, and on soap and bread. They operated on coal, on petrol, on utility goods and on many other products. Apart from the control of goods there was extensive control of services. Building licences were still in existence. One could regulate the terms and conditions of workers in essential industries, and there was power to prohibit strikes and lock-outs. There was control of the use of agricultural land and control of the use and movement of British ships.
  The hon. and learned Member for Kettering said that the Bill showed only that the Conservative Government, when they thought necessary, supported controls and delegated legislation. But there is a marked difference in substance and in spirit between a system of general control of industry, of the economic life of the country and of the way in which individuals can behave by a system of regulation, on the one hand, and what is at present being done—the taking by the Government of powers in limited and specified areas for particular topics, which are powers strictly for only such cases as are really necessary in conditions of peace.
  The greater part of the task of clearing up the rule of this country by regulation was performed in 1959. Between 1951 and 1959 most of the Defence Regulations had been abandoned, and in 1959 all the remaining Defence Regulations were terminated, except for five, which were then made statutory for a period of five years only and were continued in force for that period only in a statutory form and not as Defence Regulations. They were continued in force by virtue of the 1959 Act in the form in which they were scheduled to that Act and without any power either to amend or to extend those Regulations—though with the power to revoke a Regulation or any part of it.
  All those five previous Defence Regulations, which in 1959 became statutory, were, as has been pointed out, due to expire on 31st December of this year unless legislation were undertaken. That is why the Bill has been brought in. The
  1136
  hon. Member for Sowerby seemed to make his particular point of criticism that the Government were dealing with this problem at the present stage instead of leaving it until after the General Election. It is obvious that the new Government, whichever party, will have many problems to consider as soon as it is returned. The Parliamentary time between the re-assembly of Parliament and 31st December is very short. I should have thought that it was wholly unnecessary to have two bites at this cherry when it appears, at any rate from the speeches which have been made, to be an almost non-contentious matter. Maybe there are details to be taken up in Committee. Maybe the Bill can be improved in certain directions. But that this step needed to be taken is without doubt, and why we should postpone it until after the General Election when at this stage it does not appear to be a very contentious matter, and when many more important matters will have to be considered after the election, whoever wins it, is difficult to see.
  The hon. Member for Sowerby seemed to be complaining that what the Government were doing was to remove the opportunity of a Labour Government, if elected, to control the country to a great extent by what he called the flick of a switch. He seemed to be complaining that they would not be allowed to continue to introduce regulations, and he suggested that it was wrong that these should be made statutory powers which could be altered only by legislation.
  Mr. Houghton: The right hon. and learned Member is under a misapprehension. I was quoting from the debate on the Bill of 1958. The then Lord Privy Seal, in a speech outside the House, had revealed the Government's true intention in introducing that Bill. It was an historic reference and had no connection with the Bill before the House.
  The Attorney-General: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I understood him to say that he thought that a Labour Government, if elected, should have the opportunity to consider how they should deal with the matter. Presumably if the hon. Gentleman disagrees with the Bill he can vote against it. By that means he is able to show his objection to the Measure. As I understand it, this is no more than a

  1137
  winding-up Bill and I believe that it is right, sensible and proper that this should be done rather than that it should be postponed until after the General Election.
  The hon. Member for Sowerby also complained that the Government had not briefed him or the Opposition generally about the Bill. The Government present a Bill for hon. Members to read. This Bill was presented in plenty of time for it to be studied and, while I appreciate the difficulties and complications of a Measure of this sort, I must make it clear that my hon. Friend and his Department were not asked for any assistance. My hon. Friend would have been willing to give it. Indeed, there was a request yesterday for some information. Within an hour of the request being received the information had been supplied by my hon. Friend's Department and two copies of the Press notice which had been sent out were made available in the House. If the hon. Member for Sowerby did not have such good service from the Library—and I would not wish to investigate that matter—my hon. Friend would, had he been requested, have seen that such information as the hon. Member for Sowerby might have wanted was given.
  Mr. Mitchison: I share my hon. Friend's feelings. I did not express them when I spoke because I did not think it necessary to repeat them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that before we debated the 1959 Measure a White Paper was issued. It is common practice for Government Departments, particularly in connection with a highly technical Bill such as this, to issue some sort of statement. What my hon. Friend complained of and what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not mentioned is that something of the sort was issued, apparently without demand—although I am not certain on that score—to the Lobby, but nothing whatever was provided for my hon. Friends and hon. Members generally. Surely the Government do not want to be asked every time to do what they should obviously do.
  The Attorney-General: The Government produced for the House the Bill; and the bon. Member for Sowerby and
  1138
  the hon. and learned Member for Kettering were able to see and read it.
  Mr. Houghton: We will do better than that.
  The Attorney-General: The hon. Member for Sowerby's criticism of the Bill—and he came to the Bill after a long preliminary disposition of other topics—seemed mainly to concern its ancestry. It was on that point only that he seemed to criticise it. He did not like its ancestry, although he did not criticise the Measure itself. Nor did he criticise any of its Clauses, most of which he welcomed and many of which he thought should be strengthened.
  We have not during the course of the debate had any discussion of some of what I hope the House will regard as the legal improvements in the machinery of the Bill. Clause 8(1), for example, has made what I hope hon. Members will regard as a slight improvement in respect of notices, orders or directions issued for the purposes of the Measure.
  There are a number of Clauses where the rights of the citizen can be affected by the issue of a notice regarding an order or direction. Under the previous provisions no more was required than that it should be by ordinary post, but under Clause 8(1) it is now provided that such a notice, order or direction is deemed to have been served on the person only if it has been delivered personally or sent by registered post or recorded delivery service. If, however, it should happen that it can be proved that effective service has been made by ordinary post, and that the notice has been received, that will still be a sufficient service. The question of the service of a notice is a matter of some importance and I hope that the House will consider this to have been some improvement.
  It is also worth noting that under Schedule 1 there is, first, no legal power to require the keeping of records and, again, a Government Department can no longer authorise any person to inspect or search any premises for the purposes of the Measure. It will be only on a warrant issued by a justice of the peace that a search can now be authorised. The powers contained in Schedule 1 are similar to those which were given to the Board of Trade by the Protection of Depositors Act, 1963, and are drawn

  1139
  only in relation to the obtaining of information for the purposes of the Bill.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) objected to the omnium gatherum process used in the Bill. This is a problem. It was considered and it was a difficult choice. The alternative was to have a mass of small Bills, some of them dealing with very small points and some merely amending other legislation to a small degree. This might have caused a greater inconvenience to the practitioner and, certainly from the point of view of Parliament, would have taken a great deal more time, for we would have had to attach to each Bill some of the ancillary and procedural matters dealt with generally in this Bill. It is a question of choice and I hope that the House will consider that, on the whole, it was more convenient to deal with these matters in this way rather than to present a series of small Bills, each with ancillary provisions which would have been very similar to each other.
  The principal topic of discussion has been jute and Dundee. The jute industry is relevant to the powers of the Bill, but the geographical conditions and intercommunications of Dundee are less relevant, although of great importance. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) for the tribute he paid to the efforts the Government have been making to diversify industry in Dundee and I am sure that all hon. Members agree that this is an essential matter for the future of the people who live and work in Dundee.
  The Government realise the importance of diversification for Dundee, along with the great importance of the jute industry to that city, as well as to its future. As has been said, a working party is investigating the problem. I am not in a position to give any assurances of the kind sought, concerning what the Government will do, but, speaking generally, it must be obvious that what is to happen to the jute industry and what decisions the Government will take about it will depend on the results of that working party, although it would be wrong, before its report has been received, to start to give any indications
  1140
  about what conclusions the Government might come to about the future of the jute industry.
  Meantime, the Bill provides the powers to continue the present system of the protection of the Trade. They are available for the following five years and can be extended beyond that, if necessary. From that point of view the relevance of the Bill is that the present system of protection for the jute industry can be continued.
  There are two alternative methods of protecting the industry. The first method is of State trading, which permits the jute controller to add a mark-up on imported jute goods to keep home-made goods on the market and, secondly, to provide protection by way of tariffs. We retain the State-trading method and, as I have said, we are seeing, by means of the working party, what is the best way of proceeding in future.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) for his contribution and his questions about what is meant by vague phrases like "economic power of the State" and "publicly-owned industry" when those generalities are applied to the reality of an industry which is carrying on business and employing 1,700 people in specialised, localised conditions, in competition with many other products of a different nature.
  Mr. Mitchison: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman gets too far involved in Tory astrology, I would point out that it has always been said that these powers are renewable after the end of 1969. It is no doubt my own stupidity, but I cannot find that provision. Clause 17 says that the existing powers are to continue in force until the end of 1969. It then, perhaps rather oddly, provides that subsection (2) shall effect in substitution of these powers. That subsection starts:
  "Until the end of 1969 …"
  Where is the provision for renewal after that?
  The Attorney-General: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman—he is quite right. The powers under Clause 17 are limited to five years. I am sorry if I got it wrong; many of the other Clauses contain extension powers, and I thought that this one did, too.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: I might now give notice that I will raise the question of the statement about August during the Committee stage. Would not the Attorney-General agree that a Bill like this, which extends the power of jute control, involves the question of the Government's attitude towards protection? Will the Government therefore ensure that the uncertainty in Dundee is ended, at least until the General Election?
  The Attorney-General: Certainly. If I may say so, I think that the Committee stage would be a very convenient time at which to raise the matter. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice that he will do so—I had already suspected that he would. It may be possible by then for other Ministers concerned in the matter to be more precise than I feel I can be at the moment. To some extent, of course, it depends on whether the Report of the Working Party has been received and considered, because that is the next stage before final conclusions can be come to.
  The only other point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), who asked about the control of prices of medical supplies in Clause 5. It is true that this power has never been used, but the hon. and learned Member for Kettering was correct when he said that there are occasions when this power may be required; in particular, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said, in negotiations on the Voluntary Price Regulation Scheme. The fact that these powers are available puts the Government in a position in which they can negotiate. Without these powers the Government would have no influence at all, they would have no bargaining power in such negotiations, and would not be able to bring any pressure on anyone because they are not, in fact, a purchaser.
  The level of actual use of these goods is controlled by the medical profession
  1142
  in regard to prices, and demand is thereby also controlled. It is only by the Government's power to use, if necessary, compulsory price-fixing controls that they can have any influence at all on negotiations that have, up to now, always remained voluntary, and which it is hoped will remain so, because the trade and the Government will together be able to come to sensible conclusions on these matters.
  I hope that my remarks deal with most of the points that have been raised. No one has either generally or in particular, I think, opposed the Bill or any one of its Clauses. Some points may have to be discussed again in Committee but as, at this stage, there seems, as I say, to be no general or particular opposition to the Bill, I hope that the House will now give it a Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  EMERGENCY LAWS (RE-ENACTMENT AND REPEALS) [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).
  [Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to repeal the remaining Defence Regulations that is to say, the Defence Regulations set out n the Emergency Laws (Repeal) Act 1959), and to re-enact certain of those Defence Regulations with modifications, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by any government department which are attributable to the provisions of the Act.—[Mr. Green.]
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.56 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill is designed to remedy certain defects that experience has shown in the working of the law on obscene publications, as contained in the Obscene Publications Act, 1959. It is not intended to make any change in the basic principle of that Act, which derive substantially from the recommendations of a Select Committee appointed by the House in 1957. Those recommendations were intended to bring greater certainty into the law by the adoption of a statutory test of obscenity dependent on the corrupting effect of the book or other article on the persons likely, in all the relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear it.
  They were also designed to serve two other main purposes. One was to afford a measure of protection for works of literary, artistic or other merit by introducing a special defence of publication for the public good. The other was to strengthen the powers available to the authorities for suppressing the traffic in pornography These recommendations formed the basis of the Act of 1959, which was introduced as a Private Member's Measure by the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), whom I am happy to see in his place. The purposes I have mentioned were, indeed, made explicit in the Long Title of the 1959 Measure.
  The Government gave assistance during the several stages of the Bill's passage through Parliament, and were instrumental in having it amended in certain particulars. In its final form, therefore, it was the product of the combined efforts of private Members and the Government. Deriving, as it did, from a series of compromises, and in a number of cases from the introduction of Amendments drafted with different, and even conflicting, purposes in the minds of the hon. Members who put them forward, it is not surprising that the Act has shown some imperfections in practice.
  1144
  We have now had about five years' experience of the working of the Act, in the course of which certain technical defects have, by common consent, been exposed. It is the limited purpose of this Bill to remedy those defects. Although it is a matter on which opinions may differ, it has seemed to the Government that the provisions of the 1959 Act are effective to protect works of genuine literary, artistic or other merit. This should not, I think, be judged in the light of one or two disputed cases that have attracted publicity, but as a whole. Taken as a whole it appears that the effect of the Act, whether directly or indirectly, has been permissive to works having or claiming literary merit. Indeed, there is a considerable section of public opinion which believes that it has been too permissive.
  The provisions of the 1959 Act to some extent represented a compromise between, on the one hand, the need to prevent the circulation of obscene material which might have harmful effect and, on the other, the desire to reduce as far as possible the restraints on personal liberty. In the Government's view, the compromise then reached, while, naturally, it has not pleased everyone—and it has been criticised from both directions by different people—has worked out not too badly in practice. In bringing forward this Bill, therefore, it has not been our intention to disturb the compromise or the arrangements to which the 1959 Act gave effect.
  Our limited object is, as I have said, to remedy the defects brought to light by judicial decisions. I am, of course, well aware that some hon. Members might like to see more fundamental changes made, in one direction or another. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked me to apologise to the House for the fact that he is unable to be present this afternoon because of a long-standing official engagement in the north of England. I would emphasise that this engagement has not been in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who will be winding up the debate. My right hon. Friend asked me also to give an assurance that he will consider carefully any views which hon. Members may express or any suggestions which they may put forward.

  1145
  It is clear that the Act has been less effective than Parliament had intended in checking the dissemination of pornography for which no literary or other merit could possibly be claimed. Defects have been exposed which have had the unfortunate effect of handicapping the police in the discharge of their responsibilities. I am sure that the House will share the Government's view that these defects should be remedied without delay.
  It will be recalled that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) initiated a debate on the Adjournment on the subject of obscene publications on 3rd December last year. I took the opportunity then of explaining how the law operated and the steps which had been taken by the authorities under existing powers to check the increasing flood of pornographic material. Without going over all the ground which I went over in that debate, it may help to illustrate the size of the problem if I remind hon. Members of some of the figures which I then gave.
  Since the beginning of 1961 over 1 million books, representing over 1,000 different titles, had been seized as obscene at the ports under Customs legislation, and a further 360,000 books had been forfeited by courts following the institution of proceedings under the Obscene Publications Act. These figures obviously represented a considerable effort by the enforcement authorities. It is a distasteful task, and the task has to go on, but the police will be severely handicapped as long as the gaps in the law which I will describe are allowed to remain.
  I do not intend to recapitulate all the terms of the 1959 Act, but perhaps I might remind the House of the test of obscenity set out in that Act. It is as follows:
  "For the purposes of this Act an article shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect or (where the article comprises two or more distinct articles) the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it."
  Hon. Members will observe that this test is not absolute. It requires the court, in determining the corrupting tendency of a work, to have regard to
  1146
  the circumstances of publication, or intended publication.
  The effect of this is that a book which may lawfully be published to adults may be adjudged obscene in the hands of young persons, or, to take another example, what is fit for a member of the medical profession may be obscene to the layman. That is the basic principle on which tie law of obscenity rests, and it is important to remember it in considering the defects in the present law and the proposals in the Bill for remedying them.
  I did not have the good fortune to take part in the earlier debates, but I have studied very carefully everything that was said in the Select Committee, in the House itself, and in the Standing Committee which considered the 1959 Bill. Having read all the debates very carefully, I was particularly struck by the care and assiduity with which hon. Members addressed themselves to trying to foresee and forestall every imaginable case in which the Act might go wrong in its application. But it was impossible to foresee everything.
  I observed that hon. Members were much exercised by the possibility that in particular cases the courts might find that there could be no corruption of a particular person because that person was already totally corrupt. They did not contemplate the more paradoxical possibility of the courts finding that there could be no corruption of a particular person because that person was vocationally immune from corruption. Yet that is exactly what happened.
  The principal defect in the Act flows from the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in the case of Regina v. Clayton that there is no offence of publishing an obscene article under Section 2 of the 1959 Act where the act of publication charged is to a person who, because of his experience and maturity, is not susceptible to the article's corrupting qualities. The person concerned in that case was a police officer.
  Following this decision, the police can no longer base prosecutions on test purchases of obscene material made by police officers, and it is frequently impossible to get evidence of publication in other ways. There were also two other defects revealed by the courts. In Mella v. Monahan,

  1147
  the Divisional Court held that the exposure of priced articles in a shop was not an offer for sale and so not a publication of the articles within the meaning of the relevant Section of the 1959 Act, and consequently a display of obscene matter was no offence under the Act.
  Finally, in the case of Straker v. Director of Public Prosecutions, the Divisional Court held that photographic negatives could not be forfeited under the procedure provided under Section 3 of the 1959 Act since the negatives themselves were not intended to be published for gain. Hon. Members will observe that the effect of the first two cases is that a criminal prosecution cannot be brought in the absence of evidence of actual publication of an article to a person who can be shown to have been liable to be corrupted by it.
  While it may not be difficult to obtain evidence of sales, evidence of sales to persons liable to corruption may be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible. The persons who may be expected to complain to the police about the book which they have purchased are not likely to be themselves susceptible to any corrupting qualities it may have.
  In these circumstances the substantial penalties which Parliament intended should be available to deal with purveyors of pornography cannot be inflicted by the courts. In many cases the only course open to the police under the Act is to bring proceedings for forfeiture. In such proceedings it suffices to bring evidence that the articles are being kept for publication for gain in circumstances from which it appears likely that they would be published to persons liable to be corrupted by them. But forfeiture alone is not an adequate deterrent. The loss of obscene matter is something which the commercial traffickers in pornography have been prepared to bear in the knowledge that the sanctions of the criminal law are unlikely to reach them.
  Moreover, as the Straker case illustrates, there are limitations to what can be forfeited as the law now stands. It is obviously a relatively simple matter to run off further obscene prints from a negative to replace prints forfeited by order of the courts. The control would be more effective clearly if the courts had
  1148
  power to forfeit negatives as well as the prints.
  This, then, is the background of the Bill, to which I now turn in detail. Clause I will remedy the weaknesses in the law disclosed in the first two cases which I mentioned, by creating a new offence of having an obscene article for publication for gain. This offence will carry the same penalty as the existing offence under Section 2 of the 1959 Act of publishing an obscene article, namely, up to three years' imprisonment and a fine on indictment, and six months' imprisonment or a £100 fine on summary conviction. It will be subject to the same defences as the existing offence, including the defence under Section 4 of the 1959 Act that publication of the article is justified as being for the public good on the ground that it would be in the interests of, inter alia, literature.
  The enactment of this new provision will clearly dispose of the difficulty caused by the decision in Mella v. Monahan that the exposure of an article for sale in a shop is not an offer for sale and does not, therefore, constitute an offence of publication under Section 2 of the 1959 Act. The exposure will be evidence that the article is for publication for gain.
  The new provision will also overcome the difficulty which arises out of the Clayton case, what has been called the case of the incorruptible policeman. Clause 1(3,b) provides that for the purpose of the new offence the question whether an article is obscene is to be determined by reference to any publication which may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of the accused.
  Briefly, I interpolate here that towards the end of Clause 2 there is a misprint. The reference to Section 1(2,b) should read as a reference to Section 1(3,b), and it will be necessary to correct this later,
  Any sale, to a police officer or to any other person, will be evidence that the article is being kept for sale to the general public; and it will not be necessary to prove, as it is at present, that the purchaser himself is susceptible to corruption. The Clause also, by subsection (4), requires a court convicting of the new offence to order the forfeiture of the articles concerned, thus obviating the

  1149
  need to obtain a separate forfeiture order from a magistrate under the powers available under the present Act.
  Clause 2 of the Bill goes on to deal with photographic negatives and other articles, for example, moulds and the "skins" from which copies of a duplicated document are taken, designed for the reproduction or manufacture of obscene articles for gainful publication. The effect of the Clause is that negatives, moulds, and so on, intended to be used for this purpose will be liable to seizure, and it will also be an offence to keep them with that object. This provision will remedy the defect in the law exposed by the decision in Straker's case.
  There is also a provision providing for the determination of the obscenity of the articles by reference to the circumstances in which the articles to be manufactured from them are likely to have been published.
  My right hon. Friend and I have received a large number of complaints both from hon. Members on both sides of the House and from the general public protesting about the volume and widespread distribution of pornography up and down the country. My right hon. Friend entirely shares the concern that has been expressed on this question, and he is determined to see that the law is adequate to protect people, and especially the young, from the possibility of corruption by this undesirable material.
  The Government consider that it is imperative that the enforcement authorities should be given adequate powers to suppress this harmful traffic, and careful examination of all the relevant issues has satisfied them that the Bill now before the House contains all the additional powers that are needed for that purpose.
  I wish again to emphasise that the Bill is intended primarily to deal with books and magazines which no reasonable person would judge to have any conceivable literary merit. It is not directed to the case of serious literary works of the kind which the original sponsors of the 1959 Act were anxious to protect. The protective provisions written into that Act are left untouched by the present Bill: it neither strengthens nor weakens them. Nor does it alter in any material way the principles on
  1150
  which the law rests, and which Parliament adopted at that time after exhaustive examination of the whole of this intricate subject.
  I am confident that hon. Members on both sides will support the Government's objectives in seeking to impose additional checks on pornography, and I accordingly invite the House to give its approval to the Bill.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Niall MacDermot: I think I am right in saying that this is the first time for over 100 years that any Government have taken the initiative in presenting an obscene publications Bill to Parliament. It was Aristotle, I think, who said that courage was not the opposite of fear but was the golden mean between fear and temerity. I do not know whether the Government's action on this occasion is to be classified as an act of courage or an act of temerity, but, whichever it may be, it is a matter for great regret that the Home Secretary is not here himself to introduce the Bill, explain it to the House and seek to justify it.
  I say that because I wish to make clear at the outset that, grateful as we are to the Under-Secretary of State for the very clear way in which he has presented the Bill and the Government's view of it, I for my part cannot accept his statement that the Bill in no way departs in principle from the admittedly agreed compromise Measure which resulted in the 1959 Act.
  Unlike the 1959 Act, the present Bill is not, as far as I know, the outcome of any widespread public discussion or concern calling for amending legislation. We know that the extent to which pornographic literature is being sold has been raised and that concern has been expressed that more effective steps should be taken by the police to deal with it. What we have to consider is whether the powers sought under this Bill are really necessary for that purpose.
  I should make two matters clear at the outset. First, in what I say I am speaking only for myself and not on behalf of the party to which I belong. The view which my right hon. and hon. Friends take, which I fully share, is that the subject matter of this Bill is one which ought properly to be left to a free vote

  1151
  of the House, as was the 1959 Bill which resulted in the Act which it is now sought to amend. I hope that on the Government side the same view will be taken and that we shall find this matter freely discussed and decided by individual hon. Members. There is no party issue involved at all.
  Secondly, I wish to make perfectly clear that in any questions which I may raise or views which I may express, the last thing I want to do—I am sure that all hon. Members feel the same—is to impose any unreasonable fetter upon the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions in dealing with the trade in pornography. There have always been differences, and I am sure that there always will be differences, on how far the arm of the law should extend in restricting the publication of matters dealing with questions particularly of sex; but I think that all of us, or almost all of us, are agreed that there is a vast field of pornographic dross which no one would seek to defend at all, what Lord Birkett called, in the previous debates, dirt for dirt's sake.
  Nevertheless, while we do not want to hamper the police unreasonably in dealing with what, I think, was happily referred to as "pure pornography," it is important that we do not forget our equal responsibility to seek to preserve the fair, moderate and humane character of our criminal law, to preserve the freedom of genuine artistic and literary endeavour and to protect them from the unduly censorious attitude of the prim and the prudish. It is the old problem of finding the right balance in the conflict between preserving freedom and preventing the abuse of freedom.
  The first comment that I make on the Bill is that the Explanatory Memorandum is most misleading. It states—and this was the purport of the Under-Secretary of State's speech—that the purpose of the Bill is merely to remedy certain deficiencies in the Obscene Publications Act, 1959, which have been brought to light by subsequent judicial decisions. That wording is, I suggest, apt in describing Clause 2, but, as I shall hope to show, is quite inapt in describing the fundamental changes in the criminal law which Clause 1 proposes to effect.
  The Bill does two things. Clause 2 remedies, quite clearly, a defect which
  1152
  was brought to light by the case of Straker v. The Director of Public Prosecutions and extends the criminal law to include within the 1959 Act negatives of pornographic photographs as well as the prints which are made from those negatives and similar cases in which pornographic material is reproduced from some master copy. I do not think that any of us realised at the time of the 1959 debates that we had left this gap. I am sure that if we had done we would have closed it. I shall be very surprised if any hon. Member opposes in any way the object of Clause 2.
  Clause 1, however, raises much wider questions because it proposes a major change in the law. It proposes for the first time to make people guilty of a criminal offence in relation to obscene publications even though they have never published them to anyone at all. Mere possession will, in the circumstances defined, be sufficient to result in a criminal conviction.
  Under the existing law, there are two sorts of proceedings—forfeiture proceedings and criminal prosecution. Forfeiture proceedings are to enable pornographic literature and other pornographic material to be seized and destroyed. It is designed to frustrate the trade in pornographic literature by the seizure of bulk stocks. I imagine that the vast majority of the 360,000 books which the Under-Secretary of State said had been destroyed would all be destroyed under the forfeiture proceedings. In those proceedings, all that the prosecution has to do is to move against the occupier of the premises where the goods are seized that the articles are being "kept for publication for gain"—it has to prove, of course, that they are obscene publications within the definition—and that they are likely to be published in circumstances which would be harmful in the sense defined in the Act, namely, that they would tend to "deprave or corrupt" persons likely to see, read or hear the contents.
  But I stress that it is not necessary in those proceedings to prove actual publication. A criminal prosecution under the 1959 Act for publishing an obscene article, like the old common law offence which it largely replaces, does, however, require proof of publication

  1153
  and, indeed, it is the act of publication which is the essence of the offence—publication in circumstances which are likely to do actual harm to someone. It is important to remember, too, that until the 1959 Act actual publication also had to be proved before even a destruction order could be obtained under the forfeiture proceedings.
  It was as a result of representations made by the police to the Select Committee in 1957 that the Select Committee recommended, and Parliament subsequently agreed, that the police should be relieved of the necessity of proving actual publication in order to obtain a destruction order. That is all that the police asked of the Select Committee. At no time did they ask that mere possession should be a sufficient basis for a criminal prosecution and, as far as I know, it was never suggested during the discussion of the 1959 Act.
  I therefore hope that the House will agree with me that a change of this kind is not a minor technical change to remedy a defect. It is a basic alteration in the scope of the criminal law on obscene publications. It may be a right thing to do and there may be a good case for it, but if we do it let us recognise what we are doing and let us understand the grounds which justify it. In my submission, a strong case must be made out by the Home Secretary before we extend the criminal law to this extent.
  There is a well recognised distinction in the whole of our criminal law between mere preparation to commit a crime and the actual commission of a crime or an attempt to commit a crime. An attempt to commit any crime is a common law misdemeanour and is an offence just as much as the crime. If a prospective criminal goes not further than to prepare to commit a crime, he does not bring himself within the ambit of the criminal law. It is an unusual thing, although it is not unknown, in our criminal law for mere possession of an article to be a criminal offence, whatever may be the motive or intent. If, for example a burglar or housebreaker has housebreaking implements in his home and a policeman by day goes to his house and finds them in his house, although it is clear and, indeed, is admitted by the man that he has them with the intention of using them for
  1154
  housebreaking, he has not committed a criminal offence and cannot be prosecuted.
  With the exception of licensed goods, such as dangerous drugs and firearms, it is rare for mere possession of an article to be the subject of a criminal offence. It happens in the case of offensive weapons provided the possession takes place in public but not in a man's home. It happens in the special case of flick-knives under the 1959 legislation. It is proposed in a Bill which is before the House at the moment that it should apply in the case of certain drugs—I refer to the legislation to deal with the "purple heart" problem—but otherwise it is unusual.
  The Explanatory Memorandum seeks to justify this change in the law on the basis of the two decisions referred to by the Under-Secretary of State. The first is Clayton's case in which it was held that no offence was committed under the 1959 Act. In that case publication was made through an experienced police officer who was not susceptible to the article's corrupting qualities. It is beyond my comprehension how that decision can have occasioned surprise to anyone in the, hon. Gentleman's Department or can be thought to have brought to light any deficiency in the law.
  That decision went to the root of the basis of the law as this House quite deliberately and consciously decided it in 1959, namely, that the test of obscenity was not to look objectively at the material and to say, "That is obscene" but to look at the circumstances of a e individual publication and say whether the publication of that material was likely to tend to deprave or corrupt anyone. How anyone can have thought, applying that test, that to sell matter to an experienced police officer who for years had been doing nothing but dealing with obscene publications was likely to tend to deprave or corrupt passes my understanding. The matter was made perfectly clear in the debates which we had at the time and it results from the words in the definition Clause which has already been read to the House, namely, that one must test the publication with regard to the persons who are likely, having regard

  1155
  to all the relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear it.
  When the Solicitor-General of the day was introducing those words to the Standing Committee on 4th March, 1959, he said:
  "What we are aiming at…is to leave out of account in any specific proceedings circumstances other than those surrounding the publication that is charged, and the circumstances flowing from that publication."
  On the same occasion he went on to say:
  "We thought that the right test would be to consider, objectively, who was likely to be reached by the publication, and not, subjectively, what were the expectations of the person publishing it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 4th March, 1959; c. 11 and 35.]
  In the light of that wording, it is difficult to see how anyone in the Home Office could have thought of making sale to a police officer a criminal offence.
  The second decision was the case of Mella v. Monahan. That was a decision that mere exposure for sale is not an offence since it is not within the definition of publication in the Act. Again, I do not see how anyone can say that that defect, if defect it be, was brought to light by that case.
  That omission in the Bill, as it then was, was specifically referred to by Lord Denning in the Second Reading debate on the Bill in another place on 2nd June, 1959, when he said:
  "Let me take another instance, which occurred in Liverpool only a little while ago. A bookseller obtained a perfectly reputable medical book and displayed it in his window, opening it at a page on which there was a diagram of the female sex organs. He did it for the purposes of his trade, to attract people to his shop. That is not covered by the provisions of this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 2nd June, 1959; Vol. 216, c. 504.]
  It was then clearly drawn to the attention of the Government and, presumably, that was deliberately omitted from the Bill.
  I take the view that it would be right to extend the law to include exposure for sale in that kind of way in a shop window within the provisions of the criminal law. To achieve that, however, it is not necessary to make the wide change which is proposed in Clause 1 of the Bill. All that would be needed is to add to the definition of publication in Section 1(3,a) of the Act the words:
  "or expose it for sale or for letting on hire".
  1156
  There would be a clear precedent for such a provision in the amending Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act, 1959 (Amendment) Act, 1961, which made exposure of flick knives for sale a criminal offence.
  That would, incidentally, overcome the difficulty which the police apparently say they face as a result of the decision that sale to a police officer is not an offence within the Act, because it would not then be necessary to prove a sale to a police officer. All that the officer would need to do would be to prove that the article was exposed for sale and then give evidence to show the type of persons who frequent the shop and who would be liable to be reached by that exposure.
  A further reason for not extending the criminal law to mere possession is that extension to mere possession would mean that a person might be convicted of a criminal offence, not for something which he is proved to have done or to have intended to do, but merely for something which the court speculates that he might do. That arises in this way. As has already been stated, no article is obscene per se under our law. It is not obscene in the abstract. It is obscene only in relation to an actual or contemplated publication which is likely to deprave or corrupt someone. This is fundamental to the whole of our law on this subject.
  Where there is a prosecution for actual publication, there is no problem; the court can look at the circumstances of the publication and the publication which is likely to flow from it. Where we are dealing with forfeiture proceedings, the position under the existing Act of 1959 is covered by Section 3(7), which states:
  "For the purposes of this section the question whether an article is obscene shall be determined on the assumption that copies of it would be published in any manner likely having regard to the circumstances in which it was found, but in no other manner".
  That involves an element of speculation as to the likely publication that would flow from the possession. It may, however, be thought that no great harm would result from that because there is no question of any criminal prosecution and no conviction for any criminal offence.
  In Clause 1(3,b) of the Bill, however, the provision is that
  "the question whether the article is obscene shall be determined by reference to any such publication for gain of the article as in the circumstances he may fairly be supposed to have

  1157
  had in contemplation and to any further publication that could reasonably be expected to follow from it, but not to any other publication."
  What someone may fairly be supposed to have in contemplation is hardly a satisfactory basis for a criminal conviction. It is certainly not one that would appeal to the majority of common lawyers. Before we put such provision into our law, we would want to be satisfied that there are very good reasons for it.
  I should like the Solicitor-General to elaborate rather more the reasons why the Government want to go beyond merely making exposure for sale a criminal offence and want to extend what has up to now been merely the field for forfeiture proceedings—namely, mere possession—and make that a criminal offence as well. It may be argued that if one merely made exposure for sale a criminal offence, this would not enable the criminal law to reach the man who keeps his obscene publications, as it were, under the counter.
  My answer to that is to ask why that should be made a criminal offence if a person does keep them under the counter unless and until he is proved to have taken them out from under the counter and published them to someone in circumstances which are likely to be harmful. That man could effectively be reached by forfeiture proceedings. As long as the police can get prima facie evidence to obtain a search warrant, they can go and search, seize the material, bring it before a magistrate and, unless the defendant can prove justification for himself, obtain a destruction order. Surely, this should be a sufficient and effective means for checking this trade where it is known to exist. Indeed, Lord Chief Justice Parker, in giving the decision of the court in Clayton's case, pointed that out. At the end of his judgment, he said:
  "We appreciate that our decision … may handicap the police in securing convictions for such offences, but, nevertheless, test purchases will enable them to obtain a search warrant and seize obscene material and also in many cases to bring conspiracy charges."
  I should like to know whether we can be given further explanation of the difficulties which the police have encountered which have led to the proposal
  1158
  to make the wide change which is proposed by the Clause. It is not something which was asked for by the police before the Select Committee and, as far as I know, there has been no public request for any such powers.
  In this connection, can we also be informed what the present practice is with regard to disclaimers? Before the Select Committee, it was explained that, where the police seized obscene material under a search warrant, they frequently did not take forfeiture proceedings. Instead, there was an arrangement by which the owner of the premises—the occupier—would sign a statement disclaiming any interest in or property in the material and it would then be taken and destroyed by the police. This avoided any further proceedings before a court.
  I have doubts as to whether this is a very desirable practice. I had thought and assumed that when the police were given the additional powers granted under the 1959 Act the disclaimer procedure would cease. I have been informed—and I do not know whether this is right or not—that that is not so and that the disclaimer procedure is continuing. Is that so or not? Following from it and related to it, if the Government obtain the new criminal offence they seek in Clause 1 of this Bill, what, as a matter of practice, is proposed to be done?
  In what circumstances is it thought that the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions will continue to act under the old forfeiture procedure and in what circumstances would they take a criminal proceeding under Clause 1? Why, one may ask, should not the police always prosecute if, as will be the case in any circumstances where they could take forfeiture proceedings, they will have evidence before them of the commission of a criminal offence under this Clause? Who is to decide whether to take criminal proceedings or merely to go for forfeiture? Will it be the police or the D.P.P.? How will they decide and on what principle?
  Does it mean that some practice will grow up whereby if a bookseller comes forward, as it were, and does not cause trouble or difficulty, forfeiture proceedings will be launched whereas if he shows fight and wants to contest that

  1159
  the matter is obscene, or that it would be likely to be published in harmful circumstances, he will be met with criminal prosecution?
  It seems to me that all sorts of undesirable consequences could flow from having these two separate procedures running parallel with exactly the same facts having to be proved in both types of proceedings. If the circumstances disclose a criminal offence, will it not be the duty of the police to prosecute? It has been suggested—it was referred to in the Guardian today—that it is necessary to retain the forfeiture procedure so as not to clog the work of the courts because if, in every case, criminal prosecution was to be brought this might lead to many contested cases and would hold up the work of the courts.
  I find it difficult to understand that view. After all, under forfeiture proceedings the matter has to be brought before the court and if the defendant wants to contest the issue of obscenity he is perfectly free to do so. If that is the argument, surely it shows that it is not necessary to have the power to prosecute in order to disrupt the trade. If it is intended that, in the majority of cases, the police will continue to proceed by way of forfeiture, one wonders what the basis is of the Government's case for saying that they must have this power to prosecute in order effectively to be able to stamp out the pornography trade.
  Another important matter depends on the question as to where the police or the D.P.P. go by way of forfeiture proceedings or prosecution—namely, the question of the right of a decision on obscenity or the defence of literary merit being determinable by a jury. The responsible book trade has been very disturbed recently by the nature of the proceedings in the case of "Fanny Hill". I do not think that anyone contemplated, when the 1959 Act was going through the House, that a test case for a work with serious literary pretensions would arise by way of forfeiture proceedings.
  We all assumed that forfeiture proceedings would be restricted to the more obvious pornography and that any serious issue as to obscenity would be tested before a jury. Indeed, the Solicitor-
  1160
  General of the day told the Standing Committee on the Bill:
  "I want, first, to emphasise that it will be a jury that will decide."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 4th March, 1959; c. 35.]
  The hon. and learned Gentleman knew, of course, that there could be summary proceedings, but he clearly had in mind that borderline cases—which is what we were discussing—would be decided by a jury. This is a point which some of my hon. Friends may wish to develop further. All I want to say at this stage about it is that if the right to trial by jury is to be secure in all cases, then it can be done in one of three ways. The first is by abolishing forfeiture altogether as a separate procedure and making forfeiture an ancillary order resulting from a conviction for the proposed new offence. The second way is by amending the forfeiture procedure so as to enable the issue of obscenity or literary merit to be referred to a jury. This would mean a considerable procedural change in our law and I can see the difficulties in the way.
  The third and perhaps easiest solution, if it could be devised, would be an administrative practice developing whereby, if a serious defence of non-obscenity or of literary merit was raised by the defendant, the police themselves, at the request of the defence and on the advice of the D.P.P., would proceed by way of a criminal prosecution. If that were done, it would ensure that the defence would always have the right to elect for trial and enable the issue to be decided by a jury.
  It is important to realise—because there may be misunderstanding—that the decision in Clayton's case would not prevent, in a proper case, what I might call an "arranged" prosecution as a test case, which is rather what happened in the case of "Lady Chatterley's Lover", when, by arrangement, a police officer called at Penguin Books and purchased a copy which was the subject of prosecution in order to test the issue of obscenity or otherwise of the book.
  The decision in Clayton's case does not, in my view, stop convenient arrangements of that kind being made. All that would be needed would be a sale by a publisher to a bookseller of a book subject to prosecution, the bookseller making clear

  1161
  his intention, if allowed to do so, to expose it publicly for sale and to sell it to sundry members of the public who might ask for it.
  There is one more matter I wish to touch on briefly. Anxieties have been expressed about resort to prosecution for the common law misdemeanour of conspiracy. At common law, any agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime is in itself the crime of conspiracy. Consequently, an agreement to publish obscene matter is a criminal offence even though no actual publication results. There have been cases, perfectly proper cases, in which people have been convicted and sent to prison for conspiracies to publish obscene matter.
  The anxieties which have been expressed cover two points. The first is lest the protection afforded by the 1959 Act by the defence of literary merit should be sidestepped by the prosecution proceeding on a prosecution for conspiracy to corrupt public morals, as was done in the "Ladies' Directory" case. It is important to notice that that was not a case of an obscene publication. As far as I know, no prosecution of that kind has ever been presented when dealing with an obscene publication. All I would seek is an assurance that there is no intention when dealing with obscene matter to proceed by way of a prosecution of that kind for a conspiracy to corrupt public morals but that proceedings will always be taken on a conspiracy to commit an offence under the Obscene Publications Act, which would then ensure that the literary merit defence was available.
  The second fear is lest the limits laid down in the Act for punishment, which on indictment are three years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine, might be exceeded by a prosecution for conspiracy. There is no limit to the period of imprisonment which can be imposed by the courts on a conviction at common law of the offence of conspiracy, of course. Perhaps this is a matter more properly dealt with in Committee, but it would be interesting to know whether there have been any cases where a conspiracy conviction of this kind has resulted in any penalty heavier than the three years' maximum provided in the 1959 Act.
  I have, offered some critical questions about the scope of Clause 1. I recommend
  1162
  to my hon. and right hon. Friends that this is not a Bill which we should oppose on Second Reading. The case for what is asked for in Clause 2 is quite unanswerable. Clearly, there is a need for some amending legislation in this respect, and I would consider some amending legislation dealing with the problem covered by Clause 1. However, the Bill goes considerably further than has been suggested so far by those presenting it on behalf of the Government and we will need to consider its terms and scope very carefully in Committee.
  6.53 p.m.
  Sir Cyril Black: I welcome the introduction of the Bill. It is a modest contribution in a field in which a more imaginative and far-reaching Bill might have been more useful, but, in so far as it closes certain loopholes which have been revealed in the 1959 Act, it is useful and will serve a useful purpose. I therefore hope that it will receive a Second Reading.
  When the 1959 legislation was before Parliament, there was a general hope that it would improve the position about the publication of pornographic literature and would make it easier for the courts to deal with this evil. That Bill was accepted by many people at that time as being a useful piece of legislation. Of course, it is very difficult for laymen, as distinct from members of the legal profession, to understand exactly what the consequences of legislation of this type will be. It is certainly correct to say that many people have been very disappointed with the consequences of the 1959 Act, as those consequences appear to be entirely different from what was then expected by many people.
  The position now is that obscene books are reaching the market on a scale which has not been experienced before, at any rate not in this century. Not only are these books coming on to the market on a vast scale, but they are being offered for sale at very low prices, which brings them within the reach of a very wide public, particularly within the reach of many young people.
  I am certain that a great deal of literature is being freely offered for sale in bookshops and on bookstalls which would not have been tolerated for a moment in this country as recently as 25 years ago. In the past, we in this

  1163
  country were inclined to take a rather superior view about the conditions which existed here in these matters in comparison with those which used to exist in Paris. For instance, in Paris in particular, it used to be the case that a great deal of literature was freely available which would not have been tolerated in this country.
  However, all my information leads me to believe that the position has now been completely reversed. I am assured by those who ought to know that there are books now being offered for sale in this country by the thousand and the tens of thousands which have been completely banned in Paris, where their sale would not be allowed in any circumstances.
  I have already said that one of the most sinister effects of this trade in pornographic literature is that upon many young people who have fallen a prey to this stuff. It is not surprising that we have today a rising tide of juvenile delinquency and a very great increase in illegitimacy, considering the temptations which young people are facing, temptations more serious and more insidious than were faced by hon. Members when we were young. I believe that there is evidence that public opinion has been changing in this matter and that it will greatly welcome the Bill and any further measures which the Government may think it necessary to introduce to deal with what is now generally recognised by the great mass of the people as a situation which can no longer be tolerated.
  We hear a good deal today about the misdeeds of a small minority of young people, but I am bound to say that the young people who, in the last few days organised a petition about pornographic literature and presented that petition to the Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street, are to be greatly congratulated on the concern which they have shown in a matter which they realise to be vital to the country's future.
  While, for many years, public opinion has been swinging against what were perhaps rightly regarded as the undue restraints of the Victorian period, the time has come when many people feel that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction and that a halt
  1164
  must be called. I believe that the Government are taking a useful, if limited, step in the right direction in presenting this Bill.
  It is perhaps strange to realise the comparative lack of attention which was given to this matter by Parliament until the Bill was introduced. I suppose that there never was a time when there was so much concern in this country about clean air and clean food. No one will quarrel with that, but we have not shown the same sort of concern about clean books; and it is perhaps relevant to point out that dirty air and dirty food can poison the bodies of men and women, but dirty books poison the soul, which is an infinitely more serious matter.
  To be quite fair, I think that we must recognise that a lot of this flood of pornographic literature comes from abroad, a great deal of it, unfortunately, from the United States of America. I believe that Customs and Excise officials are doing what can reasonably be expected of them in seizing these books at the ports and thereby preventing their reaching the market in this country, but it is clear that although they are doing their best they cannot be effective to the point of dealing with this evil in a complete sense.
  I very much hope that the Home Secretary will continue his efforts to bring about a change of policy on the part of the authorities in the United States whereby they will take action on their side of the Atlantic to stop these books from leaving their ports so that we are not left with the invidious and difficult task of dealing with the books when they arrive at our ports.
  Since the Bill was published, voices have been raised to try to persuade the Government to weaken some of the Bill's modest proposals. I beg my right hon. Friend to turn a deaf ear to any blandishments of that kind, and to refuse in any way to weaken a Bill which, in the view of many people, is only a modest contribution to deal with this evil.
  I hope that in Committee there will be an opportunity for a full consideration of Section 4 of the 1959 Act. I hope that that Section will either be repealed, or, if a case can be made out for it not being repealed in toto, that it will, at

  1165
  any rate, be amended to remove some of the evil that it has done. I shall not develop the argument on that point at any length, because it is, after all, a Committee point, and the matter can be better argued at that stage, but it is clear that the law has been greatly weakened by that Section of the 1959 Act, and I welcome the opportunity which the Bill gives to have it considered in Committee.
  I hope that the House and the Government will never forget that huge profits are being made out of this pornographic literature business, and that behind the business there are powerful, faceless, men who will stop at nothing to carry on this monstrous but profitable traffic. I am sure that the Government should have that in mind, and that they should resist any blandishments which may be exercised on them to weaken in one way or another the modest proposals of the Bill.
  I am certain that if it is necessary to do so for the continuance of their profitable business the people behind this traffic will employ writers of literary merit instead of semi-illiterates who, at present, are employed to write most of these books, and that if they do so they will endeavour to bring their trade within the protection afforded to them by Section 4 of the 1959 Act.
  The whole proposition of Section 4 seems to many people, and certainly to me, to be based on a fallacy, because dirt is still dirt, no matter how beautiful is the casket in which it may be contained.
  7.5 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) contented himself with not coming to close terms with the Bill but with merely deploying in general terms the case for as much restriction as could be imposed at any one time. Therefore, I do not want to reply in great detail to what he said. I was, however, surprised when the hon. Gentleman said that at the time he had been a supporter of the 1959 Bill, which he thought was a reasonable and helpful piece of legislation in the circumstances. I think that his support, if it existed at the time, must have been given rather more silently than the support which he has given the Bill this evening, but
  1166
  perhaps he was rather working behind the scenes.
  Sir C. Black: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not misrepresent me. I am sure that I did not say that I supported the 1959 Bill. I said that I was led to believe, by people on whose opinion I depended, that the Bill was likely to have the effect of making it easier for the authorities to deal with pornographic literature. I was mistaken in that belief, or I was ill-advised.
  Mr. Jenkins: I do not know on whose opinion the hon. Gentleman depends, and I am, therefore, not able to follow that line of argument, but he indicated tonight that in 1959 he thought the Measure was reasonable and helpful. Now the hon. Gentleman wants to go back on the 1959 Act in a way which the Government, through the Joint Under-Secretary of State, have made clear that they do not contemplate, and I hope that we can have from the Solicitor-General an assurance that the Government will resist any attempt to do away with Section 4 of that Act, which was the whole basis of the compromise at that time. If we get that assurance, it will put the whole matter in a different light. The compromise made in 1959 would be meaningless if it were tampered with in this way, and I hope that we can have that assurance this evening so that in Committee we can approach this matter with as much good will as possible.
  As the sponsor of the 1959 Act, I have no objection in principle to amending legislation at the present time. I think that not to take that line would be to show an almost excessive attachment to one's own work, which I would not want to do, for two reasons. First, because to a large extent it was not my own work. Apart from those closely associated with me in pushing through the 1959 Bill, as the Minister said, it was a compromise Measure. We were responsible for pushing very hard for the provision about literary merit and public good for the provision that the work should be considered as a whole and not merely on the basis of isolated passages, and for the provision that it should be considered on the basis of the likely audience at whom the book was directed, and that we should get

  1167
  away from the old provision of considering into whose hands the book might fall. Those were the provisions for which we were responsible, and I am glad that they were enacted.
  What one might called the machinery of prosecution provisions came from the Home Office draftsmen and were broadly in accord with what police and prosecuting authorities asked for in their evidence before the Select Committee. If loopholes have been shown up, the responsibility must to a large extent rest with those who put forward the evidence and those who asked for things, and, having got them, found them insufficient. I do not blame them, but I would not like it to be thought that these loopholes have arisen because we were determined not to have these matters dealt with at that time. The Bill was a compromise. The main principles of it came from those who sponsored the Bill, but the machinery by which it was to be implemented came from Government draftsmen and from Government spokesmen.
  The second reason why I would not wish to oppose in principle an amending Bill. It would be extremely silly, especially in the case of a compromise Measure, not to expect that some flaws might show themselves in the course of five years. It is only reasonable that where flaws have been shown to exist they should be remedied. But those remedies should be on an all-round basis, and they should remedy the unexpected flaws which have developed in the working of the law not merely from the point of view of the police or of the prosecuting authorities but also from the point of view of reputable authors and publishers. That has not been done in the Bill as drafted. I hope that it will be done in Committee. If it is, we may then have a reasonable Bill which can go through with good will and a large measure of agreement among most of those concerned.
  What do reputable authors and publishers want? What are the flaws which have developed from their point of view? There are two lesser points to which I shall refer later, but primarily their view is that there should be the right of trial by jury where the defence of literary merit is involved, and where the calling of expert witnesses is entailed. The case
  1168
  in principle is that these matters—concerned with what shall be read and what should not be read, what is offensive and what is not offensive, what is corrupting and what is not corrupting—to a greater extent than almost anything else with which this House has to deal, or with which the law has to deal, are subject to individual prejudice on one side or the other.
  This being so, this is a subject which, by its very nature, is peculiarly unsuited for the absolute judgment of one man, and one man alone. It is a subject which is particularly appropriate for the jury system, with 12 people to some extent balancing each other in their approach and in their prejudices. That is infinitely preferable to judgment by an individual. But there are other considerations which work in favour of the right to trial by jury.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) mentioned the "Fanny Hill" case. That exposed clearly the disadvantages of not having trial by jury in a major case. The circumstances of that case were most unsuitable for hearing in a magistrates' court. It was a major case, involving the deployment of subtle and erudite evidence, which might or might not be accepted but which it was extremely important should be heard and weighed up. It was entirely inappropriate to be heard in a dingy magistrates' court—or perhaps I should say a magistrates' dingy court—which was used to dealing with cases of summary jurisdiction, many of them involving drunks or prostitutes. It was first heard on a Monday and then adjourned to the following Monday. It was then put over to the next Saturday afternoon, and then to the following Monday week. This time-table was entirely inappropriate for a difficult case. It was impossible for the tribunal to be able to form a balanced judgment whether convincing evidence had been put forward.
  Secondly, the verdict, given in that way, was unsatisfactory from everybody's point of view. It was an inconclusive verdict, because it related only to the 171 copies of the book which were seized in a certain bookshop. There have been subsequent cases in Manchester and Sheffield which indicate that it was not regarded as having settled the matter

  1169
  definitely. It may be said that even if the case had been a criminal case and had been heard at the Old Bailey it would still have related only to those copies of the book which had been seized. But there would then have been one great difference. The judge, in his summing up to the jury, would have weighed up the evidence and given an indication whether great regard was being given to that part of the prosecution's case, which related largely to the circumstances existing in the bookshop in which the book was seized. The judge would have pronounced on the literary evidence, and would have said whether or not he regarded it as unconvincing, or as convincing in itself but still failing to outweigh the inherent obscenity of the book. The jury would then have been able to arrive at a verdict which would have appeared just and fair not only to those who wanted to be prosecuted and not to be dealt with by the forfeiture procedure but also to those people who took the view that the book was dangerous and should have been banned.
  The "Fanny Hill" proceedings indicated overwhelmingly that this was a most unsuitable method of procedure for a major case of its kind. It indicated overwhelmingly that it was essentially a jury issue, and it was a great pity that it was not heard before a jury.
  How could this be achieved? My hon. and learned Friend referred to three methods. First, we could give the defence the right to opt for prosecution under Section 2 of the 1959 Act—an option which they would have like to have been able to choose in the "Fanny Hill" case—rather than to submit to the forfeiture procedure in a case where they wished to employ the defence of literary merit. Secondly, we could provide for the empanelling of a jury, even where forfeiture only was applied for. Thirdly, we could do away with the forfeiture procedure and deal with all cases on a purely criminal basis. My own preference is for the first proposal, namely, to give the defence the right to opt for trial by jury in a case where it wishes to employ the defence of literary merit. I do not think that it would be impossible to make such a provision.
  What are the objections? In the "Fanny Hill" case, the objection put for-
  1170
  ward by the Solicitor-General was based on the Clayton case, which concerned the incorruptibility of the police. That has been disposed of, assuming that Clause 1 is agreed to. There also seems to be a feeling on the part of the Government—and this opinion seems to have found an echo in the speech of the hon. Member for Wimbledon—that there could be a sort of clogging up of the courts by a deliberate attempt on the part of those who wished to publish pornographic literature to opt for prosecution. They could clog up proceedings at the Old Bailey and similar courts and make it difficult for cases to go ahead.
  It is difficult to believe that that would happen, and I would need some extremely strong evidence to make me believe that it would. The defence of literary merit has been raised very rarely in the past five years. It is not susceptible of being used frivolously. If there is no worth-while evidence, what man in his right mind is going to invite prosecution rather than accept the forfeiture procedure, thereby inviting arraignment before the country on a criminal charge, simply in order to deploy a frivolous defence which he knows has no chance of being accepted? If the worry of the Government is that a situation might arise in which pornographers would try to clog up the criminal courts, it is difficult to see what is the purpose of the Government in introducing Clause 1, because that Clause is designed to enable the Government to take criminal proceedings in circumstances where, without it, they would have had to take forfeiture proceedings. When criminal proceedings are taken the defence can demand trial by jury, without there being any question of literary merit.
  It would, of course, be possible to argue that if we did away with the right to trial by jury in the case of a great number of offences it would be much easier to get through the work of the courts, but I am sure that that argument would not be acceptable to hon. Members on either side of the House. We must be careful about such arguments, especially where we are dealing with important matters such as the freedom to write; and the question of literary censorship.

  1171
  The second provision which should have been included in the Bill is the provision that if the prosecuting authorities wish to take conspiracy proceedings there should be an explicit declaration, in statutory form, that all the safeguards of the 1959 Act would apply. Conspiracy proceedings could then be taken by the prosecuting authorities if they so wish, but if they are, they should not be the means of cutting out the Section 4 defence or of getting away from the severe but limited penalties which, after considerable discussion, were approved by Parliament in 1959. Technically, I suppose, we might otherwise go back to the farcical position of having totally unlimited penalties.
  It may be argued—no doubt it will be—that such a statutory declaration in an Act is not totally necessary. Assurances have been given in the past. I think that everyone will agree that it is not a question of not believing assurances. Law officers change, Governments change, Directors of Public Prosecutions change, everybody changes in time, and it is much better to have these things written down firmly and clearly, in black and white, so that there cannot be argument about breach of faith and who exactly said and meant what. I am sure that it would have been much more satisfactory to have this brought forward in that way.
  Thirdly, there should be, I think, a time limit in forfeiture proceedings. I return to the "Fanny Hill" case for a moment and for the last time. The 171 copies of the book were seized, and then nothing happened for six weeks. Then a warrant was applied for and proceedings were started. They started just when Questions were to be asked in this House as to when the proceedings were to be started, but that may or may not have been the cause. But six weeks is a long delay. I think that a period of twenty-eight days would be reasonable after which the property should be returned if no proceedings were taken.
  These are the three things which, in my view, should have been in the Bill. What about the measures which are in the Bill itself? Here I go very closely indeed with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North. It does not appear that Clause 2 is of great importance or that objection should be
  1172
  taken to it, but one would like to hear it argued in a little detail in Committee. In Clause 1, one sees the point and the need for some amending legislation to deal with the point raised in the Clayton case, but I wonder whether this is not going too far, and whether by making possession with a view to sale the essence of a criminal offence we are not getting far away from the fact that regard must be had to the corrupting effect upon a likely audience which was the essence of the 1959 Act.
  Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North, I am not surprised that the view was taken that a police officer acting as an agent provocateur should not be regarded as somebody legitimately corrupted in this way. If one is dealing with under-the-counter material, which is no doubt the objection to my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion—a very reasonable suggestion—this point could be dealt with by inserting "exposing for sale" in the relevant Section of the principal Act. If one is dealing with under-the-counter sales surely some regard must be had to their being exposed for sale, otherwise one is getting right away from a law based on corruption.
  There is a case for some Amendment along the lines of Clause 1. There may even be a case for Clause 1 exactly as it stands. But we did not hear it this evening. I thought that the Minister explained the Bill lucidly and carefully this evening in his opening speech, but I do not think that he argued in detail the case for Clause 1 as it stands. It may be that if the Home Secretary, whether his unfortunate engagement is in the north or the south of England, were able to be here today he would have been able to explain it more forcibly, or more powerfully, but on previous experience of the Home Secretary I rather doubt it. At any rate, we ought to have a much more detailed deployment of the argument which made the Government think that this method, with certain dangers to individual liberty, was the only way in which they could proceed. I think that one must say that the record of the Home Office recently is not such that one can take on trust that the Home Office will always have scrupulous regard for questions of individual liberty.

  1173
  None of us in this House—certainly I do not believe that anyone associated with me in these matters—has any desire to make the world safe for hard-core pornography. At the same time, I think one must see this matter in some sort of perspective. Straightforward, "pure" pornography, as it is sometimes engagingly called, is no doubt distasteful, and rightly so, to many people—no doubt to the majority of people in this country—and it is proper that the House should have regard to that. But let us remember that one is miles away from any objective evidence showing that pornography, distasteful though it may be, is a direct cause of sexual crime, or even is at all closely associated with a particularly loose way of life. When the hon. Member for Wimbledon talks about poisoning the soul, on the same basis as a tin of corned beef poisons the body, he is dealing with a matter which, I think, is a little more complex than he allows. I think that it would be extremely difficult to show on the basis of country by country studies that those countries in which pornography flourished were necessarily those countries which had a particularly loose standard of sexual behaviour. It may be the reverse.
  Certainly, for what they are worth, Americal sociological studies which have been made on this subject, much more than here—it is a good idea that we should temper our prejudices with a few facts from time to time—show that the sort of people to whom pornographic literature appeals are not the people on the borderline of crime or even people living particularly licentious lives. They are, on the whole, people who lead quiet, sad, lonely, deprived and shy lives. This may not make pornography less distasteful but it puts it a little more in perspective than some people are inclined to do.
  If one could show clearly and decisively that it had a direct causal relationship with criminal action then a somewhat rougher approach might be justified. I should not be worried about the question of human freedom particularly regarding the carrying of offensive weapons. I believe that the freedom to read is a good deal more important than the freedom to carry flick-knives. It is vital that we should realise that we are here dealing with a difficult subject and inevitably one has to balance two contrary
  1174
  sets of extremely important considerations.
  No doubt if material with any pretence to merit could be put on one side and straightforward, hard-core pornography on the other side, we could separate them completely, that, no doubt, would be a very satisfactory solution, acceptable to all of us. But all attempts to legislate on this subject have failed to do that. One is always up against the difficulty of the borderline case. There is no doubt at all that the prosecuting authority has in the past shown a somewhat unfortunate tendency to get bogged down in this border country. In the Select Committee of the House in 1957–58 I remember asking the then Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir John Nott-Bower, what would be his attitude if, in fact, it was really possible to get a greater measure of procedure against straightforward pornography and whether he would then be content to leave anything on the borderline which had any pretence to literary merit on one side. I said:
  "Supposing that it were possible to get more effective means of proceeding against the really filthy stuff, would it be a matter of comparative indifference to the Police what happened to the border-line stuff?"
  His answer was "Complete indifference". I said:
  "Even if the position in getting prosecutions was made rather more difficult?"
  and he replied "Completely". Yet the prosecuting authorities seem fascinated by this very borderline country. It is therefore difficult to approach this on the basis of completely separating the completely hard-core pornography from the borderline cases.
  To sum up, I do not contest the need for some amending legislation. I think that the test—I am sure that this test will be applied by great numbers of people in the literary world—the test of the Government's good intentions, the test of their claimed desire to get certain powers which they need for use against hard-core pornography while in no way wishing to treat literature individually unfairly, is whether they would be prepared to grant trial by jury. If they are, their assurances will have some meaning. If they are not, one is bound to look at those assurances extremely sceptically.

  1175
  I am sorry that the Home Secretary is not present to hear what is being said and to test the feeling of the House. This is a major Measure. I do not think that the Secretary of State should bring forward a Bill, touching censorship and with his personal imprimatur clearly upon it, without being present at the Second Reading debate. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has an important engagement, but this House has a certain priority and I think that he should have been present to hear how the Measure was received by the House. I hope that his representatives will convey to him the paramount importance attaching to the question of trial by jury.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Today, of all days, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) must bear in mind that while the dilettante is entitled to a place, it is Santa Claus who is the winner. We have a predominant interest to ensure that the traditions of our country and the protection of the youth of the country are paramount. That is what I mean by Santa Claus. The tradition of Santa Claus for the children and the youth must remain; although we shall certainly try to find a place for the dilettante as well, provided that this does not harm the predominant traditions of this country.
  I must congratulate the Home Office on bringing forward yet another Measure—there has been a long string, very nearly as many as the entries in the Derby today—and for the first time for over 100 years, there is an endeavour to suppress purulent pornography. I must tell the Home Office clearly that this is not as small a Measure as it was thought when the debate was opened. It is a strong Measure and one which will go a very long way to achieve the suppression of pornography, because it gets at the sources. I suspect that the Home Secretary, through his advisers, knows this.
  In due course I shall reply briefly to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Stechford. But may I say this to him, and I say it with no sense of discourtesy: he must not become too much of a specialist in "Fanny Hill."
  1176
  Those of us who see a lot of a certain aspect of this matter are concerned with what one can only describe as the purveyance of purulent pornography in great big loads throughout the country, but we have nothing whatever to do with the question of whether or not "Lady Chatterley's Lover" is or is not a pornographic book. Those people who are concerned with what I might call the publication of artistic talents represent less than one-hundredth of 1 per cent. of the problem with which we are dealing.
  Before I turn to those matters, may I say to the hon. Member for Stechford that he cannot secure the assurance from the Solicitor-General which he wants about the protection of artistic merit because he has not read the legal case which shows that the protection has already been shot to pieces. If tomorrow I were asked to draft an indictment in order to prosecute "Lady Chatterley's Lover" I could do so, and it would go to the Old Bailey, and in a matter of weeks a conviction could be ensured; because it would not be possible to raise a defence under Section 4 of the Obscene Publications Act, 1951. It would be drafted as a conspiracy to corrupt public morals, using details in the book as being merely passages for the argument. If the hon. Member for Stechford wants the authority for that, he should read the 1962 Appeal Cases, page 226, and if he looks at pages 240 and 272 he will see the ratio decidendi of that decision.
  Mr. MacDermot: I think that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) will agree that in that case it was stated by the Solicitor-General for the prosecution that that was not an obscene publication, and he disclaimed any attempt to prove that it was—
  Mr. Rees-Davies Mr. Rees-Davies indicated dissent
  Mr. MacDermot: I see that the hon. Member is shaking his head. Perhaps he will read the report himself.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: In due course and if the need arises I will do so. In fact, in that case there was a conviction over it as an obscene publication—
  Mr. MacDermot: No.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: When the hon. Member sees who had to argue that case he may perhaps not query the matter with me—
  Mr. Roy Jenkins Mr. Roy Jenkins rose—
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I will give way now to the hon. Member for Stechford.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: What I should particularly like to ask—perhaps it can be replied to now or later—is whether the Solicitor-General and the Government accept what he has just been saying? If so, Presumably they were aware of it before. Presumably they are well briefed on this matter. If they bring forward a Bill to deal with certain flaws in the 1959 Act and say—as the Minister of State for the Home Department did—that the last thing they wish to do is to upset the main safeguards of the 1959 Act, why did not they bring forward a provision to deal with this?
  Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Member for Stechford must not intervene to steal my speed. We shall need to amend this Act further in order to ensure that the intention of Parliament at that time is carried out. I merely produce the point at this moment to show that—I regret to say it—the whole basis of his speech is destroyed because it depends upon looking at what the law now is, but was not in 1951, as the lawyers believed it to be.
  May I come now to what at any rate most of us are here to do tonight, to secure effective and increased measures against pornography. The really serious pornography of today is not merely in books. It seems to me that if we are to deal with this problem we must do so predominantly through the police courts. Let us note the various and different forms of pornography. We have films, pictures, photographs and postcards. Those are some of the worst forms of pornography which exist today. I should have thought that the ordinary procedure of seizure and dealing with them through the police courts was perfectly satisfactory. There is a large increase in the production particularly of pornographic photography and one of the really important provisions in this Bill is the provision to deal with the seizure of instruments of manufacture.
  Hitherto, there has been no means of getting at them. We have not been able
  1178
  to seize the cameras, the materials, the negatives, the proofs and the prints. It seems to me that it is there that we should deal with this problem rather than further down the line at the later point of distribution. It seems that the proper procedure for that is through seizure and dealing with the matter in the courts. In the great majority of the film line and photographic line there is very seldom any very serious question as to whether it is or is not pornographic. Nor is it very serious if it falls one side or the other of the borderline of pornography. This Bill goes a long way towards assisting the position of the police in that regard.
  The only safeguard we have to be careful about there for the liberty of the subject is to see that purely private ones are not also seized. I remind the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) that this Bill does not just provide for the seizure of obscene articles in the
  "ownership possession or control".
  It goes on:
  "for publication for gain."
  If it had only said that any person in possession of pornographic material should be liable to prosecution, I would not agree with it. It must, of course, be intended
  "for publication for gain."
  It seems that the words, subject to closer consideration in Committee, are fair as they are at present drafted.
  I believe that we should go further and not make the test sale or publication or offer for sale. We ought to go to the root of the matter, which is to get at the producer. I believe that there is a very strong feeling in the country today—certainly in my constituency—which wants to stop offensive distribution of pornography which is known as such. I am a little of a "mugwump" in this matter, being on both sides of the fence. Although I feel strongly that the public ought to want us to take it further, I recognise that safeguards are very necessary.
  I turn now to the question of filthy postcards. This is a very big trade and there is an immense sale. What is fascinating about it is that what is a filthy postcard in one part of England is quite clean in another. What, for example, is on the wrong side of the line in Folkestone

  1179
  is on the other side of the line in Margate. Folkestone is rather less robust than Margate. As a result there are different decisions. This is a big and serious matter which the House probably does not realise. Prosecutions in respect of several hundreds of postcards at a time go before magistrates and sometimes to assizes before a judge. The whole of this paraphernalia, to my mind, is needless.
  In the town of Blackpool there is a very sensible committee. I think it is a sub-committee of the watch committee. The committee looks at all the picture postcards and decides if in its view any of them goes too far. If they are robust and make one laugh, however coarse they are, on the whole they are considered to be for the public good, but if they are perverted and go on the wrong side of the line, that is another matter. The town has its own censorship and, having operated it, careful note of the position is taken by the chief constable.
  I believe that this is a very good system. First, the producer knows where he stands. Secondly, the local authority knows what the local people want and do not want. Thirdly, there is the assistance, by taking note, of the chief constable who is able to take into account local factors. [An HON. MEMBER: "A conspiracy."] This works extremely well. I heard the interjection. It is in fact a friendly conspiracy of all the neighbourhood for the public good.
  I do not believe that we should fear self-imposed censorship. It is when we have Government-imposed censorship that we may have something to fear. I should like to see this system operated more generally. I invite my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to consider to what extent it is right to give directions to the police to permit watch committees or other committees in an area to consider these matters. That would be the most effective way of dealing with them. It would save many prosecutions and a great deal of trouble. It can be done purely administratively and with the assistance of the Home Office.
  What is true in such a case is equally true of a great mass of literature. Today most people do not realise how very narrow are the channels of distribution. Apart from W. H. Smith & Son and
  1180
  Wyman Marshall there are practically no big concerns dealing with the sale of cheap books. If we could get an effective liaison with the distributors, genuine pornography, I am sure, could be more effectively prevented to a large extent. I recommend that we should set up as a purely voluntary body a first-class book council with all our leading distributors represented on it. We could see whether in that way they could secure a more effective control of outlets of mass-produced pornography.
  I wish now to look at a narrower question. I believe that if this Bill gets at those channels and we see to what extent we can get assistance from voluntary authorities and a book council, we shall be able to prevent the vast influx of mass-produced, cheap American literature. That, to my mind, does more to deprave and corrupt the English language and the English way of life and to upset the traditions for which this country stands. Even if they are not susceptible to prosecution, so much can be done by voluntary effort. If we have the will, I am sure the way can be found.
  I turn to the latter part of the speech of the hon. Member for Stechford. I believe that it is the task of Parliament and not of the courts today to determine with clarity what criminal offences shall be. In the 1959 Act we said in Section 2(4):
  "A person publishing an article shall not be proceeded against for an offence at common law consisting of the publication of any matter contained or embodied in the article where it is of the essence of the offence that the matter is obscene."
  The whole House took that to mean that if there were, in fact, publication of an article or book proceedings could be taken, but Section 4 entitled the publisher to a defence that it was "for the public good". I take the view—contrary, I am sorry to say, to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black)—that it is perfectly right to have a defence in which experts may give evidence that the publication was for the public good.
  I do not share the view that that can be needled away in some way in the courts. I want it to be sustained. In 1961 a case began in which the House of Lords, in its wisdom, made it clear that

  1181
  if it were a prosecution under the Obscene Publications Act one was entitled to the defence, but if it were a prosecution for conspiracy to corrupt public morals then it did not consist of publication because the conspiracy consisted of the agreement to publish and not of the publication. That is the ratio decidendi of the Shaw case on this point.
  If today one is advising to prosecute material of any kind, whether literature, photography or anything in print or parts of a book, one would lay, and could perfectly well lay, a conspiracy to corrupt public morals, or not even a conspiracy; one might lay an offence to corrupt public morals.
  In 1959 the Government were not in the position to cover these points because it was not generally believed then that the common law of England had such an offence as the corruption of public morals. It was only when the Shaw case went to the House of Lords that it was determined in the highest tribunal that there was still this vestigial power in the common law of England.
  One of the most important points raised by the Bill is the power of Parliament to remedy that matter. When the matter reached the House of Lords their Lordships did not agree. I will read from a passage of Lord Reid in a dissenting judgment, on page 272, on the question whether there was an offence of corrupting public morals. He gave it as his opinion that there was no such known offence but he was in a minority and it was held that there was such an offence. He said:
  "Even if there is still a vestigial power of this kind"—
  this offence of corrupting public morals—
  "it ought not, in my view, to be used unless there appears to be general agreement that the offence to which it is applied ought to be criminal if committed by an individual. Notoriously, these are wide differences of opinion today as to how far the law ought to punish immoral acts which are not done in the face of the public. Some think that the law already goes too far, some that it does not go far enough. Parliament is the proper place, and I am firmly of the opinion the only proper place, to settle that. When there is sufficient support from public opinion, Parliament does not hesitate to intervene. Where Parliament fears to tread it is not for the courts to rush in."
  I do not propose to trespass upon the divergencies of opinion on that issue, but the Bill must make it quite clear what
  1182
  Parliament means by this Act. Do we mean to permit prosecution to continue in respect of books, not as an obscene libel; do we propose to leave an open doorway to enable people to prosecute in another way? My view is that we should shut if firmly and should say plainly which is the method which shall be used for all literature and for all photography. We should decide that issue. If my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon can persuade the House that what was done in 1959 ought to be revoked, well and good, but I do not share that view.
  It is not possible to ask for an assurance that no one will implement the conspiracy method. That is what the hon. Member for Stechford asked. It is not for the Solicitor-General to give such an assurance. It is a matter in the province of the courts. It is open to any chief constable at any time when he has seized literature to send it to someone for prosecution, to take advice if he wants and to proceed in accordance with the law of this country. If he wishes to proceed for an offence of currupting public morals, he is entitled so to do unless Parliament says that he cannot do it. Therefore, it is plain that if Parliament wants to ensure that in future literature is dealt with by the process of the Obscene Publications Act, 1959, as amended, it will be our task in Committee so to ensure.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: The hon. Member speaks with great knowledge of the subject, but I did not ask the Solicitor-General to give an assurance on this point. I asked that there should be an Amendment so that if there were conspiracy proceedings all the safeguards of the 1959 Act should apply. We could proceed in this way or in another way, but I am entirely with the hon. Member in wanting the matter dealt with according to the letter of the law. I asked for an assurance from the Solicitor-General that it is not the Government's intention in Committee to give any countenance to the view of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) that Section 4 of the 1959 Act should be swept away. If that suggestion were accepted, all that the hon. Member is talking about would be irrelevant.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: It will not assist to have an assurance that the Government

  1183
  will not change Section 4. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon could exert pressure on the chief constable of his county not to use that Act but to prosecute by another method, and I have no doubt that he would feel justified as a Member in trying to persuade him so to do. That is equally applicable across the whole field.
  Suppose that one issued an indictment in respect of a particular set of premises and took all the negatives found there, certain instruments which were found there and certain material found there. One could say, "I shall not indict under the Obscene Publications Act. I will lay a charge of corrupting public morals". We must be careful that we do not perpetuate this anachronistic system of laying unnecessary conspiracy charges, which have grown far too popular—and the reason they have grown popular is our failure to give sufficient power to the police to get on with the job in accordance with what is laid down in the Statute. If we ensure that the Statutes are properly laid and give them sufficient powers, the police will use them.
  The principal point arising in this Act was the decision of the incorruptible police constable, the Clayton decision. They laid a conspiracy charge and secured a conviction. It was held that police constables were incorruptible and were not depraved, and therefore there was an acquittal on that matter, but as an alternative a charge of conspiracy was laid, and under the conspiracy count it was held that as there was an agreement by the suppliers, the accused, to supply the public generally, then the public generally would be depraved and corrupted and therefore the accused was convicted.
  The position is in a mess, and it is a good thing that we have an opportunity to clear up the points which have arisen since 1959. We cannot lay any criticism at the door of the Home Office, their advisers or the Minister at the time; when they passed the Bill they did it validly, after careful consideration. It is owing to the clarification of the common law of England and the vestigial powers remaining that we have to correct these matters.
  I venture to finish on a partisan note. We on this side of the House are determined
  1184
  to suppress purulent pornography over its whole wide scale and not to be drawn away into a little dilettantism at the expense of what we regard as a matter of great importance to the country. We are deeply indebted to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for moving the Second Reading of the Bill and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for being here tonight to give us his views on the matter.
  7.59 p.m.
  Mr. Leo Abse: In the Library of the House of Commons we have a slight collection of erotica. It is a poor collection. It is maintained in a semi-secret cupboard and the courteous Librarian will always give an hon. Member the key if he particularly requires it. I assume that it is in these surroundings so as to make certain that those who are offended by such literature, such as the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), will not feel wounded that it exists here in our Mother of Parliaments.
  If we examine the collection we find that it includes, as one would expect, material such as the works of Havelock Ellis, Kinsey's "Sexual Behaviour," Lewisohn's "History of Sexual Customs," and also, what one would expect to find, "Lolita," "The Tropic of Cancer" and "Kama Sutra." We belong to a group of the vocationally immune, I do not doubt, and there is no danger.
  One finds some strange things in this little collection and I cannot understand why, for example, side by side with "The Men in My Life" by Martha Watts we find "Members of the House of Commons, 1754–1790"—but nothing I have seen in the recent reviews of this work has led me to believe that there are any fascinating biographical details of the hon. Members of the House of Commons of the 18th century.
  It is a slight collection and it needs must be because erotica has a long history. All pornography has, from the first "Love Song of Sumaria" 4,000 years ago and that written in Ezekiel, with which I am more familiar, to the present time. Always there have been works of this kind. It has been going on literally for thousands of years and it is no good blaming foreigners for this kind of work. We have our own. Indeed, one of the finest of the earliest books published in

  1185
  the English language is a volume known as "The Exeter Book," which is replete with double-entendre riddles and is one of our oldest pieces of literature.
  I am pleased to claim—as I do not doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) and the sponsor of the original Bill will be pleased to claim—that we have had some very remarkable men coming from Monmouthshire, who made a contribution to English pornography. In the 12th century we had Geoffrey of Monmouth, who gave wondrous tales of the Arthurian Knights, but neither King Arthur nor the Knights were the little Lord Fauntleroys of later idylls.
  Then we had the beginning of the importation into this country after the 14th century of a great deal of pornography. This was at a time when Boccacio was having to defend himself, in Italy no doubt, because he ended his writings by saying:
  "Being freer maybe than liketh your squeamish hypocritical prudes, who weigh words rather than deeds and study more to appear than to be good."
  Since we have been talking a great deal about tradition in this country, it is worth remembering that Chaucer did not have to make any apologies. His frank scotological and sexual lines were written in a way that clearly shows that his England tolerated unashamedly an outspokenness even beyond that of Boccacio.
  If one looks into the history of censorship—and one must do this when considering legislation of this kind—we know that in those terrible Elizabethan days—those days of great decadence when England was weak and futile—a monopoly was given the Stationers Company on condition that those printers did not print seditious and heretical works; rhymes and treatises of that kind had not to be published. When the scholars complained in those days that every light bit of smut got its licence without delay while serious books were held up for prolonged scrutiny, the licensers in those Elizabethan days reasonably replied that erotic writings harmed no one; that it was just the serious and learned works which might shake a man's faith in his government or the State church.
  It was fortunate in those times that such a view was taken, otherwise much
  1186
  of the works of Shakespeare would never be available to us. We would not have had works like "Venus and Adonis", and much else of Shakespeare would otherwise have not been inherited by us.
  When I hear people saying now that our pornography is cheap and can be bought by ordinary workers—that it can be bought by the public in the form of paper backs—I think back to the Elizabethan days when, as anyone who has studied the history of erotica well knows, pornography was hawked around the streets on greyish sheets of paper in blurry type as freely as newspapers are sold today, replete with bawdy tales of harlotry and cuckoldry.
  What nonsense to suggest that suddenly England is in danger of being flooded with cheap pornography. England has survived imported pornography before. It was in the 16th century that Paris began to send us the dreadful things about which the hon. Member for Wimbledon complains and which he described. It was at that time that we had the beginning of the worst of imported pornography. We had a translation under the title "One Hundred Merry and Delightsome Stories" which were described as suitable for all "goodly company" and it remains a standard work of erotica throughout the world. Of course, Margaret, Queen of Navarre's "Love Stories" were soon to follow, being available in this country for hundreds of years.
  Not only did we have this importation but Britain has certainly developed a great deal more erotica. The nation survived the Restoration pornography—the ostentatious sexuality drawn in leering style which many think less attractive than the frank and bold, almost innocent obscenities of the Elizabethan age. Indeed some people think that this was the reaction to puritanism, the defiance of the Puritan sect.
  Since we need to be informed historically when debating a Bill of this kind, it is well to remember that it was not repressive laws which modified public taste and turned them from the worst vulgarities of the Restoration period. It was not legislation. It was a process which began after 1695 when the Licensing Act was allowed to die. That was the time when the nation turned away from the Restoration rubbish.

  1187
  It is well for us to turn back history and recall this quotation of what Macaulay said happened at the time. Speaking at a time when literature was becoming emancipated, in 1695, as a result of the Act being allowed to lapse, he said:
  "From the day on which the emancipation of our literature was accomplished, the purification of our literature began. That purification was effected, not by the intervention of senates or magistrates, but by the opinion of the great body of educated Englishmen, before whom good and evil were set, and who were left free to make their choice … the restraint imposed on writers by the general feeling of readers has been constantly becoming more and more strict. At length even that class of works in which it was formerly thought that a voluptuous imagination was privileged to disport itself … have become more decorous than the sermons of the seventeenth century."
  That is what happened. Licensed salacity was superseded by free prudery. That is the historical fact and it was a more confident England that scoffed at the first attempt made to suggest obscenity might be a violation of the English common law when a printer named Reid was brought before the court for publishing "The Fifteen Plagues of a Maidenhead".
  Sir John Holt, Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, was one of the great masters of England's common law at the beginning of the 18th century. He ruled that much as he disliked both the tone and the content of the book, there was nothing illegal in it. Obscenity, he ruled, if punishable at all, was punishable only by ecclesiastical courts as a spiritual offence and nothing in law, common or statute, warranted an indictment against even the filthiest books, which the Lord Chief Justice of that day conceded the book was. So Mr. Reid, the printer, disappeared from history, and England survived.
  If we begin to examine historically when the breaches were made and when obscenity became punishable, we find that the move away from this more permissive attitude occurred only when authority, the Establishment, felt itself threatened. The first of all English convictions for obscenity was that of Edmund Curll, who on at least two occasions previously had been in trouble because he antagonised the peers of England. He infringed their massive privileges. He had
  1188
  printed an edition of the proceedings of the House in the treason trial of the Earl of Winton, and ended up reprimanded on his knees at the Bar of the House of Lords. Later, he was in trouble with them because he had printed without their permission some of their last wills and testaments. So authority was "gunning" for him, and eventually it got him, because he printed a book called "Venus in the Cloister, or the Nun in a Smock." That is how he got into trouble.
  But England at that time had some sense. When he was ordered to stand for one hour in the pillory a few hundred yards up the road from here, a large public gathering took place. Doubtless they suspected the motivation of the prosecution, just as I suspect the motivation of this Bill. The people gathered, not to revile the man or to throw things at him, but to serenade him and comfort him. The public then—as now, in my view—had more wit than prissy, bossy, censors.
  Indeed, there is a long link between the reactionaries and reactionary legislation aimed at suppressing pornography, and reaction itself. The nineteenth century Society for the Suppression of Vice, which did so much campaigning and stirred up so much legislation to abolish brothels and eliminate obscenity, claimed as one of its earliest triumphs—and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale knows this—the successful prosecution of Carlisle, who was Thomas Paine's publisher of the "Age of Reason." Indeed—and in my view, it is significant—the Victorians who resisted emancipation, vaccination, education and mechanical progress were among the most active in demanding punitive laws against obscenity.
  The hon. Member for Wimbledon is in a long line of tradition with these people, because history shows that, with but a few exceptions, those who stirred up anti-obscenity legislation in the nineteenth century were exactly the same people who held that anaesthetics in childbirth were sinful, because women should bring forth children in sorrow, who maintained that God intended that children of 8 or 10 should work in mills, and organised a Free Enterprise Society to oppose the creation of a Board of Health. With all this historical background we are entitled to ask ourselves what was

  1189
  the result of this Victorian anti-obscenity zeal and legislation. It was simply that the golden age of prudery was, as we all know, the golden age of pornography. That is what happened. English erotica flowered in the Victorian period. As St. John Stevas, a Conservative candidate, has said in his book "Obscenity and the Law," this was
  "… the great period for pornography of every kind, from high-priced erotical material designed for bibliophiles to the cheap trash intended for the general public."
  He is right. It was in the Victorian era that pornographic magazines multiplied and grew.
  "Fanny Hill" had a rebirth underground, with literally scores of editions. They were not even satisfied with it as it was, but added episodes not thought of by the author. Paris was still at work, but England did not collapse. Balzac and Casanova were imported on a wide and extensive scale. The Society for the Suppression of Vice certainly, by stimulating prosecutions, reduced the number of Holywell Street pornographic shops from 57 to 20, but everyone knew that the remaining 20 did more business than had the previous 57.
  Why, then, in the face of the history of pornography and the futility of attempting to suppress it by legislation, do we, at this curious moment, seek yet tighter control? Why has it come about at this moment? Is the real motivation the elimination of lacuna in the present law? Is there a widespread demand for the suppression of pornography? We know that there are always the vociferous minority groups, but the only fact we seem to have learned this afternoon is that there is a widespread demand for pornography—we are told of a million copies and of 300,000 copies being seized. As I understand it, there is a widespread demand, but not a widespread demand for suppressing pornography.
  Why is it that we suddenly get a puritanical reaction of this character? Why do the Government suddenly wish to clothe themselves in whiter-than-white? Is this an attempt to blot out the opprobrium attributed to them by the Profumo and Keeler scandal? Is that the reaction that has led to this stupid prosecution of "Fanny Hill", begun in such an absurd manner in the wrong place at the wrong time? Are
  1190
  the Government, after last year's squalor and deceits and lies, seeking to parade now as a Government strongly concerned to protect the nation from any of the aberrations of these unhappy, wretched voyeurs? I find this puritanical reaction mere sordid, more replete with humbug, than the miserable events that I think have prompted this ostentatious display of restrictive morality.
  All that repressive obscenity legislation achieves is, as all history proves, the emasculation of literature and the driving of pornography underground, where it is miserably served by the least of writing talent. Prohibition inevitably gives such wretched pornography an attraction that it would not earn on its merits, and makes purveyors set high prices on their wares to compensate for the inevitable and growing risks that legislation of this kind would introduce.
  Do we not know that ever since the Garden of Eden, forbidden fruit tastes sweeter? I was once, surprising though it may be to the House, chairman of the watch committee in the capital of Wales, with its great Nonconformist tradition. I found in the short time I held the office—it was just before I came to the House—that I had to deal with this dreadful problem of which we have heard from hon. Members with regard to films. We had to view these films, when they were borderline cases, to decide what certificate we would give. When I realised that those who were to exhibit a film were desperately anxious that I should give it an X certificate, I never gave it one—I always gave it, if I could, a U certificate. Sometimes I had to concede to my committee to give it an A certificate, because no one wanted to see it then. It is only when one forbids things like that that they become attractive. This Fill is totally the wrong way to go about the business.
  We have been making sly innuendoes this evening about Epsom and where the Home Secretary may or may not be. It is perhaps typical of the hypocritical atmosphere in which the Bill is enveloped that it comes before the House at a time when a large proportion of hon. Members are away indulging in what my chapel-going constituents would say was a veritable orgy at Ascot. [HON. MEMBERS: "Epsom."] I do not ask pardon for my lack of familiarity with the

  1191
  venue. Instead of repressively and punitively seeking out sin, as this Bill does, would it not be more constructive, to ask why people are voyeurs? Why do they want to buy this wretched stuff? Why are they prepared to pay for such depressing material and create this huge market for this vapid pornography?
  As sociologists in America have emphasised, they are usually people who are isolated and lost. They seek their sex not within the personal relationship of matrimonial life but vicariously in the banal rubbish about which we are speaking. They have not reached their predicament by accident. Men and women need to be brought up in an atmosphere of love and to be able to experience and to give and receive love. The fusion of the tender and lustful impulses of a man is more likely to come about when as a child he is reared in a home where respect, regard and passion flows from one parent to another.
  The sexually immature, like those who buy this trash or those who, like Keeler, become prostitutes, have so often not come out of such homes. It would be more helpful and constructive if we mobilised our social resources and spent our time asking how we could use them to see that these children born into unhappy homes, who as a result have faulty attitudes in their personal relationships, have succour and care.
  I think that it would be more valuable to examine the real roots of pornography, which are not in the people who purvey for profit but lie in people who are brought up with the loss of home affection. They lie in these lost souls who seek sexual satisfaction while they wander round the pornographic stores in Soho and elsewhere. Just as human beings in private life, if excessively sexually repressed, have anxiety or obsessional neurosis, so I believe that if the State indulges, as the Victorian State indulged, in repressive legislation of this kind, a reaction will be provoked that it seeks to avoid.
  A little less of this punitive air in the House of Commons would be all the better for us. A little less of that attitude and a little more humanity and we may create a Britain where people ultimately would be bored at the idea of buying this pornography and would turn
  1192
  away from it because they realised how puerile and trashy it was.
  8.24 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: In a most valuable historical exercise the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has carefully and almost lovingly traced the British pornographic tradition. As he has said, it is plain that it has always been with us, though I think that his thesis that a reactionary attitude towards pornography goes with a reactionary attitude towards politics could not be sustained if he looked at the seventeenth century.
  The hon. Member added to my bewilderment this evening. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary introduced the Bill in a most lucid and able speech, but he did not answer the most important question, which is why the Bill has been introduced. I can hardly imagine that the pigeonholes in the Home Office are anything but choc-a-bloc with Bills anxious to come out and be made Acts. That all those have been neglected and this Bill has been produced shows an extraordinarily defective sense of priorities.
  Anybody would gather from the introduction of the Bill that pornography was really a vastly important subject and that it was a major social evil. We have only to look around us for a moment to see that it is not. There are a great many other things which are far more important. One obvious thing is the gang warfare between Mods and Rockers at seaside resorts. It would surely be far better for the Mods and Rockers and for the community at large if instead of breaking up Clacton and places like that they all stayed at home and read a little light pornography.
  It seems to me that an extraordinary lack of proportion is being shown. The crusaders against pornography always make the same mistake. They all exaggerate its effect on the people who read it. As the hon. Member for Pontypool and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) have said, there is no evidence that the reading of pornography leads people to indulge in colourful orgies. They do nothing of the sort. Pornography is a solitary vice. It is singularly unimportant, and the people who try to stamp

  1193
  it out seem to be the people who pay much the most attention to it.
  The hon. Member for Pontypool went into the English tradition. There is also an American tradition. There was a famous man, J. Frank Chase, secretary of the Boston Watch and Ward Society for 20 years. He was a famous scourge of pornography until he came up against the redoubtable H. L. Mencken. Chase for 20 years was able to prohibit the publication of anything that he did not like because he was more or less able to choose his own judge, but the interesting thing about him was that while he was obsessed with pornography he liked it very much indeed. He had a most excellent pornographic library of his own, and he once wrote a most obscene ode to Boston night clubs. As I have said, Chase was obsessed with pornography because he liked it so much. I do not suggest that this is the case with the Home Office, but the Home Office is tremendously exaggerating the importance of pornography.
  It may be objected that while pornography does not have much effect on the people who read it, nevertheless it offends people that it should exist, and that their susceptibilities should not be bruised in this way. There is something in this, but when the argument is put forward, I remember the comment by Norman Douglas when there were a lot of complaints by moralists at the goings on at the Feast of the Madonna di Pollino. He said that he could well believe that these goings on had taken place, but why were the moralists there? This is the point. It is quite easy to avoid pornography if one wants to. It is quite unnecessary to come into contact with obscenity if one objects to it. I cannot accept the idea that people's moral susceptibilities must be cosseted in this way as a compelling argument.
  My first reservation about the Bill, therefore, is that it has been produced at all. My second reservation is that it seems exceedingly one-sided. If we are to close all these loopholes, it is important that they should be closed from all angles. When Mencken sold his copy of the American Mercury to Mr. Chase on Boston Common and Chase handed him a 50 cent piece, Mencken bit it to see whether it was genuine. We should bite this Bill rather carefully before it is
  1194
  finished with because there is a great deal which needs to be done to it.
  It seems to me that the loophole in the 1959 Act which was revealed in the "Fanny Hill" case, and through which the Director of Public Prosecutions darted, shot ld be closed just as much as any other loophole. Even more important, we should take note of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) about the invention of the offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals. It is essential that this point should be dealt with and that that offence should be disinvented by the Bill, because it really does disfigure British law today.
  I hope, therefore, that the Bill will be altered fairly radically before it is passed into law.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Everyone will agree that, at least up to this point, this has been a fascinating debate. Speaking for myself and, I think, for many others, I regard the speech delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) as one of the finest speeches I have ever heard in the House. It was a magnificent declaration of the truest tradition of this country, and I felt privileged to be present to hear it.
  Like others, including the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour), who has just spoken, I have been wondering about the origin of the Bill and why we have been presented with it at all. Perhaps, when the Government decided that they would not have a General Election in the summer, they had to look round for a Bill which could be brought forward. That would be as good a case for the Bill as we have had so far, but I think that we must see whether there are other reasons.
  When I read in the newspapers that the Home secretary was proposing to introduce a Bill to deal with obscenity and censorship, I was extremely alarmed. I thought that he was not the kind of person we could safely have in charge of such a matter. It was rather as though one read that the compilation of the Bill of Rights was to be entrusted to Judge Jeffreys. I did not think that he was the right person to do it.
  Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: The hon. Gentleman might remember that we owe to Judge Jeffreys as much as to any single man—and, with due respect, to the Star Chamber, to which we owe even more—the law of evidence, which is the most important of all the foundations of our liberty.
  Mr. Foot: I apologise if I have done any injustice to Judge Jeffreys. For a moment, I thought that the hon. Gentleman was leaping to the defence of the Home Secretary, but I see that he is much more discriminating.
  The fact is that the Home Secretary, in the view of many of us, is not the kind of person whom we can see introducing legislation on this matter without examining it with extreme care. As has been pointed out already by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot), when one reads the Bill one's suspicions are reinforced because the Explanatory Memorandum does not explain what the Bill is about. There is nothing novel in that, judging from the Explanatory Memoranda I have seen in the past, but this Explanatory Memorandum is deceptive.
  It seems that in this respect the Home Office has learned a few tricks from the pornographers. What some pornographers do is to put innocent material in a salacious cover, and what others do is to put salacious material in an innocent cover. What the Home Office has done in the Bill is to try to conceal the more serious measures that it proposes for dealing with the law of obscenity beneath a mild and misleading Explanatory Memorandum. But what it has also done, as has been pointed out by many speakers, including the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central, is to be extremely one-sided in its approach.
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) said that what we were meeting here tonight to do was to produce more effective measures to deal with pornography. He is entitled to engage in that pursuit is he wishes. But the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who introduced the Bill, said something rather different. His explanation of the origin of the Bill was that the Home Office had set out to review the operation of the Measure introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) and that this was a Bill setting
  1196
  out to deal with the deficiencies which had arisen since my hon. Friend's Bill was passed.
  Therefore, the hon. Gentleman was not saying that he was coming before the House merely to deal with the police provisions of the Act. He was saying that the whole Act had been reviewed by the Home Office, which makes the situation considerably more serious, because if this is the Home Office's verdict on the operation of the Act we have to review the matter in a much more extensive manner.
  If the Home Office reviewed the whole Measure, there are a number of amendments which many of us, including, I should have thought, the Solicitor-General, are surprised to note are not in the Bill. Like many others, I have looked up what happened when the 1959 Obscene Publications Bill was introduced. I was not in the House at the time. During one of the important debates on the Bill, when the House was discussing the Report of the Select Committee, the present Solicitor-General, who was then a back bencher, made a contribution to the debate and discussed one of the questions which had been frequently raised during the proceedings, namely, who should be responsible for initiating prosecutions under the Act. I will not read all the speech which the Solicitor-General delivered. I dare say that he has read it again and I hope that he has been fortified by it. I only wish that he had read it before the Bill was drafted by the Home Office. Perhaps he will tell us when he read his speech last.
  On 16th December, 1958, the Solicitor-General made a most powerful case for suggesting, not merely that all prosecutions under the Act should be brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions, but that the Attorney-General's office should always be involved in such prosecutions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman in that debate said that if there were any difficulties about staff they could be fairly simply remedied and that more staff could be taken on to ensure that his office could deal with the matter satisfactorily.
  I do not ask the Solicitor-General to answer my speech when he speaks; I ask him to answer his own. Perhaps

  1197
  he will tell us why he has not insisted with the Home Office that an Amendment should be introduced in this Bill incorporating the proposal which he presented so eloquently in December, 1958.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): If I may quote the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), we all change.
  Mr. Foot: That tempts me to read the Solicitor-General's speech on that occasion. I do not know whether I should do so. I am sorry to hear that he has changed. Perhaps he will tell us why he has changed, because he came back to this matter several times during his speech. I will read a bit of it, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman has provoked me. He said:
  "This is a matter in which the Attorney-General should give a lead to prosecution. I appreciate the incredible amount of labour which is laid upon the back of an Attorney-General."
  Perhaps he has changed his mind about that. Maybe he has found the job of a Law Officer a light one. He went on to say:
  "He has the task of advising, as principal Law Officer of the Crown, of explaining in this House, and of appearing for the Crown. It is a tremendous burden, but, nevertheless, it has to be undertaken. The Report says that in his memorandum to the Select Committee my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said:
  'It is a fundamental principle of English criminal law that proceedings may be instituted by private individuals.'
  I would certainly agree with that to a limited extent. But this is not the kind of proceeding in criminal law which should be brought by private individuals."
  I shall be glad if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will say whether he disagrees with that view. He concluded by saying:
  "The Attorney-General is assisted by one qualified secretary and two qualified assistant secretaries. It seems precious little assistance to enable him to conduct the vast business that he has, and, therefore, it is the duty of Parliament to provide him with the staff which will enable my right hon. and learned Friend to bear the responsibilities we lay upon him, and to take over these other matters which are of great public concern and which should be responsibly accepted by him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1958; Vol. 597, c. 1025–26.]
  I should like to know the full reasons why the Solicitor-General has not
  1198
  succeeded with the Home Office in getting his Amendment into the Bill.
  Several proposals were put forward by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, who wanted Amendments dealing with a whole range of other matters. I am not sure whether each of them was to be incorporated in today's Bill. The hon. Member said that he wanted measures for dealing with the filthy postcard business. I should like to know from the Solicitor-General whether the activities described by his hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet in Blackpool are legal.
  It may be that I should explain what the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet said. He said that in Blackpool some of the postcards were brought before a kind of board, or committee, to decide which of them were proper, which of them should be proceeded against and which should not, so that the producers of the postcards would know whether they were safe. That was the procedure described by the hon. Member.
  Section 3 of the 1959 Act states, however, that
  "Any articles seized under subsection (1) of this section shall be brought before a justice of the peace acting for the same petty sessions area as the justice who issued the warrant".
  I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that what goes on in Blackpool is illegal under the Act, because people are not entitled to seize filthy postcards and make up their minds whether they will prosecute and to give indications concerning them to the producers of these postcards. Those who take the material must decide whether to prosecute.
  That is the purpose for which they are given the warrant. It is not just for the purpose of snooping around and showing them to the members of the watch committee and deciding which ones they will allow to go ahead and which they will not, particularly when we are told by the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet—and I am sorry that he is not present—that there are different standards in Folkestone and Margate, that the situation is difficult for the people who produce the cards and a lot of people want to buy them. These people are as much entitled as anybody else to know what they are able to do under the law. The law should be as certain for them as it is for anybody else.

  1199
  In my opinion, those who produce these postcards are, at least, engaged in an activity which is less reprehensible than many other activities which are regarded as quite sedate and proper. They are, however, entitled to have the law made clear for them. Therefore, I want to know whether the proceedings at Blackpool which the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet has described are legal. It might well be that they are a conspiracy. The hon. Member said that it is a friendly conspiracy, but who is he to judge? He is not administering the law. Under the existing law, I do not think that that would operate.
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet went on to say that he wanted to extend this kind of system to the book trade as a whole. He wanted a kind of books council which would decide which books were to be allowed to go free and which were not. He wanted a kind of book censorship board. I do not know whether he proposes to try to introduce an Amendment to the Bill to secure what he wants.
  I must warn the hon. Member that if he goes ahead and introduces that kind of Amendment, there will be trouble in the Government, because the proposal for a book censorship board was made during the discussions of the Select Committee on my hon. Friend's Bill. At that time, the Foreign Secretary was Secretary of State for the Home Department. He said that if any proposal were made to introduce a book board censorship he would violently rebel against it. If the right hon. Gentleman says that he will rebel violently against something we had better look out and be careful. What tender ground we are trespassing on if that is to be the case! It is not my business to stir up trouble in the Government, but I warn them that if they persist with the proposal advocated so powerfully by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, then at last the Foreign Secretary will rebel against them.
  I shall not go into detail about the proposal put by my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford, who argued an overwhelming case for dealing with the loophole revealed by the "Fanny Hill" case—the denial to reputable publishers of the right to have their case tried by a jury. I am amazed that the Joint Under Secretary of State made no reference to
  1200
  this matter. Surely the Home Office considered it. Perhaps we shall be told whether it did so and whether it rejected this proposal. Is that what happened?
  In any case, as the hon. Gentleman knows quite well, this affair has figured prominently in public discussion of the Bill. It was not treating the House properly not to have told us the feeling of the Government on this matter, which would make, perhaps, a big difference to our attitude towards this whole Measure. I hope that the Solicitor-General will not only discuss the merits of the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford, and the requests that he should insist, by one means or another, that any person prosecuted under the Bill shall have a trial by jury if he wishes. I hope that he will also tell us why it was that the Government, when they considered this matter originally—as they presumably did—decided to keep the proposal out of the Bill.
  My hon. Friend put an overwhelming case. Of course, publishers will not flippantly make their choice to be tried by jury, with the possible penalty of imprisonment. But what is wrong in giving them a right to a fair trial? This is not only a matter of what degree of pornography people think should be permissible. It is a question of common justice to publishers who are engaged in a perfectly reputable trade. Indeed, many of us believe that they are engaged in a trade absolutely essential to the maintenance of all the traditions of this country, which we hear so much about.
  They are entitled to be judged by their peers, by their fellow citizens. They are entitled to protection from the shameful indignity inflicted on the publisher in the "Fanny Hill" case. It is all very well for the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet to say that we should not worry about that case, but we must consider the effect on the morale of the publishing trade and on printers. When a prosecution against a book like "Fanny Hill" succeeds, the numbers of other books suppressed on that account cannot be estimated. No one knows.
  Anyone who reads the evidence to the Select Committee will see how many publishers indicated this following the prosecutions of 1954. Now, as a result of the astonishing verdict in the "Fanny Hill" case, many very highly reputable

  1201
  publishers are put back in the invidious position of not knowing what the law is. When hon. Members opposite say that this is a very simple matter, and the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet talks as though the "Fanny Hill" case does not matter, they should remember that it is a question of considerable importance to the people who are engaged in producing books.
  Those who are so dogmatic about this remarkable state of affairs which has arisen with the "Fanny Hill" case should remember that Mr. Robert Pitman, of the Sunday Express, who had previously set himself up as the Grand Inquisitor and chief censor and substitute hon. Member for Wimbledon all in one, and who has been pillorying one book after another, went into the witness box in the "Fanny Hill" case to say that it was a perfectly reputable book.
  I do not know what are the views of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) about that book.
  Sir C. Black: I have not read the book.
  Mr. Foot: I thought that that was so, seeing that the hon. Member condemned it so viciously.
  Sir C. Black: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to my speech. I made no reference to that book whatsoever.
  Mr. Foot: If I have misinterpreted what the hon. Gentleman said, I apologise. I do not think that I have. I gather that the present situation is that he has not yet made up his mind about "Fanny Hill".
  Sir C. Black: I have not yet read the book.
  Mr. Foot: The hon. Member has not made up his mind about it yet. He should do so before joining with his hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet in saying that it is a matter of no importance.
  Sir C. Black: I did not.
  Mr. Foot: I do not say that the hon Member had, but in his speech he showed not the slightest interest in protecting any publisher. Indeed, his sole interest in making his speech was to try to assist in stiffening all the penalties.
  As the "Fanny Hill" case has been the chief case which has arisen, it has
  1202
  been a legitimate deduction on my part to say that the hon. Member has not had any worries about the consequences of that case. What am saying about the "Fanny Hill" case is that a gross injustice was inflicted on a citizen who is engaged in an entirely honourable profession. It is the business of the House to try to prevent such injustices from occurring.
  When we have such an example of such flagrant injustice, and the Government introduce a Bill precisely concerned with the matter, they should have applied their mind to the question even if the hon. Member for Wimbledon is prepared to back the Bill without knowing what are its consequences in reference to the chief case of recent months.
  I hope that the Solicitor-General will tell us in detail what is his view of that case. Does he think that it is just that a reputable publisher, engaged in producing a bock which many people regard as a perfectly legitimate production, including those most suspicious about pornography, should be summarily condemned by a magistrate's court without any right of appeal? If he says that that is a proper process, he is twisting the purposes of my hon. Friend's original Act.
  One of the purposes of the 1959 Act was to try to insert into the law—not in its exact form, but reproduced in legislative terms—the common sense and common decency of what Mr. Justice Stable said prior to the introduction of that Act. His verdict in the case of, I think, "The Philanderer", altered the situation a great deal and was incorporated in all the documents which preceded my hen. Friend's Act. The then Home Secretary, now the Foreign Secretary, also quoted it with approval, although I do not say that he approved every word. One cannot co-ordinate the verdict of that judge, which we were trying to incorporate in the 1959 Measure, with the result of the "Fanny Hill" case. Therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to answer that.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool said, the whole of this subject is hopelessly out of proportion. Nobody knows exactly what corrupts and depraves. The hon. Member for Wimbledon is certain about it, but nobody

  1203
  else knows for certain. Nobody knows whether there is any connection between dirty books and juvenile delinquency. No such proposition has ever been remotely proved, but the hon. Member for Wimbledon is prepared to say that we should legislate fiercely and ferociously without knowing the connection between these matters.
  I do not want to take any censorious measures about other media, but I suspect that some of the things printed in the Sunday newspapers are likely to corrupt and deprave much more than anything printed in books is likely to do. I do not want the newspapers to be suppressed on that account. I want the matter to be dealt with by public opinion. A much more powerful argument could be made for saying that some of the things printed in the Sunday Press corrupt and deprave than for saying that that happens by what is printed in these books. It must be remembered, too, that the Sunday newspapers are available to many more people than are the books, but the brave Government are not to take any measures against the newspapers on the ground of obscenity, because if they did they would be in trouble with their friends.
  Let us consider next what one sees on television. I do not want to suppress anything on television. I believe that the problem should be solved by the free market play of ideas, and I have enough confidence in the public to think that truth and decency will win. I do not want any censorship, anywhere, but if it is said that the young are somehow being corrupted, I maintain that it is much more likely to be corrupted by some of the things which we see on television than by what is written in these books.
  The young are very often much more corrupted by the kind of rubbish that is printed in some of our history books than by what they read in some of the literature which has been under discussion today, but we in this House do not discuss the contents of the newspapers, we do not discuss the contents of television, and we do not discuss the contents of the history books. I think that in most cases it would be most inadvisable to do so, but it is lopsided for us to spend so many hours, and indeed, days and years, introducing legislation to deal with obscene
  1204
  books on the ground, apparently, that we must do it to protect the youth of the country. We never consider any measures to influence other activities and other media, which, I should have thought, had a much more powerful influence on the minds of young people than these so-called pornographic books.
  The House of Commons spent three or four years examining in every detail the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford. Two Select Committees considered it, and now, within a few years of the 1959 Act being passed, the Government say that the matter must be dealt with afresh. This is an astonishing state of affairs. Why should the Government be so fascinated with obscenity? It is all because of the dirtiest word in the dictionary, the forbidden three-lettered word "sex". That is the reason for it. It is because so many people have become absurdly obsessed with that idea that, somehow, so-called sexual sins are worse than any others.
  I hope that the youth of the country will read what was said yesterday by Groucho Marx. He paid this country a great compliment. He said "There was no sham about sex; each side knows that it has it, and is kinda proud of it." Groucho Marx is a much healthier influence than this Bill, and in this sense and in many others I am an impenitent Marxist. He made a healthier kind of contribution than the prurient stuff that we have had from the hon. Member for Wimbledon, not so ably assisted by his hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet.
  There may be another reason for the introduction of the Bill. It may be that the Cabinet assembled together and, even before they heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), thought that they should do something, apart from issuing stamps, to celebrate the 400th anniversary of our greatest poet, who was also one of our greatest pornographers. It may be that the Cabinet met to discuss how this should be done. Unfortunately, it has lost the services of several of its most intellectual Members. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was not there to warn it, nor was the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) nor the right hon. Member for Birmingham,

  1205
  Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), who used to be Minister of Education but who is now in the background. We might describe this Government as the Ministry of All The Buried Talents. They are not left in good fettle for dealing with these questions.
  Eventually the Home Office came along with the proposal that we should celebrate the anniversary of Shakespeare by introducing this Measure. But even that ancestry cannot make me love it any more. It is a piddling little Measure. It should be treated with contempt. No doubt we shall have to go through the procedure of debating it in Committee and examining it in detail. We shall try to improve it, if we can. If there is nothing much else for the House of Commons to apply its mind to this summer we might as well deal with the Bill. We will try to make it a much better Bill than it is now—and that should not be difficult.
  But I hope that the reception which the Bill has been given from hon. Members on both sides of the House will persuade the Home Office that it will not get away with it so easily in the future, and that it will cause the Home Office to apply its mind to some of the real social problems described by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool instead of abusing the good nature of this House by bringing forward Measures of this character.
  9.2 p.m.
  Mr. John Cordle: I have also sat through the whole debate, and I have been interested and fascinated by it. At the same time, I have found it difficult to follow the arguments of hon. Members opposite and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour). I find myself in a minority, with my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black)—and I am rather proud to be there.
  I welcome the Bill. I believe that it will go a long way towards suppressing obscenity and pornography. I believe that a great sigh of relief will go up among all decent people—parents, school teachers and social workers—at the thought that, at last, something will be done to clean up bookstalls, even at so late an hour. In our effort to be fair to offenders and evil-doers we are
  1206
  sometimes extremely unfair to law-abiding citizens. This explains the failure of the 1959 Act. It was carefully drawn up in an attempt to safeguard literary men from persecution and, at the same time, to protect the innocent from corruption
  I feel sure that many decent citizens would like to see the law changed so that not only low-grade pornographic publications from the United States are banned, but new canons of criticism are employed in judging the merits and morals of professedly literary publications. In my view, "Lady Chatterley's Lover" should be dumped into the Channel for a start, along with many similar types of book. Perhaps "Lady Chatterley's" bishop might benefit from a similar ducking.
  As parents and politicians we are worried and alarmed by the report issued by the British Medical Association showing a considerable increase in veneral diseases among teen-agers and young people. Since 1957, there has been an increase of 62 per cent. among boys and young men, and 75 per cent. among teen-age girls and those in their early twenties—the age group from 15 to 21. I believe that much of this sad story is due to filthy books and pornography.
  Anything that we can do in this House to protect young people from corruption during their formative yet undeveloped years is surely the plain duty of Parliament. This problem of obscenity is worrying especially mothers throughout the country, and I feel pitifully sorry for lonely young women who are trying to bring up a family when their children are exposed to these dangerous and obscene publications.
  One such mother complained to me recently of the astonishingly detailed and intimate particulars which her daughter had learned from such a publication. The effect of all this is anti-social and militates against the conscientious and painstaking work of the school teachers and social workers of our day.
  I have had complaints also from the clergy and, in particular, from the Rev. Gordon Guiness, a much respected clergyman in my constituency, who has recently written in his parish magazine:
  "One of the problems we have to face is the degradation of morals in the nation.

  1207
  Those who are acting so as to undermine Christian morality whether from motives of money, profit, Communism or personal moral perversion are now in command. They sit in Parliament. They control theatres and cinemas and they debase the television and the Press."
  He goes on to say:
  "The B.B.C. is also engaged in the propaganda of disbelief, doubt and dirt. The first Governors of the B.B.C. dedicated their headquarters to God with the prayer 'all the things hostile to peace and purity be banished from this house.
  The present controllers of programmes care more for the applause of men than the approval of God. As Christians, we must not only know what is going on, we must constantly exercise pressure to condemn evil and to praise good. We owe it to the coming generation at least."
  We cannot allow the exploitation of our young people for the sake of gain and profit. Therefore, it seems to me that the Bill must make it exceedingly unprofitable and almost impossible, if it is to serve any purpose, for anyone to corrupt or debase the morals of our young people by means of obscene publications.
  I am proud to say that one of the prominent wholesale booksellers and newsagents of Bournemouth, Messrs. Thunder and Clayden, have continually refused attractive offers to handle imported filth, and have informed me of numerous occasions when samples have been sent to them. Bournemouth should be thankful to them for this private censorship. I can only wish that other agents in London and other parts of the country had taken as patriotic a view of the matter.
  There are three main sources of corruption—the American paper-back novels, the so-called Soho photographs, and the pin-up magazines. As my hon. Friend has told us today, nearly 1½ million obscene novels were seized by the police and Customs authorities and presumably very many more escaped the vigilance of the authorities. Quite possibly, 5 million copies got through the net. The theme of these novels is much the same as the pin-up papers, which come mainly from America—sex and violence, violence and sex, illustrated with sleazy pictures.
  The Soho photographs, showing acts of sexual intercourse and perversion, are nauseating. Enormous profits are made out of the sale of these pornographic photographs and without doubt the same applies to the novels and pin-up publications.
  1208
  I am very glad that my right hon. Friend has introduced the Bill. It is designed not only to plug holes which have been found in the existing law, but also to make it unprofitable and uncomfortable to deal in and handle and possess photographs and printed matter of the sort which we have been discussing tonight.
  There is one further point which appears not to be covered by the Bill and I wish to ask the Minister whether a Clause could be included to cover the matter. When Mr. Kenneth Tynan was appointed literary manager of the new National Theatre, the New Statesman welcomed the appointment and praised Mr. Tynan for his part in making
  "kitchen sinks, lavatories, drugs, homosexuality and crime standard ingredients for success in the West End theatre."
  May I ask: is such a man fit and suitable to hold such an influential and important position?
  The influence of the B.B.C. and I.T.V. in matters of morals is beyond computation. Yet many a home is subject to suggestive, dirty and corrupting plays and talks which often do serious harm before the viewer has had time to realise what is happening. I hope that with the Bill we may succeed in dealing with this problem, but unless the so-called sex confessions and horrid and lurid articles on misconduct, uncleanness and crime are excluded from publication by the national Press, especially the Sunday newspapers, our work here will be only half done. Surely, in dealing with obscene publications, we must do a thorough job. I hope that some of my comments will be considered for inclusion in the Bill so that we can safeguard our children and our families.
  9.12 p.m.
  Mr. F. H. Hayman: I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but the speech by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) compels me to do so. I feel that we cannot but regret extremely that the hon. Gentleman now represents Bournemouth, East and Christchurch instead of Mr. Nigel Nicolson, whom we in this House admired. I admired the fine speeches which he made here, although once he was an opponent of mine.
  What has just been said by the hon. Member must make his Front Bench

  1209
  colleagues wonder very much whether they were wise to introduce the Bill. I hope that at least they will be warned that in this House we ought not to be guided too much by individual opinions on what may be pornographic or indecent or anything else of that sort.
  9.14 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): The subject which we have been debating today has underlying it matters on which everyone in this House has deep and serious feeling. It is a problem, a grave and serious problem that we have been debating. The anxiety and concern referred to by my hon. Friends the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) and Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) appear to be very widely shared by many people in this country today. I do not think the seriousness should be underestimated.
  The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) brought as it were a word of warning and the moderation of the middle road, as I understood his suggestion and contribution, to the considerations we should give to these matters. I do not know if he heard earlier some of the speeches which were made from the other side on this matter.
  Mr. Hayman: I have heard many of the speeches.
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member will appreciate that people feel very seriously about this grave problem. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) in a remarkable speech, which degenerated into party political controversy, asked when reciting the history of pornography what was the reason for this Bill? The reason for this Bill is to strike at and to hit what I might call the Soho bookshop and the importers of prurient pornography. That is the responsibility, and the proper responsibility, of the Government of the day.
  Following the Select Committee Report, Parliament tried in the Act of 1959 to strike a balance by providing effective machinery to punish and deter pornographers. I can say with confidence that it is clear from the concern expressed by some hon. Members opposite about this matter that they too would wish to see it stamped out. Parliament
  1210
  in 1959 wanted to provide effective machinery to deal with pornographers, to be able to deal with the mass of pornography and yet not to convict or destroy in any case where the publication is justified as being for the public good. It is inevitable in such an exercise that those who emphasise, as some hon. Members have done today, the social need to punish and destroy are branded by some articulate gentleman as philistines and prudes, while those who emphasise the intellectual need to permit publication would be branded as libertines and corrupters, but the Act of 1959, which the present Bill seeks to strengthen, was born of compromise.
  To follow what the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne said, no group has a monopoly of intellectual superiority or literary knowledge or cultivated taste. I think there is a reaction both ways to a sensible compromise. For people of moderate and sensible views on both sides of this House will appreciate that Parliament must and should lay a duty on the Government of the day to prevent, punish and destroy pornography. The 1959 Act, a3 has been said by many hon. Members in this debate, had the objects of providing, for the first time, a statutory definition of obscenity: secondly to provide a defence of liberty or artistic or other merit, and, thirdly, to strengthen the law against pornography. The last was a very important objective.
  Since then loopholes have appeared. The hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) who spoke with such skill from the Front Bench opposite, referred to the case of Clayton, which is mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill. That was a case in which it was held that where a charge is preferred under the Act in regard to the publication of an article to a particular person the test which has to be applied is what the effect of the article in question is on that person. Was it such as to tend to deprave or corrupt him?
  The hon. and learned Member seems to think that it was clear under the 1959 Act that that would be the decision of the Court. I would refer him to the "Lady Chatterley" case. There there was publication to a police officer. Since it

  1211
  has been held that a police officer engaged in such work is incorruptible, and it is obvious that the corruptibles are usually unwilling to give evidence, the effect of the Clayton case was that it was impossible to charge an offence of publishing an obscene article in such circumstances. The Bill is designed to close that loophole. Certain hon. Members have spoken against any form of censorship and against any form of restriction upon the power of persons to publish pornography. Nevertheless, I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to see that loophole closed.
  Mr. MacDermot: Does not the hon. and learned Member agree that if this is the reason for the change, then there is a fundamental shift taking place in the balance which was struck in the 1959 compromise, because it means that in future prosecution is not to be based on an actual publication in a certain sense which might do harm but purely on possession with a view to publication in a certain sense?
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman must permit me to continue. I have set out the objectives of the 1959 Act. They have been stated by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), who played such a large part in placing that Act on the Statute Book. It was then said strongly that one of the objectives was to prevent pornography and to stamp it out where possible, and also to punish pornographers. The hon. and learned Member referred to a quotation from Lord Birkett,
  "Dirt for dirt's sake".
  Let me remind him that there is a lot of dirt for money's sake—and a great deal of money, too.
  Mr. MacDermot: The only alteration in the law by the 1959 Act to get at dirt for dirt's sake was an alteration in the law of forfeiture procedure.
  The Solicitor-General: There was the alteration in the law of forfeiture and there was a definition of obscenity, but what is clearly wanted is that there should not be the difficulties which arose, and have arisen since, because of the Clayton case, as a result of which the evidence of a police officer to whom publication is made is no longer avail-
  1212
  able. As I understand it from some speeches, it is agreed that this situation should be prevented, if there is to be either prosecution or proceedings for forfeiture, whether before a jury or before magistrates. This is a method of obtaining evidence which in the past the courts in this kind of case have seen as proper and appropriate.
  The procedure of the test purchase by a police officer was not a procedure for the benefit of a publisher or a procedure intended to lead to a friendly prosecution. This is a misconception. It is rarely possible to get evidence of publication of an obscene libel in the ordinary course of business because by its nature it is a furtive transaction with the purchaser perhaps an accomplice and in any case a very unwilling witness.
  The courts therefore accepted that obscenity was one of the few fields—rationing was another—in which it was appropriate to obtain evidence by law enforcement officers in effect procuring breaches of the law. Nor is the purpose to facilitate prosecution rather than proceedings for forfeiture. In the "Lady Chatterley" case, where there was a sale to a police officer, the choice was not between prosecution and forfeiture proceedings, but between an arranged sale to the police officer and a sale after publication to a member of the public.
  I want to deal with a point raised by the hon. Member for Stechford and my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) who has advised me that he is unable to be here for my reply. There is a misconception that Section 4 defence is not available on a charge of conspiracy. I suggest to the House that this is a misconception and that such a defence is available. If a publication is in the public good, which is what the defence would establish, then there can be an agreement, but it will be an agreement to do something which is not an offence.
  I repeat the assurance given in regard to a conspiracy to corrupt public morals by the present Lord Chancellor when he was Attorney-General. This assurance has also been given by the present Attorney-General; that a conspiracy to corrupt public morals would not be charged so as to circumvent the statutory defence in Section 4. Section 4 may be

  1213
  available in any event indirectly, but I willingly repeat that assurance which has been given. I am instructed to say that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will consider everything said today and further consider the question of conspiracy to corrupt public morals.
  The collusive sale, the matter raised by the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North, would be no good in the case of the Soho shop and the exposure for sale suggestion would be no good either because there would have to be a corruptible person and that would not arise if the article were brought out from under the counter and handed to a police officer. As my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet pointed out, it is publication for the purpose of sale for gain, as Clause 1(2) states:
  "… a person shall be deemed to have an article for publication for gain …"
  And there the important words are "for gain". It is the view of the Government that if one is to stop this trade and deal with importers, one must have that definition.
  The second loophole to which reference has been made, although not a great deal of discussion has turned on it, was the case of Mella v. Monahan—the display of priced articles in the shop—and the third the case of Straker. A choice which inevitably must come in these cases—and this is what concerns hon. Members—is the decision to choose between prosecution and forfeiture. The choice has to be made on the basis that Parliament has provided these two remedies or weapons in the armoury of the administration of the criminal law. The choice must be made in accordance with principle in the proper administration of the criminal law.
  Section 2 is the punitive weapon and Section 3, forfeiture, the preventive weapon. The general rule has been that it would be oppressive under Section 2 to proceed against and prosecute a man who, so far from deliberately breaking the law, has taken all possible action to avoid breaking it. That is the first principle, and the second is that there must arise the consideration of convenience; there are cases of about 800 books being seized, and if there are 12 members of a jury to consider the matter, one can see that having 800 charges it would be impracticable and impossible
  1214
  effectively to administer the criminal law if one had to prosecute in all such cases. Therefore, Parliament has given the law enforcement officers these two weapons to use.
  I turn to the case of "Fanny Hill" to which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) referred.
  Mr. MacDermot: Before the Solicitor-General leaves that point, does not what he has said mean that if the prosecutions are to deal with bulk stocks held by the pornographer it is not practicable to put that before a jury because the sheer volume and number of books is too great? If that is so, it means that the prosecution will be open to proceed on forfeiture. If that is what the Bill is aimed at, and they are to be bound to go to forfeiture, why make it a criminal offence?
  The Solicitor-General: Because we must have both weapons in our armoury—
  Mr. MacDermot: One of which we cannot use.
  The Solicitor-General: We can use the second one as well. Because we can use it as a punitive weapon and prosecute the person concerned for the publication of certain numbers—one book, three books, whatever it may be—but we still want to be able, if we are wishing to get at pornography, to deal with the vast bulk that remains with the bookseller, and with which importers, who are using them literally as ballast for cargo, seem to be flooding our shores.
  I would remind the House that "Fanny Hill" appears to have been part of the ordinary stock-in-trade of what have been called pornographers, certainly for generations. I do not know whether all the people who were involved in the prosecution of "Fanny Hill" were prigs, but during the 14 years since 1950 there have been 15 sets of proceedings in respect of that book. Eight were prosecutions, seven were proceedings for forfeiture, and in every case there was a conviction or an order for destruction—
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: How many of those were before the 1959 Act?
  The Solicitor-General: Of the eight prosecutions, four were summary proceedings before magistrates, and four

  1215
  were on indictment before a jury, so a jury have decided on the obscenity of the book. Only one was after the 1959 Act, and that was when "Fanny Hill" was one of a group of books—which two booksellers were charged with conspiring to publish. The special defence would only have been available if pleaded and made out on every book, but it was not so done.
  Pre-1959, "Fanny Hill" had been through the courts very often; the lady had been convicted by a jury on three occasions. It is important that, at any rate, there have been verdicts of a jury. I am telling hon. Members some of the facts concerning this particular matter because it is relevant that "Fanny Hill" has been the subject of prosecution, and also of forfeiture proceedings, 15 times in the last 14 years—
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: But we are talking of cases where evidence in support of literary merit is put, and whether in that case it should be before magistrates or a jury, so I cannot see the relevance of saying that it took place before a jury in the days before that evidence was admissible.
  The Solicitor-General: No one knows in the "Lady Chatterley" case whether, when the prosecution did not succeed, it was on the question of whether the book was not obscene or was published in the public good. In regard to "Fanny Hill", the first test, as to obscenity, has been dealt with by a jury. After 1959 it was open to the publishers of "Fanny Hill" to intervene in the forfeiture cases, and they did intervene in two of them, to give evidence. If it is said that there should always be a right of trial by jury and that it would only be used by so-called reputable publishers, I would inform the House that in October, 1962, there were proceedings in regard to books with such titles as "The Race with Lust", "The Restless Virgin" and "Red Rape". In these particular proceedings this defence of merit or the public good was raised, so we have to consider very carefully whether, as is suggested in some quarters, we can ignore the fact that disreputable publishers or publishers of pornography would not pray this defence in aid in order to clog up the courts,
  1216
  because that defence is what they did raise in October 1962.
  As I have said before, dirt is money in this trade, and if we are to tackle the pornographer we must have the weapons to enable us to deal with persons who are producing this kind of material, and deal with them effectively and strongly.
  The considerations taken into account in the case of "Fanny Hill" were the change in the law which has arisen as a result of the case of Clayton and, secondly the fact that when the police in the execution of a warrant went to these publishers they apparently took no more steps to see that there would be publication thereafter. Also there was at that time no evidence of an offence by the publishers. The question was whether steps should have been taken to hunt out that evidence, but in the circumstances prevailing at that time that was the decision taken. The hon. Member for Stechford went on to refer to the fact that there ought to be in his view a trial by jury in such proceedings.
  Mr. MacDermot: The right to trial.
  The Solicitor-General: Yes, the right, whether the proceedings be for prosecution or for forfeiture. I would say straight away that there is certainly no objection in principle to proceeding for forfeiture, leaving aside prosecution, being tried by a jury in a court of criminal jurisdiction. It would be an innovation, but that is certainly not something that should prevent it from happening. There are problems and they may not be insoluble, but there should be considerable hesitation before this particular procedure was introduced.
  All I can say to hon. Members is that what the hon. Member for Stechford had to say on this point will be carefully studied by my right hon. Friend. It is accepted that there is no objection in principle, but one has to consider what would be the effect on quarter sessions, and what would be the effect on the criminal law, of juries of 12 people being asked to take away hundreds of volumes and read them. We also have to take into account that the pornographers, not pure and not simple, might well plead the special defence which is provided

  1217
  under section 4. Therefore, while it certainly will be considered, and, indeed, has been considered, nevertheless I point out to the House the considerable difficulties which exist in this field.
  This is a Bill which when it was introduced by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary earlier today met with some shot and shell from both sides and from different quarters of the House and, as I said when I opened my speech, it is obviously a matter of grave interest and grave concern. I beg the House not to underestimate the real problem that here exists and the real damage and the real danger that can be created by this usually sadistic material which is flooding into and around the country. Hon. Members were concentrating on obscenity in matters of sex, but this material is very often sadistic. It is right that the Government should take these weapons and I believe that the Bill provides an extra weapon for that armoury and I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  NEW FOREST [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to alter the perambulation of the New Forest, to make further provision for the New Forest, to amend the New Forest Acts 1877 to 1949 and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenses incurred under the said Act by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food;

  (b) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under Section 17 of the Ministry of Transport Act 1919 or Section 236 of the Highways Act 1959; and

  (c) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.—[Mr. Scott-Hopkins.)

  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peel.]
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Ten o'clock.

MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Local Airports (Grants)
  Local Airports (Grants)
  Rocket Launchings (Research)
  Rocket Launchings (Research)
  Blue Streak (Launching Project)
  Blue Streak (Launching Project)
  Concord Aircraft
  Concord Aircraft
  Aircraft Industry (Employment)
  Aircraft Industry (Employment)
  National Air Traffic Control Service
  National Air Traffic Control Service
  Aircraft (Orders)
  Aircraft (Orders)
  B.O.A.C. (VC10 Aircraft)
  B.O.A.C. (VC10 Aircraft)
  Russian Aviation Group (Scottish Visit)
  Russian Aviation Group (Scottish Visit)
BRITISH ARMY
  Combat Dress
  Combat Dress
  British Forces, Germany (Egg Supplies)
  British Forces, Germany (Egg Supplies)
  British Guiana
  British Guiana
  Unmanned Fort, Thames Estuary
  Unmanned Fort, Thames Estuary
  Recruiting Campaigns
  Recruiting Campaigns
  Royal Engineers (Bridge Building)
  Royal Engineers (Bridge Building)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Aircraft (R.A.F. and Navy Requirements)
  Aircraft (R.A.F. and Navy Requirements)
  Aden
  Aden
  Southern Arabian Federation (Army Commander)
  Southern Arabian Federation (Army Commander)
  Casualties (Statements to the Press)
  Casualties (Statements to the Press)
  Overseas Bases
  Overseas Bases
  Surplus Stores (Disposal)
  Surplus Stores (Disposal)
ROYAL NAVY
  Ships (Refitting)
  Ships (Refitting)
  Naval Careers Office, Holborn
  Naval Careers Office, Holborn
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Air Base, Sculthorpe
  Air Base, Sculthorpe
  Meteorology (Balloons)
  Meteorology (Balloons)
  Transport Command
  Transport Command
SCOTLAND
  Roads
  Roads
  Two-Apartment Houses, Sutherland
  Two-Apartment Houses, Sutherland
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Chloramphenicol
  Chloramphenicol
  Epidemics (Press, Radio and Television Publicity)
  Epidemics (Press, Radio and Television Publicity)
  Illegitimate Birth Rates
  Illegitimate Birth Rates
TRANSPORT
  Cardiff Docks (Drowning Accident)
  Cardiff Docks (Drowning Accident)
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
  Motor Cycles and Scooters (Driving Licences)
  Motor Cycles and Scooters (Driving Licences)
  Large Towns (Lorry Traffic)
  Large Towns (Lorry Traffic)
  Whitsuntide Accidents (Safety Belts)
  Whitsuntide Accidents (Safety Belts)
ROADS
  A.34 Road, Newcastle-under-Lyme
  A.34 Road, Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Relief Road, Newbury
  Relief Road, Newbury
  Swing Bridge, Thorne
  Swing Bridge, Thorne
SHIPPING
  Tees Pilotage District
  Tees Pilotage District
  United States Federal Maritime Commission (Contracts)
  United States Federal Maritime Commission (Contracts)
  VIET NAM, LAOS AND CAMBODIA
  VIET NAM, LAOS AND CAMBODIA
  MUSCAT AND OMAN (FIRE DAMAGE)
  MUSCAT AND OMAN (FIRE DAMAGE)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Apprenticeship Scheme
  Agricultural Apprenticeship Scheme
  Corned Beef
  Corned Beef
  Tenants (High Court Proceedings)
  Tenants (High Court Proceedings)
KENYA
  Aid
  Aid
HOSPITALS
  Mentally Subnormal and Spastics, Sheffield
  Mentally Subnormal and Spastics, Sheffield
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960
  Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960
EDUCATION
  Reading Ability
  Reading Ability
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Gateshead and Northern Region
  Gateshead and Northern Region
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  St. Stephen's Chapel
  St. Stephen's Chapel
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Pirate Radio Ships
  Pirate Radio Ships
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Grimsdyke Exchange (Automatic Working)
  Grimsdyke Exchange (Automatic Working)

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

REDEVELOPMENT OF LOTS ROAD POWER STATION
2.35 p.m.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what technical and scientific advice they received on the redevelopment of Lots Road Power Station, and if they will publish it.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, before the British Transport Commission formulated their proposals for the redevelopment of the Lots Road generating station they sought the advice of a panel of three leading firms of electrical consulting engineers. In submitting their proposals for the approval of my right honourable friend they informed him of the advice they had received from the panel. The publication of the panel's Report would be a matter for the London Transport Board.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, will the noble Lord inquire from the London Transport Board whether they will make that Report available? May we also have the names of the consulting engineers involved in this large expenditure of millions of pounds in a densely populated area, particularly in view of the fact that the cost of generation at the London Transport power stations is considerably higher than that of the Central Electricity Generating Board?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the names of the consultants concerned are Messrs. Kennedy and Donkin, Messrs. Merz and McLellan and Messrs. Preece, Cardew and Rider. They reported in
486
1960. The essence of their Report was that, while the main supply should be obtained from the grid, there should be an independent source available to provide a substantial part of the supply. The intention of this was to ensure that in the event of failure of supplies from the grid the deep Tubes could remain working. I can only say to the noble Lord that I have no doubt that the London Transport Board will see what he has said; and, as I said before, the question of publication is a matter for them.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for the further information which he has imparted to your Lordships' House, is he aware that, with regard to the provision of an altertive supply to the London Transport Board, the Board are actually closing clown one of their stations—namely, Neasden? How does he reconcile this with that statement?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the Question, of course, applies to Lots Road, and I think the matter of the provision of an alternative supply is one within the responsibility of management of the Board.

B.B.C.'s ARABIC SERVICE
2.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what facilities exist for broadcasting news and commentaries on British policy in Southern Arabia to Moslem countries; for how many hours per week programmes in Arabic are transmitted and what were the comparable figures in 1948 and 1956; where the transmitters are located; whether any have been abandoned since the war, and whether there are now any populated areas not covered by broadcasts.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, the B.B.C. Arabic Service is broadcast for 84 hours a week with a full range of programmes, including news and commentaries which regularly contain a presentation of British

487
policy in the Middle East and in recent weeks have paid particular attention to the situation in Southern Arabia.
In 1948 the Service was on the air for 19 hours a week; at the end of 1956 the weekly figure was just over 33 hours. The Service is transmitted from the United Kingdom and there are relay transmitters in Malta, Cyprus and Aden. The relay station at Berbera, which was withdrawn in April 1963, is now being rebuilt in the Aden area.
All populated regions in the Arab world are fully covered by short-wave radio from this country, or by medium-wave broadcasts from the relay stations.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that most satisfactory reply.

NEW CONSTITUTION FOR BASUTOLAND
2.40 p.m.
LORD FRASER of LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make regarding the recent Conference between Her Majesty's Government and the Basutoland Constitutional Negotiating Committee.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, as your Lordships will be aware, a statement was made in another place by my right honourable friend at the conclusion of the Basutoland Conference on May 15. Your Lordships' House rose on May 14, and I think it may therefore be convenient if I repeat now my right honourable friend's statement.
"The Conference completed its work in the early hours of this morning"—
that was May 15—
"and we have just this moment signed our report. Agreement has been reached on the introduction of a new Constitution which will be followed by independence a year later, if the desire for it is confirmed by the people of Basutoland through their Parliament or through a referendum.
488
"On independence, it is intended that the Paramount Chief should become Head of State. Prior to independence, he will be Her Majesty's Representative in the territory. During this interim stage, the British Government's Representative will be responsible for external affairs, defence and internal security. and for the time being, for the public service He will also have the necessary powers to ensure proper financial administration.
"There will be a Legislature composed of a Lower House, elected on the basis of universal adult suffrage and a Senate with delaying powers composed of the Principal Chiefs and persons nominated by the Paramount Chief. The Constitution will, of course, contain safeguards for Human Rights.
"Our policy will be based on the expectation that the Basutos will confirm their request for independence one year after the elections are held under the new Constitution. In the interval, we shall delegate to the elected Basutoland Government responsibilities in regard to external affairs and internal security as fully and as quickly as circumstances allow. We shall also take steps to increase the number of locally enlisted public servants.
"The report of the Conference, including the outline of the draft Constitution, will be published at once, and will be presented to Parliament as a White Paper as soon as it can be printed."
Your Lordships will also be aware that the White Paper referred to was presented to Parliament on May 27.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people think that this Conference was a model of good statesmanship? While congratulating the representatives of the Negotiating Committee and the Paramount Chief who came here from Basutoland, on the one hand, and the noble Marquess himself, on the other. upon results which were moderate, full of common sense and realistic, may I ask him two questions? One is whether the talks, which were foreshadowed in the White Paper to take place between these representatives and the Negotiating Committee as to the interim arrangements, are proceeding satisfactorily. The other question is whether, meantime, some steps have been taken in Basutoland to outline and delineate the constituencies and to prepare registers, in the hope that an election may be able to take place this year.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am much obliged for the observations of my noble friend. In reply to his first supplementary question, I can assure your Lordships that talks

489
are proceeding satisfactorily. The Resident Commissioner returned immediately to Basutoland, and discussions are taking place. I do not wish to weary your Lordships, but there is a note at the end of the White Paper to which I should like your Lordships' attention to be drawn. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale would care to have a look at that as well. As regards the preparation for elections, the draft of a pilot Order ill Council to provide for elections has been prepared and is being considered by the Basutoland Government now. Every effort will be made by Her Majesty's Government to ensure that elections can lake place before the end of this year.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he is aware that the satisfaction expressed by the noble Lord is shared on this side of the House and, indeed, both in this country and in Africa? We also appreciate very keenly the part he has played in this extremely satisfactory agreement with the representatives of Basutoland. May I ask him one further question? He talked about delegation of responsibility during the interim period. Will the present facilities for political refugees remain as they are in Basutoland, so long as Her Majesty's Government remain responsible—that is to say, until Basutoland becomes independent?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl, and I will, of course, see that my right honourable friend's attention is drawn to what he has said. As regards the question of political refugees, the answer is, "Yes".

AID TO BASUTOLAND
2.45 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state the total amount contributed to Basutoland over the past ten years by the British Exchequer by way of gifts, loans, grants-in-aid, et cetera; and by the
490
Overseas Development Corporation, the International Development Association, and/or any other governmental organisation, listing the total from each source separately.]
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the total amount contributed by the British Exchequer to Basutoland over the past ten financial years is —7,290,556, of which more than half was grant-in-aid. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the full details for which my noble friend asked. The Commonwealth Development Corporation and the International Development Association have not yet provided financial assistance to Basutoland.
Following are the details referred to:

£

(a) Grant-in-Aid

4,551,955

(b) C.D. & W. Grants

2,300,637

(c) C.D. & W. Research Grants

9,249

(d) Contribution to the Coal-brook Relief Fund

10,000

(e) Technical Assistance (Special Commonwealth African Assistance Plan)

8,715

(f) Exchequer loans under Section 2 of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1959

410,000

LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, while it is manifest that this Territory is heavily dependent upon Her Majesty's Government for aid in conducting its Government and developing its social services, and while it is manifest that in the early years of independence, having regard to the lack of natural resources in the country, it will continue to be very dependent, can we have some assurance that, in arranging terms for independence and discussing them, Her Majesty's Government will contemplate that whatever else this old country does in respect of this small territory in Africa, which has since Victorian times been dependent upon us and very loyal to us, we will leave our responsibilities there honourably discharged?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I can most certainly give my noble friend that assurance. Of course, I should like to emphasise now that after independence Basutoland will, if it remains in the Commonwealth—and the Basutos have expressed their desire so

491
to do—be eligible for financial assistance on the same basis as other Common-wealth countries.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, before the British Government cease to have responsibility for Basutoland, will it be possible for them to advise the Basutos on the steps that are necessary to be taken by them before foreign capital, especially capital of an international character such as the Bank's, can be employed in and attracted to the country?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My, Lords, of course Her Majesty's Government will give any advice that we are able to give to the Basutos. My impression is that the Basutos are quite ready to listen. Of course, this will be a matter for them.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

THE ARTS
2.50 p.m.
LORD AUCKLANDrose to call attention to the Arts, with particular reference to the 18th Annual Report of the Arts Council of Great Britain, Ends and Means; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that exactly three weeks ago to-day this House debated the subject of the problem of leisure on a Motion by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. You will recall that we had a very serious, useful and constructive debate and the noble Baroness herself played no mean part in achieving that end. To-day, My Lords, we discuss the Arts, with a special reference to the current Report of the Arts Council. It is perhaps a rather curious situation that in the other place the Second Reading of the Obscene Publications Bill is taking place, and I would say that certainly the two are not connected and, in any case, that Bill will be coming here.
This is the second time in fifteen months that I have had the privilege of
492
moving a Motion on the Arts, and it is all too rarely that Parliament, with its great pressure of business, has the time or the opportunity to discuss this vital subject. I should like in advance to thank all noble Lords from all quarters of the House who have signified their intention of taking part. I would especially say how very much the House will be looking forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell. And may I say from these Back-Benches how very pleased we are to see the noble Earl who leads the Opposition in his place? The noble Earl himself has a great interest in the Arts; he spoke in an Arts Council debate back in 1958. We are all very delighted to see him here to-day.
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who is to wind up this debate has himself had some experience in this matter because he wound up the debate in 1958 very fully and courteously. I am only sorry that no other Scottish Peer will be taking part in this debate. The noble Earl is himself a very good Scot, and I shall have some things to say about Scotland and hope that he will be able to deal with some of the points. I have given him notice of a number of questions with which I will not weary the House now.
In last year's debate I made it quite clear that my main purpose was not to seek for more direct money from the Treasury for the Arts Council, although this money is badly needed. I would say to those, both in Parliament and outside, who criticise Governments of all Parties for not giving the Arts Council more money, which they perhaps should have, that we as a nation have a great many commitments, such as the social services, roads, defence and so on, which are essentials; whereas the Arts, while they are a vital part of our life and a great strengthener in international relations, must, in these critical times, to some extent play second fiddle. But I hope that the Treasury will not regard this as a matter for complacency, and that when the opportune time comes the Arts Council will be given the money which they richly deserve.
I should like at this juncture to pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lord Cottesloe, who has again performed sterling service as Chairman of

493
the Arts Council, and also to Mr. Nigel Abercrombie, the Secretary-General, with whom I had a most cordial and useful meeting the other day. Currently he has been the target of a great deal of sniping from various sources over the business of the London Opera Centre. I shall have a few remarks to make about that later, but I know that my noble friend Lord Cottesloe will be dealing with this somewhat delicate matter more fully in his capacity as Chairman of the Arts Council. The critics of the Arts Council are, of course, entitled to their views, because the Arts Council is subsidised from public money—as indeed, is the London Opera Centre; but those serving on the Arts Council, and particularly on the Advisory Boards of Music, Drama, Poetry and so on. often do so in addition to their normal jobs as singers, actors, poets and so on. So they really work very hard indeed.
My Lords, before I turn to the Report itself I should like to say that the Arts in this country are very widely supported by our youth. I feel that this needs to be said at this early stage, because we hear all too much about motor-cycle gangs and others going down to seaside resorts, tearing-up the place, beating-up people and making a nuisance of themselves. No one here condones that, and I think they deserve severe punishment. But if we consider the Bank Holiday periods of Whitsun and Easter, probably for every five youths who were at Clacton, Margate or elsewhere causing damage, there may well have been 500 who were at concerts, theatres, art galleries and other places of cultural entertainment, quite apart from those helping in church work, youth work, on rambles and so on. I think that even in a debate of this kind we must put this matter into perspective.
I should like at this stage to put one question to my noble friend: what is being done in the State schools to encourage appreciation of the Arts? I know that at the fee-paying schools, at my own for example, even during the last war, when C.E.M.A. did such wonderful work, we had performances from top-class instrumentalists, pianists, singers and so on. But I wonder whether the State schools are getting their share of what one might call the serious musicians, actors, lecturers and; so on; because I am quite convinced that the steelworker from Llanelly is often as great an appreciator
494
of good music or good acting as is any Member of your Lordships' House. One has only to go to concerts in an industrial town to see in many cases how very well patronised they are.
I was interested in an article in last Sunday's Observer by Caroline Nicholson who was writing on the Leicestershire plan. At one of the secondary modern schools in Leicestershire they have a very fine orchestra, and indeed in the county they have 100 school orchestras. One of them has eleven violins, one flute, one clarinet, two trumpets and a cello. And throughout the schools in the county sixty paintings were lent to the Arts Council in 1961 for exhibitions, and that number has now probably increased. These are, as I understand, mostly State schools, and I think it does them credit.
One of the most vital documents on the Arts in the past few years has been the two-part publication on Housing the Arts in Great Britain, and this is where I think the real problem lies. Most of the concert halls and theatres in the Provinces are totally unsuitable for their present purpose. Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Sheffield—all desperately need new premises. Orchestras and theatre companies do wonderful work in these places, but quite often players, actors and instrumentalists, having travelled perhaps long distances by car, coach or train, change into their evening dress, if they are playing in a concert, in what are virtually slum conditions.
I should like to put to my noble friend, who, I know, has a very great interest in the Arts himself, this question. It is clearly not possible at present substantially to increase the grants to the Arts Council, which on its triennial system total nearly £9¾ million, which as I said earlier is not in itself a bad sum; but I feel that a separate sum could be granted to local authorities or to some board or something of the sort for either building new concert halls, opera houses and so on or for renovations, where possible. There is a special need for a really big new opera house in the Provinces. I have talked about this to a number of people who know a lot more about opera than I do, and it would seem to me that Liverpool might well be a good centre. Two New Towns are scheduled for the Liverpool area, Runcorn and Skelmersdale. The people of Liverpool are great

495
lovers of the serious Arts, I know we hear about "the Mersey beat" and the Beatles and so on; they have earned us valuable dollars, and, speaking for myself, I am far from disliking them. But it should not be thought that Liverpool consists entirely of Beatle fans. It consists of many, many people who are really serious music and opera lovers, and indeed Lancashire can boast of one of the finest singers of all time, Kathleen Ferrier, whose death at the early age of, I think, 38 was one of the greatest tragedies in the whole history of the Arts in any part of the world.
Some local authorities have already done a lot towards rebuilding. For example, Eastbourne has a new congress theatre in which opera, plays and, of course, concerts take place. And this was built entirely from local resources. When it was first mooted the local ratepayers were not very happy about it, but it has proved to be a very real success, and much credit is due to those concerned in its planning and its use. It was built at a cost of £387,000. I have no doubt that other local authorities have displayed similar zeal.
This brings me to another rather delicate point, the part which local authorities play in helping the Arts. It is all very well to come to the Government for more money, but of course everybody wants more money from the Government, for doctors, nurses, defence, housing and so on. But local authorities themselves have a very real responsibility. I should like to ask my noble friend whether he will ask the Government Department concerned to impress upon some of these local authorities the responsibilities which they have.
The 1948 Local Government Act empowers local authorities to allow up to a 6d. rate for the Arts. I am very jealous of ratepayers' money, particularly as I am Vice-President of the National Union of Ratepayers' Associations, and I have been very critical in the past of ways in which ratepayers' money has been wasted, but a 6d. rate on a population of some 10,000 people would not be a very heavy burden, and there are many local authorities which could allow this. To be fair, it is by no means every local authority which falls down here, and the London County Council are in this category. I believe they have been most generous in their help
496
for the Arts—some people think, too generous. I disagree with some of the policies of the London County Council, but certainly so far as the Arts are concerned I am right behind them.
To turn for a moment to repertory theatres, last year I talked at some length on the repertory theatre in my own area at Leatherhead. This is an exceptionally well-managed little theatre, and it is typical of the theatres which are carrying on in buildings totally unsuited for their purpose. This theatre I knew in 1945, when I was stationed in the Army there. It was then a tiny little—to use a colloquial term—flea-pit cinema. In 1948, the Leatherhead Repertory Company took it over. It is not the acme of comfort, but it has been most tastefully decorated and the standard of productions there is simply marvellous. I would invite both my noble friend Lord Cottesloe, as Chairman of the Arts Council, and the Minister, to come and see one of the productions there. I am quite sure that the board of management will give them a most cordial welcome.
Here, Esher Council, Dorking Council and, of course, Leatherhead Council, give reasonably generous help. Unfortunately, the Epsom Council falls behind. Each year this council decides by a slight margin of votes that it cannot afford to help Leatherhead, but I am glad to see that each year the voting against the proposal gets less and less. I myself wrote a letter to the local Press pleading with the Epsom Council to change its mind, and I only hope that next year something also will happen. The average attendance at this theatre is 85 per cent. of capacity. It is a small theatre, it holds only just over 200 people, and I may say that of the patrons some 2,000 come from the Epsom area. It is largely from that theatre that the scheme for training young theatre managers was born and the director and the staff have really worked hard.
Only the other day, my wife and I saw there a production of Emlyn William's play, Spring to 1600. It was marvellously done, beautifully acted, beautifully staged, but they did not receive any grant either from the Arts Council or from the Treasury towards that production. I should like to ask my noble friend how much money the Treasury have given to the theatre, apart from the Shakespeare

497
theatre, for the Shakespeare Quarter-centenary Year. I think the answer may well come as a shock to many people.
One of the criticisms levelled at the Arts Council is that repertory theatres which are doing well do not get enough visits from the Arts Council Theatre Board of Management, and I think that is a matter that might be looked into. Possibly my noble friend Lord Cottesloe may have something to say on that. It is, of course, difficult, because naturally they have many theatres to visit, and some of them are quite scattered. But it would help morale considerably, particularly as in Leatherhead, and elsewhere, actors are virtually subsidising these theatres by taking an enormous cut in salary; and few theatre managers, who have an enormous job to do, get more than £1,500 a year, and some much less. It is interesting to note that two repertory theatres, one at Colchester and one at Salisbury, receive great support from the local authority. In regard to Colchester, there is help from Braintree, West Mersea, Halstead and Lexton; at Salisbury, there is help from Winchester, Wilton, Romsey and Amesbury—and Romsey and Winchester are in a different county. I think this is quite creditable.
May I now turn to music? Here I think that one of he problems is that we have four full-time symphony orchestras, and naturally the Arts Council finance cannot be expected to cover all their needs. In the London Symphony Orchestra, London now has one of the finest orchestras in the world. A trust has been set up under Mr. Edward Heath which will help musicians, who will now get benefits hitherto denied them because there is no pension scheme, and if a player is ill he gets no compensation. This, I think, is something which is quite sad. The London Symphony Orchestra is making a world tour in September, when for three months it is going to Korea, Japan, China and other countries. It will give 55 concerts, and 32,000 miles will be travelled. Players' salaries will amount to £55,000, and subsistence will account for £35,000. These are just some of the expenses which will have to be met. The British Council grant is £30,000, and the estimated receipts are £100,000.
498
This is outside the Arts Council's scope, but I should like to put this question to my noble friend—a question which I and other noble Lords have put before. Can there not be more liaison between the British Council and the Arts Council on these matters? Two years ago the London Symphony Orchestra visited Israel. They played to packed houses but financially they were very badly off; the expense to which they were committed was at times most embarrassing. Recently, as my noble friend Lord Dundee will know, the London Symphony Orchestra visited Dusseldorf in aid of the British Fair, and a report from a friend of mine who was in the orchestra spoke very highly of their playing and of British music and drama generally during that Fair, but I wonder whether they were given sufficiently generous support from central sources. Apart from that there are the City of Birmingham Orchestra, the Hallé and the Bournemouth Symphony, all of which have carried out tours. The City of Birmingham Orchestra visited Germany last year and gave a very good impression there.
To turn to opera, we are, of course, faced with this controversial question of the London Opera Centre. I have no financial or any other connections with the Arts, so that any remarks I make will be quite dispassionate. I have followed the correspondence in the national Press and elsewhere, and I would only say this. It is absolutely vital that this argument is terminated at the earliest possible moment. There is no doubt that it is the shortage of accommodation for our orchestras and for our students which has sparked off this row. It is clearly quite unsatisfactory, for example, at Covent Garden for the ballet to have to rehearse at Baron's Court and for singers to have to go down to the East End of London. I have not seen this particular Centre, but, unless some satisfactory conclusion is reached, I feel that the Government will soon have to step in, otherwise we may well lose some of our finest young student singers. As I understand it, a committee has been set up to look into the matter, and as the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, is going to speak on this matter I will say no more. Covent Garden, of course, has problems of its own which are outlined in the Arts Council Report. The annual

499
grant is in the region of £700,000, which is totally inadequate for its present needs. At the present time it is closed for repairs and rebuilding in some sections, but this will help matters only marginally.
I should like to pay a tribute to my noble friend Lord Drogheda and to the administrators of Covent Garden for the excellent work which they have done. Some of the sniping at Covent Garden recently has been very unfair. Prices have been criticised. When Callas and Gobbi came to sing in Tosca there were criticisms that the prices were too high. If one had gone to Rome or New York one would have had to pay far more. I am not saying that something could not be done. No doubt a higher grant from the Arts Council would allow prices to be lowered, but if one is going to have stars of international calibre coming to London and elsewhere one has to pay the prices. One cannot expect them just because they are coming to London constantly to undercut their prices, and the general public must realise it. Of course, the main problem surrounding Covent Garden is the moving of the Market, and no doubt when that is done and when the International Centre is sorted out there will be more room. My own feeling is that it is very much more vital to have a really good, first-class opera house than to have an international centre or anything of that kind. I realise that this is a controversial comment and it is purely my own view as an ordinary opera lover.
Here again, as I have already said, the Provinces need help. They badly need a new opera centre. It is interesting to note that many of our own stars have been asked to go abroad to the famous opera houses there. It is quite wrong to think that it is only Italy and Germany which can produce first-class opera singers. My wife, my elder daughter and I went to see Carmen at Sadler's Wells (another theatre which is direly in need of more money) and saw a really excellent production, for which seats were priced very reasonably indeed. I feel that this point ought to be made. Last year I mentioned Opera for All, and the Arts Council's Report for the current year gives an impressive story of their achievements. Right down from Newquay, in Cornwall, up to the
500
Orkneys they have performed in halls of all sizes and shapes, and have catered for small towns which have just as great a love of the Arts as have our big cities. They often have to rely on an ancient piano, and I hope that the Arts Council will see fit to increase their grant so that at least in some places they can have a small orchestra, which would be of great help to the singers.
I should like now to turn to Scotland. One of the finest theatres in this country, in my view, is the Festival Theatre at Pitlochry, which receives from the Arts Council a grant of just over £4,000. But under Mr. Ireland's vigorous secretary-ship they really have done marvellous work. Their current productions this season include such excellent plays as Daphne Aureola, and last year J. M. Barrie and other famous dramatists were represented. Again, though, despite generous grants from the Perthshire County Council and the Pitlochry Town Council, they are starved of cash. It is a lovely theatre in a most glorious setting, and it deserves better than the support which is given to it financially.
As with so many theatres, it is through coffee mornings that the finances are raised. This is the case at Leatherhead, Pitlochry, Salisbury and elsewhere. It has to be what one might call private functions which raise the money. Coffee mornings are quite a usual thing in political circles, in art and elsewhere, but it does seem rather terrible that some theatres virtually owe their existence to a coffee morning. At Leatherhead over Whitsun the annual theatre fête raised £600, due largely to the hard work put in, and also to good weather. This will enable some redecoration to be done and a room to be built for the set designer. Chichester has, of course, done very good work. The productions last year of Saint Joan and Uncle Vanya really set a new standard for the British theatre of the middle-1960s. The Arts Council have also granted financial allowances to eighteen provincial art festivals; and I have already mentioned the enterprise of the schools in Leicestershire.
I shall not say anything about the visual arts, because I am hoping that my noble friend Lord Croft may deal with that point. But it is vital to remember that it is not only in the Royal Academy—with all respect to that fine

501
body—that our finest pictures are seen. One can go round villages, into pubs and into L.C.C. parks and see some excellent paintings by our own art students. In my view, we do not boast sufficiently about our achievements in this respect. I would say, despite the criticism of the Arts Council, that without a Minister of Arts the Council's grant has been multiplied tenfold in eighteen years. I think that is really the crux of the current Report, which has been very well set out.
There are twelve other speakers to follow me, some of whom will deal more exhaustively with the actual technicalities of the Report. But I should say, in conclusion that I feel that, however much we may criticise the Arts Council, the Treasury, local government and anything else, the public themselves have a part to play. The Arts cannot function without patronage, and it is therefore the more vital that the Provinces have a larger share of the cake. My noble friend Lord Cottlesloe quite fairly took me to task last year for my saying that the Provinces were starved. I am sure that the Arts Council are doing their utmost there, but it is not only London which produces either our finest singers and actors, or our best audiences; and, of course, they must have premises. This, I believe, is the real nub of this year's problems. The actual money going to the Arts themselves is probably adequate, but music and the theatre cannot function in what are often slum dwellings, and I hope that the Government will pay particular attention to this point. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I know that all on this side of the House will wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, for raising this subject and for the way in which he has done it. If it is not too senile a compliment to pay him, I feel that no one has worked harder than the noble Lord in this House in recent years, and he has certainly earned the increasing approval of your Lordships. He has done well to attract so good an attendance in spite of the rival attractions—the obscene publications on which his mind seemed to dwell, and the Derby which, of course, has interested other noble Lords. But many have resisted the other blandishments. It is not part of my duty to
502
announce the result of the Derby, but I have always believed in Santa Claus and I believe more than ever in Santa Claus at this moment. I know that my pleasure in that thought is shared by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and so many others who combine high-mindedness with a knowledge of racing.
My Lords, I am not going to deal in a general way with the Report of the Arts Council. I am leaving that to other speakers on this side: the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who will wind up; the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, paid so graceful a compliment. I think we are all looking forward with special interest to her speech. We combine such admiring, affectionate memories of her husband with confident hopes, equally affectionate, for her own success. It was said of the famous Lord Rosebery by his tutor at school that, if not a poet, he was of the stuff that poets delight in. It may be said that Lady Gaitskell, if not an artist herself, is of the stuff that all artists delight in, and she is specially well qualified to take part in this debate to-day.
With the permission of the House I am going to deal with a single issue—the position of the author. I need not embark on a metaphysical discussion of what is and what is not an author. Having myself, like other Members of the House, perpetrated a book or two, I suppose that I must declare an interest. But my application to be a member of the Society of Authors has not yet, so far as I know, been considered (I assume that it has not been turned down), therefore, I do not feel that I have altogether forfeited my amateur or objective status.
A few days ago I was talking to one of the most famous of British authors, an acknowledged master of English prose, and he was complaining that so many politicians insisted on intruding into his field—in other words, in writing books —in spite of writing so badly. "Why don't you all chuck it?", he said to me, a trifle testily. I retorted that professional writers tend to he frequent, if rather laborious, speakers, and that no one ever said that they spoke particularly well. "In any case", I said to him, "if you had your way "—he is one of the greatest writers, I suppose one

503
could say, in the country—" how many books would you allow to be published every year? ". He replied, "Fifty in every year, at the outside "—which would cut down the number very drastically. I do not think that is the point of view of most of us. Most of us here in this House, and in the country, who claim any degree of education, and a great many who would not make any such claim, derive much of our joy in life and our continued education from a wide variety of books; and most of us, I think, on reflection, are grateful not just to a few superb writers but to a large number of authors, and would like to identify our happiness with theirs.
How are authors treated by the Arts Council, to whose work I should like to pay a measured tribute?—in other words, I recognise their sincerity and devotion, while on this subject I cannot congratulate them. The Arts Council Report for 1962–63 shows that the total sums allocated by the Arts Council to all projects which come under it amounted to £1,723,000—about £1¾ million. The dramatist may benefit to a small extent, indirectly, through the royalties he gets from theatrical productions which are stimulated by Arts Council subsidies and guarantees against loss; the poet may benefit to an even smaller degree from the Arts Council-aided poetry readings. But of the total sum now allocated annually by the Council (and I shall be corrected by the eminent noble Lord who is going to follow me if I am going too wrong, one might say) between £1,000 and £2,000 (certainly not more) goes directly to the author. I would describe that as a wretched little figure.
My Lords, are we surprised that this direct aid to the author should be so infinitesimal? Perhaps not. Perhaps noble Lords take it for granted. I suppose we are accustomed to the fact that the Arts Council has interpreted its Charter in such a way as to put the emphasis on benefit to the consumer (that is, the public) rather than benefit to the producer (that is, the author). But ought we not to be rather surprised? Is it not rather surprising that, when the State has decided to concern itself with the Fine Arts, the State should almost entirely overlook one very important part of that field—namely, the author? And surely
504
it is quite wrong, as I suggested just now, to treat this as a matter in which the interests of producers and consumers can be separated. I may be asked: "Why should the State look after the author? "A good many years ago a very wealthy man, then and now a much respected Member of this House, whom I shall call Lord Bloggs—he is not, so far as I can see, in the House this afternoon —spoke to me as follows: "People often say, 'Why does Lord Bloggs complain so much of all this taxation? Why can't Lord Bloggs look after himself? 'I can tell you this", said Lord Bloggs, dropping his voice confidentially, "Lord Bloggs is blank well looking after himself "—and, so far as I can judge, he has continued to do so very successfully ever since.
People may say, "Why can't the authors look after themselves? ", and what I am saying is partly a reply to that kind of implicit suggestion. I would just remind noble Lords that we should not be misled by headlines about the great riches made by a few authors. Most of us have read and enjoyed a book such as The Spy Who Came in From the Cold, and some of us have enjoyed, and others not enjoyed so much, the books about James Bond and the works of Agatha Christie—and, of course, there we have household names. But the reality for the vast majority of authors is totally different.
When I decided to speak in to-day's debate I consulted the Society of Authors about the situation of authors generally, and I learned that from a sample survey taken some years ago it was discovered that something like 60 per cent. of the members of the Society earned less than £500 a year from authorship. They no doubt have to earn their living in some other way; but 60 per cent. of their members—and to be elected a member you must be a reputable author—earned less than £500 a year from authorship. And this £500 a year is not a steady, predictable income: it is an average over a number of years —years which are so full of ups and downs that making any kind of budget for the future is impossible. I would just add—and these figures were shown to me in confidence—that the financial position of some of our most respected writers, now elderly, would astonish and

505
horrify the whole House if I were at liberty to reveal the figures. Some of these splendid writers would be found to have given away quite a lot of their money, when they had it, to help younger writers—but now, of course, they have none to give.
I may be told that the lot of the author is the lot of every self-employed person. I think there is some truth in that, but I should like to submit that this particular type of self-employed person, the author, suffers under disadvantages which, if not peculiar to him, are borne by him to a specially marked degree. I should like to mention five disadvantages under which the author suffers. In the first place, his earning capacity depends on his health. Perhaps more than almost any self-employed person, nervous and physical exhaustion makes it impossible for him to work at all. If he is ill, not only does his current income dry up but he may lose the chance of future commissions. He has behind him no office to provide him with sick pay, or even to pay the employer's half of his National Insurance contributions; and he has no assistant to take over temporarily. Secondly, when he gets old he has nothing but his old-age insurance pension. The precariousness of his active life has enabled him to put little or nothing by for his later years.
Thirdly, the author has special difficulty in obtaining at a reasonable rate accommodation in which he can live. This is something which was rather new to me. His unpredictable income means that he is unlikely to be able to obtain a mortgage on a house. Few building societies, I am told, will accept him; and he has no "local job" qualifications for a housing list. Again, that last point was something which had not occurred to me. Fourthly, in many cases, because of the risky nature of the income from writing, he has to have a subsidiary job, and often his literary work cannot begin until he is already fatigued from his other occupation—and, therefore, it sometimes cannot begin at all.
Finally and fifthly, the capital, the copyright property, which he creates is automatically extinguished 50 years after his death, in the sense that it can be exploited without any benefit to his heirs. During his lifetime it cannot, like other
506
forms of capital, be disposed of in any way without attracting tax. The Society of Authors has for many years unsuccessfully pressed for the author's right, if he wishes to exercise it, to raise a tax-free capital sum by selling a copyright, or part of a copyright. Those are some of the disadvantages under which the author labours, and, while I would not say that they were entirely peculiar to the author, they are borne by him to an outstanding degree.
Now what of the future? With the advent of the shorter week and leisure about which we have heard so much in recent times, we are told that books will become necessities. Taking that argument for a moment, are we sure that the producers of these necessities are going to be treated on a par with the producers of other or material necessities? No doubt there is going to be more reading, and that may involve a great deal of extra recourse to the libraries; but it will not necessarily involve more book buying or more royalities to the authors. The only way to ensure that would be if the author benefited each time his book was borrowed from the library. It may be that a writer of fiction may best be aided by funds made available by small payments from public libraries. I will not go into this question now; it has been and is being argued elsewhere. I will not argue whether these payments should come from the borrowers, from the rates or from the Treasury; but I think that novelists, particularly, are good candidates for help of this kind, because there may in this country be something like 300 million free issues from libraries every year. But the novelist at present benefits to a very small extent from that.
It seems to me an approach of that sort is far from the only one open to the State. Is it not the responsibility of the State to do anything to enable the author to produce serious and solid works of literature? There is something to be said—or so it seems to the older people—for the young to have to fight their way. After all, we older people suppose it good for the young to learn about life, and that forces them to embark on some career apart from authorship; but the young can be assisted and are assisted to a limited extent by a number of awards. For example, there

507
are the Eric Gregory and the Somerset Maugham awards which are administered by the Society of Authors. Those are awards for young writers. I urge that more should be done for the young; but it is the middle-aged and the old who are likely to be in much worse trouble. I am advised that unless a middle-aged writer can write a near bestseller every few years he is almost certain to be tied to a second job; and he is almost certain to have family responsibilities. He simply cannot afford to take a sabbatical year to write a major work which will almost certainly involve a great deal of research.
A number of middle-aged British authors are going to the United States for a year as visiting professors; and this helps them, no doubt, to pay off some past debts and to save a little while they are there. There is no doubt that this is entirely to the good and they benefit from the experience. But can we do nothing here ourselves of a comparable kind? The total donated to writers through literary prizes and benevolent funds administered by such bodies as the Royal Literary Fund and the Society of Authors—and of course the Arts Council—is not more than £15,000 a year. This is tiny compared with the amounts donated in the United States.
In short, my Lords, if I may draw to a conclusion, if the State is to recognise a responsibility to authors it seems to me that there are two ways or headings under which the effort to help them should be made. First, money should be made available for the writing of serious literary work; and, secondly, really adequate pensions should be provided for authors who have made their contribution to the nation's literature or even to our enjoyment, if that is to be distinguished from high literature. Taking that point, the assistance with research, I would suggest that the Arts Council must receive a much larger grant. I would say straight away the grant should be doubled. And a large part of it—and it is for the Arts Council themselves ultimately to say how large a part of it—should be earmarked for grants to authors who can provide evidence that they wish to engage on serious literary work. As I have said, in the
508
case of non-fiction this will usually involve a good deal of research.
I know that at one time it was assumed that the words "fine arts" in the Arts Council Charter excluded literary works. But since Sir Alan Herbert took up the matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer I realise they are no longer compelled to interpret—and the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, will have something to say about this—their Charter so narrowly. It may be asked: how is the right choice of recipient to be made? Of course, no perfection is possible here, but the Society of Authors themselves are satisfied—and I would myself believe it right—that people experienced in this field, including the Arts Council themselves, have devised various successful ways of allocating grants. We must therefore not be defeated by the argument that, even if we have the money available, no one will know who deserves it most.
While still on this question of assisting the practising author I could dwell on tax concessions, but this would take us rather far afield to-day. I would suggest that the second aim of assisting the older author could best be achieved by making a dramatic increase in the sums available in the Civil List for making grants to authors. I can only say a "dramatic increase" because no one can tell me —and the Society of Authors themselves do not know—what the grants to authors from the Civil List amount to or how much money is available for them from the Civil List. What I have been able to discover is that the pension normally granted from the Civil List to an author is in the region of £175. That is a derisory, contemptible figure, the sum of £175 for some aged author who has earned our profound gratitude. I wonder how many noble Lords were aware that this was the average grant. Certainly, if a distinguished author—and this applies to many —has earned the nation's gratitude he should be entitled to a sum at least ten times £175.
In short, my Lords, I believe that the fault underlying all the grants to authors, whether from the State or made in other ways, is the minuteness, the pathetic, infinitesimal size of the sums available. Time and again it is a question of just a very little, and that tends to be too late. Why should official help from all these quarters take so niggardly a form and be

509
doled out in so patronising a way; and why on such a miserable scale? I would submit that the whole attitude, the whole national attitude, here needs drastic re-thinking if we are going to make any showing at all as a nation that cares for its culture and realises that culture depends on those who create it.
3.58 p.m.
LORD COTTESLOE: My Lords, we should all of us be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, for the thoughtful speech with which he initiated this debate. Just before Whitsun we had a most important and interesting debate on the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, on the Problem of Leisure. Since then we have seen at Margate and Brighton demonstrations of what is liable to happen when young people do not know what to do with their leisure time. We have in front of us, and not very far in front of us, the prospect of such developments in science and automation applied to peaceful purposes as to enlarge enormously the leisure available to the whole community, to the rich and to the comparatively poor—though I suppose there will be no poor in this millenium—to the old and to the young alike. It is essential that they should all have every opportunity and every encouragement to learn how to use that leisure, that the fantastic increases in leisure that lie in front of us should not result in a terrifying increase in boredom and frustration as they might so very easily do.
We are, I think, in grave danger of becoming, not the masters of science and automation, but their victims. If that is not to happen, if the almost universal preoccupation in every country in the world with science and its applications is not to lead us into one or another of a number of possible worlds all equally horrifying—the world of George Orwell's 1984 is one of them—the Arts and Humanities must go hand in hand with the Sciences, to temper and humanise them. The Arts are indeed only one facet of the problem of leisure, but they are perhaps the most important, and a balance between the Sciences and the Arts is essential if we are to develop into a fully balanced and civilised community. That is why, as Chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain, I particularly welcome this debate, following so soon
510
after our debate on the Problem of Leisure.
The Arts Council is charged, under its Charter, with the duty of spreading the knowledge of the Fine Arts in Great Britain and raising the standards of performance. The precise words are set out at the beginning of the Secretary-General's introduction on page 3 of the Report that is the subject of the Motion we are now discussing. They could not have been more aptly devised to set up an attack on the problem of leisure. On the whole the Arts Council is, I hope and believe, generally felt to be carrying forward the requirements of its Charter reasonably well, but the expansion of knowledge and activity, and the improvement in standards are never as rapid as ideally they should be, never nearly fast enough to keep pace with the growth of science and its application to the production of leisure and of wealth. We do all the time go forward, in spite of setbacks in one place and another, but we never can go forward fast enough. Finance is not the only limitation. What we do to help, to encourage, to advise, is in many ways more important than what we can do to prime the pump of artistic activity with money. But it remains true that finance is the greatest of our limitations. However, there is all the time some real progress.
Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I speak more of things as they now exist than of the year actually covered by this Report, a year that ended more than twelve months ago. If I may first take opera, as the most sophisticated and most expensive of the Arts, it is absolutely untrue, as was suggested a few days ago in another place by a Member who ought to have known better, that none of the political Parties could have made such a mess of the operatic world as the Arts Council. The fact is that opera in this country has never been so good nor so widely accessible as it is to-day. At the Royal Opera House, the standards of production and performance are higher than they have ever been, as high as anywhere in the world. We have heard at Covent Garden this year, among much else that has been good, superlative performances of Tosco and Otello, and performances of I Puritani, Falstaff and Figaro
so fine that one can hardly expect ever to hear better. If Covent Garden now

511
leads the world, as it does, much of the credit must go to that great artist, Mr. Georg Solti, the artistic director, and we are very fortunate in this country that we have him there.
At Sadler's Wells the standards are admirable and the repertoire most enterprising. The double company not only plays constantly at Rosebery Avenue, but also carries opera of high standards into the Provinces, with an average of 38 weeks of touring in the year. The astonishing triumph of perfectionism at Glyndebourne, which owes nothing to public funds and is unparallelled in the world, continues on its wonderful course. The English Opera Group, the Handel Opera Society and the New Opera Company continue their invaluable work in their own respective fields. Intimate Opera and Opera for All carry small-scale productions of good quality to places all over the country, where productions on a larger scale can never be possible, and enlarge the public for opera; as do the special performances arranged for young people by Sir Robert Mayer's organisation, Youth and Music.
The Arts Council does not for a moment claim the credit for all this, though I am happy to think that it has been able to be of assistance in many quarters and in many ways. The whole picture of opera in this country to-day is healthier and more extensive than ever before and the fine work that is being done to-day will bear increasing rewards as the years pass.
The one unhappy spot in the whole operatic picture is the London Opera Centre, which has lately received some notice in the public Press. This school for advanced training in opera was opened only last September. Its first year of training for its students has not yet been completed and it is far too early to assess the measure of its success or failure, as some small part of the Press and some small section of the public seem to have been anxious to do. There has been a great deal of misconception about the origins of the London Opera Centre. The National School of Opera, founded in 1948, did good work, but it was not broadly based and its limitations were such—let me make it quite clear that those limitations were inherent and were no reflection on those whose admirable
512
work founded and built up the school—that it was widely felt that something more was needed.
Five years ago, Covent Garden, Sadler's Wells and Glyndebourne, the three permanent organisations who are particularly interested in the end product, together asked the Arts Council to carry out an inquiry into the training of opera singers in this country. And let me emphasise that it was the opera companies who were dissatisfied and wanted the position investigated. The Council invited a strong independent committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Bridges —whose impartiality no one can question —to make the investigation.
Lord Bridges's Committee, after hearing evidence from the six schools of music in this country that include opera training, from the National School of Opera itself and from various other sources, as well as from the opera companies I have referred to, recommended unequivocally the establishment in London of a new and independent school for advanced opera training. It was implicit that the new school should take over the work of the National School of Opera on a broader footing and in association with the permanent opera companies.
The Arts Council accepted that recommendation and made the initial appointment of Governors for its formation and management. They included three of the Governors of the National School of Opera and the Chairman and chief executives of Covent Garden, Sadler's Wells and Glyndebourne, with Mr. Gerald Coke, Chairman of the Glyndebourne Trust and a Director of Covent Garden and of the Royal Academy of Music, as Chairman. The Governors appointed as Director Professor Proctor Gregg, and the two Principals of the National School of Opera, Miss Joan Cross and Miss Anne Wood, agreed to join the new school as Director of Studies and as Warden. It was a strong team of Governors and Principals.
The search for premises proved difficult. The Bridges Committee had recommended that the building should allow of full-scale opera rehearsals and should be easily accessible from Covent Garden and Sadler's Wells. After exhaustive inquiries, it appeared that the most suitable premises—indeed, the only premises available that were not quite unsuitable

513
—were the Troxy Cinema. As Covent Garden was also in dire need of a rehearsal stage, it was convenient on various grounds that they should share in the use of the building. The cinema was acquired and improved. The London Opera Centre was established in it and opened on September 23 last year. All this is straightforward enough.
Differences, however, soon began to develop between the two ladies I have referred to and the Director. They had, of course, been used to running their own school in their own way. The differences were more, I think, due to a clash of personalities than to real differences of policy, though some differences of policy there were. When the Director told the Board that his health would not allow of his continuing after the end of the first teaching year this coming summer, and the Governors selected Mr. James Robertson as his successor, the ladies chose to resign, their resignations to take effect also at the end of the Centre's first year.
The reasons given in the Press for their decision were not communicated to the Governors or the Administrator before they sent in their resignation. Of course there were growing pains, but there had been no suggestion that conditions were unbearable. The ladies then took the somewhat unusual step of absenting themselves from duty without notice, in order to hold a Press conference for the purpose of publicly criticising the employers for whom they were still working, and they were not unreasonably suspended from duty.
The publicity given to these resignations naturally caused uncertainties, and some other members of the staff also resigned; and more recently three of the Governors, all of whom are closely connected with the National School of Opera, have also resigned. These resignations have not in most cases meant immediate withdrawal of the services of teaching staff. Tuition at the centre continues smoothly, and what little time has been lost by the students will be made good by the end of the term. Both the Director and the Director Designate are at work at the Centre at the present time.
The Governors have appointed my noble friend Lord Robbins, Mr. Keith Faulkner and Mr. Norman Tucker as
514
a Committee, with Lord Robbins as Chairman, to examine in detail the criticisms that have been made and to consider plans for the future, and have invited the Arts Council to associate themselves with these investigations. The Committee have, I understand, also invited Dame Ninette de Valois, Mr. John Diamond, M.P., and Mr. Jack Donaldson to join them in their investigations, and I understand they have all expressed their willingness to do so.
The most important of the criticisms put forward is that the training is too academic and is out of touch with the real requirements. This no doubt is a matter that the Committee will particularly wish to examine, and Mr. Norman Tucker, as the Artistic Director of Sadler's Wells, is especially qualified to judge of this matter. He knows just what sort of finished product is required by the opera houses. To the layman like myself, it seems that the end of the second term (there are, of course, three terms in the year) of the first two-year course of training at the Centre is far too early to attempt to pass any judgment. But no doubt the whole question will be the centre of the Committee's consideration of plans for the future; and I think the Committee should, and will, be much more concerned with the future than with the past. A preliminary inquiry has made it evident that many of the other matters of complaint, in so far as they are not trivial, have already either been put right or set in course of remedy.
The much-criticised building is not, of course, free from faults, but the building is commodious and well cared for, and the teaching accommodation is in fact extremely good. There are excellent large rehearsal rooms, a lecture theatre, plenty of good studios and satisfactory common room, canteens and dressing rooms. The auditorium is very suitable for full-scale opera rehearsals; experiments in improving it for student productions, which have a rather different requirement, have been encouraging and further improvements are in train. It can never be perfect—after all, few opera houses are that—but it certainly can and will be adequate for its purpose.
It is complained that it is expensive, and that excessive sums have been spent

515
in converting an unsuitable building. It is expensive; and a high-class and broadly-based school for advanced training in opera will always be expensive. The building costs and some of the administration costs are, of course, shared by Covent Garden. But it is essential, if opera is to flourish in this country, that there should be such a school and that it should be good, and the expense of it is fully justified in relation to the whole operatic picture.
It is a matter of opinion whether the close link with an established opera house and company, which has been criticised, is advantageous. But the Bridges Committee have no doubt about the desirability of such a link, and I am bound to say that I have not either. It has been said that students have been required to leave the auditorium when they were about to watch a rehearsal. The fact is that on one occasion a world famous singer was not prepared to rehearse in the presence of an audience—and that will be no matter for surprise to anyone who knows anything at all about prima donnas.
It is said that the prospectus issued was misleading. It woud be naïve in the extreme to expect that the distinguished international figures who agreed to help as specialists in the work of the Centre would be in constant attendance there; but all the resident staff named in the prospectus have been teaching in the Centre, and all the specialists named were in fact interviewed, invited and themselves agreed to go to the Centre at appropriate times. If there are no students specialising in Handel or in Russian music, then the appropriate specialists, of course, are not called in. In the first year Geraint Evans, Sir Donald Wolfit, the Yugoslav producer, Vlado Habanek, Bryan Balkwill, Richard Bonynge and Joan Sutherland will all have worked at the Centre.
Finally, it is complained that there has been a lack of publicity of the right kind. My Lords, I wonder whether the complainants really feel that the publicity that they themselves have been at pains to give is of the right kind: it has certainly retarded the progress of a school that is still in its infancy. I am advised that such internal troubles—and I would emphasise that these are internal domestic
516
troubles in a training school—are endemic in almost every university; but universities are more fortunate in being able to resolve their academic difficulties in a cooler atmosphere, without the glare of publicity and ill-advised public opinion focused upon them. The London Opera Centre will survive these troubles and will recover its health. What it now needs is a period of undisturbed convalescence in which it can settle down to solve its own problems and get on with its work. I am confident that it will make a valuable contribution to opera in this country.
I have felt it necessary to deal with this matter at some length, but I should not like your Lordships to get it out of perspective. Important though the London Opera Centre is, it is no more than a single facet of the broad picture of opera in this country to-day—a picture more encouraging than at any time in the past. Before I leave the field of opera and of Covent Garden, I think I must refer also to the Royal Ballet, which is one of the glories of this country and certainly the equal of any company in the world, and which with its second company takes ballet out to be seen and enjoyed by audiences all over the country. The Ballet Rambert and the Western Theatre Ballet make their own creative contributions, and it is as true of ballet as of opera that this country has never been better served than it is now.
If I may now turn to orchestral music, the great provincial orchestras, the Scottish National Orchestra, the Liverpool Philharmonic, the Hallé, the Birmingham Symphony Orchestra and the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra are all firmly established on a permanent footing and doing valuable work. Since the year of the Report in your Lordships' hands their players have received a substantial but long overdue improvement in salaries, the additional £160,000 a year that is entailed being shared between the Arts Council and the local authorities concerned, so that the Arts Council subventions shown on page 82 of the Report are in the current year higher by about 50 per cent. The recently formed Northern Sinfonia Orchestra continues to make good progress. In all these cases, however, the orchestras are forced by economic pressures into too heavy a programme

517
of concerts, with too little time for rehearsals. If the funds were available to remedy this situation their quality, good as it already is, might be raised; and this is some thing which is highly desirable.
The Metropolitan orchestras present at the present time a more unhappy picture. Of the five major orchestras in London, the B.B.C. has its own rôle, while the London Symphony Orchestra and the London Philharmonic are well established and do excellent work. But the Philharmonia, a proprietary orchestra of very high quality, formed initially for recording work, and Sir Thomas Beecham's old orchestra, the Royal Philharmonic, as it was called, have been in difficulties. Both have done great work in the past, but while it appears that the Philharmonia will be able to manage without Mr. Walter Legge, the future of the other orchestra is obscure. I think I should add that the difficulties do not appear to be primarily economic.
The four independent Metropolitan orchestras (I am not now speaking of the B.B.C.) are not on quite the same permanent footing as the great provincial orchestras. For the most part the players are engaged not on a permanent but on a sessional basis, and many of them do a good deal of outside work and prefer that arrangement. The Arts Council and the L.C.C. do not subsidise these orchestras as such, but they share equally in subsidising their concerts at the Royal Festival Hall. In conjunction with the other local authorities concerned, the Arts Council also subsidises orchestral concerts in the peripheral areas of Greater London. As the public are primarily interested in concerts rather than in orchestras, that system seems logical enough. Latterly, however, in the last year or two, a substantial proportion of the concerts at the Royal Festival Hall have been very poorly attended, and we have found ourselves in the uncomfortable position of subsidising empty seats—not a very rewarding use of public money.
This is a situation that has only recently developed, and we are discussing it with the L.C.C. as a matter of urgency. A careful survey suggests that there may not, in fact, be enough work in the Metropolitan area, taking
518
into account the recording and broadcasting work as well as the requirements for public concerts, to support more than three independent major orchestras. It has been said that in the Arts the somewhat unusual proposition obtains that the supply creates the demand; and, indeed, that proposition is embodied in the whole philosophy on which the Arts Council is founded. But in the last year or two, in the field of the Metropolitan orchestras, things have not worked out in that way. The demand has conspicuously failed to keep pace with the supply. I think the fact is that it is an essential corollary of that proposition that the supply must be of a quality high enough—and for the Metropolis "high enough" means of the highest international standard.
The best approach to a solution seems to be to take what steps we can to raise standards by providing for more rehearsal time and better conditions for the players, and perhaps at the same time to try to attract audiences by lowering the prices, particularly of some of the more highly priced seats. All this we are urgently and anxiously examining. I feel confident that certainly one of the orchestras that have been in difficulties will successfully surmount them, and I have every hope that we shall be able to do something also to help the two fine orchestras which are firmly established to attain still higher standards by the sort of measures that I have outlined. I have spoken at some length of opera and of orchestras. But, of course, in the field of music there is a great deal more with which the Arts Council concerns itself, and I hope that your Lordships will look at the lists of grants and guarantees, on page 82 of the Report, and particularly at the remarkable list, on pages 113 to 123, of works performed by societies affiliated to the National Federation of Music Societies, which gives some idea of the extent of our musical activities and interests.
If we now look at the field of drama, which a year or two ago was a source of anxiety, more especially in the Provinces, here again the picture is a great deal healthier than in the year covered by this Report. The National Theatre Company has been launched with notable success and distinction, and the brilliant

519
Company, led by Sir Laurence Olivier, plays to crowded houses. The Royal Shakespeare Company has gone from strength to strength. The total of the drama subsidies, £335,000 in 1962–63, has been raised in 1964–65 to £534,000, and most of the many provincial companies detailed on pages 108 and 109 of the Report are in better shape. I am happy to be able to assure the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, that the Drama Panel of the Arts Council has effective liaison with all our clients among the provincial repertory companies. We are hoping to be able to pay them more frequent visits, but that is difficult when we keep—and I think rightly—the administrative costs of the Council down to a small proportion of the whole. It is encouraging, too, to think that Mr. Denys Lasdun, the architect for the National Theatre, is at work on the plans for that great project; that new theatres have been completed at Nottingham, at Southampton University and at Eastbourne, and are being built, or are about to be built, at Guildford, Birmingham, Worcester and elsewhere, and also in a number of other universities. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, is perfectly right in his reference to the Report on Housing the Arts in Great Britain. There is very much more that needs to be done, but at any rate something has started in the last few years in this field.
The extent of the Council's activities in the third of our main fields of interest, that of the visual arts, is shown on pages 110 and 111 of the Report, and your Lordships will see that there were during the year no fewer than 392 showings of Arts Council exhibitions all over the country. In this field, too, there is very much activity outside the Council's own promotions. If your Lordships wish to see one example of this, you should go to the Tate Gallery and look at the great international exhibition of painting and sculpture of the last decade, organised by the Gulbenkian Foundation. It gives an overwhelming impression of the vitality and imagination that are applied to these arts to-day—an exhibition that shows this country to be among those in the forefront, holding a position in painting that it has never held since the eighteenth century (if, indeed, it held it then); and in sculpture a pre-eminent position that it never began to approach until the last two decades. It is good to think that
520
the new galleries that the L.C.C. are building on the South Bank to house such loan exhibitions have now been started and are expected to be completed the year after next.
My Lords, all this—and much else that I have not the time to speak of to-day: poetry and festivals, art centres and art clubs—goes to make up a picture of the state of the Arts in this country that in general is healthier and more lively than it has ever been. It is a condition that is due to the work of many people and many organisations, and one that the Arts Council, which has played some part in bringing it about, finds rewarding. It is, of course, a matter for rejoicing but not for complacency. We may look forward into the future with some confidence, but always with the determination not to relax our efforts but rather to redouble them.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, spoke about literature and made an eloquent plea for authors. I should certainly not attempt to question the view that literature is one of the fine arts. It is; but it has always been held by the Arts Council to be one that is not so necessitous financially as the others of which I have spoken, and better able to look after itself. Of course, if the Government were to double the Arts Council grant we should be very happy to consider what we could do in the direction that the noble Earl has suggested.
Finance is one of the governing factors. On the whole we have at the Arts Council, certainly in recent years —my own experience there goes back only four years—been treated with sympathetic understanding and with a substantial measure of generosity by the Treasury. The total of the Arts Council grant in 1960–61 was £1½ million; in 1964–65 it is £3,205,000; so it has been doubled in four years. It is not enough, of course; if we had more we could do more with it. It is indeed a perpetual astonishment to me how much is done with a total sum that is, after all, insignificantly small in the context of the national finances. What is it?—£700 million for science, against £13 million for the Arts, of which the Arts Council gets £3 million. There is a lot of leeway to make up.

521
This is the second year of the new arrangement by which the Arts Council grant—apart from that for Covent Garden, which rests on a separate formula —is no longer on a year-to-year hand-to-mouth basis. We now have a triennial basis with each year a 10 per cent. escalation, and can attempt to see and to plan a little way into the future. On the whole this new basis is a great improvement, and I hope that some such system may be continued. But in view of the leeway and the rate of future growth necessary if a balance is to be maintained, the rate of escalation should be much higher for the next triennium and there should be some provision for additional moneys for new kinds of activity as they arise. Art in the modern world is very much a growth activity, and the guaranteed grant ought to be regarded as a floor and not as a ceiling.
Covent Garden, which received in 1962–63 £690,000, this year receives £1,055,000; I think rather more than the noble Lord, Lord Aukland, supposed. Some people who are unfortunate enough not to be able to enjoy opera say that this is too large a share of the whole, but it is in fact a separate allocation based on a formula by which the Treasury provide 17s. 6d. for every £1 taken at the box office. The resulting figure is this year inflated by the need to renew the electrical wiring and to carry out other major maintenance work in a building now more than a hundred years old. The figure is indeed a large proportion of the total Arts Council grant, but Covent Garden certainly provides value for the money—indeed, provides better value at lower cost to public funds than most national opera companies elsewhere; and it may be some little consolation to those who think the money might be better applied elsewhere to know that a reduction in the Covent Garden allocation would not, in fact, release one penny more for any other Arts Council activity.
As to Treasury control, your Lordships may remember that I took exception to the Robbins proposals to transfer the administration of the Arts to a Minister of Arts and Science. I am bound to say that when I heard members of another place complaining recently of their extreme difficulty in trying to affect the policy of the Arts Council, in that their only avenue is through the Treasury, I felt that our opposition to the Robbins
522
proposals had been very well founded. The Arts Council make no pretension to infallibility, and we will always consider representations from Members of either House, or indeed by the public at large. But that is a very different thing from having the detail of our policy dictated by politicians and subjected to Ministerial interference, which, I am convinced, would quickly prove fatal to any effective administration of the living Arts.
The Treasury is, of course, not the only source of funds to help the living Arts. Local authorities have powers of patronage on a considerable scale and are beginning to take a much wider interest in these matters. Some few are already exemplary, and the Institute of Municipal Entertainments Conference is taking a helpful lead. Big business, too, begins to recognise its opportunities for patronage, and the Art Advisory Council recently set up by the Institute of Directors to advise its members on patronage of the Arts is something which is very much to be welcomed. I hope it may grow and prosper, helped forward by the persuasive powers of Sir William Emrys Williams.
My Lords, I fear that I have spoken for longer than I had intended. I have been anxious to show, and I hope I have succeeded in showing, your Lordships that there has been substantial progress in the understanding and practice of the Arts in this country even since the year that is recorded in the Report in your hands; and although there are inevitably one or two aspects of the whole picture that give ground for concern—and have felt it necessary to deal with them at some length—they form but a small part of the whole. The broad picture is one of progress and wellbeing. It is our determination to continue and accelerate that progress in every way possible.
4.37 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, there are two remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, in the interesting speech with which he opened this debate on which I should like briefly to comment. The first is that I was very pleased indeed—and here I agree with him entirely —to hear what he said about the interest of young people in the Arts to-day. One is told a great deal about the wrong things but very little about the right things the young do, and it was a great

523
pleasure to me when the noble Lord said something in that direction in the speech with which he opened the debate. At the present time, so far as I know, more young people are applying for places in Arts schools than can possibly get in. In all sorts of ways one finds the young taking a very active interest in the Arts of the country.
The second remark on which I wish to comment—and it is one on which I do not agree with the noble Lord—is his statement that he thought it might be quite reasonable that the provision of money for the Arts should take second place to money for other important activities. I think he mentioned road building. I do not agree with him there. I think that money for the Arts is one thing which is extremely important, and I cannot see why it should take second place to money for any other form of activity in the country.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I should like to interrupt the noble Lord to clear up that point while it is fresh in my mind. What I meant was that road building and hospitals are essentials, but the Arts are not an essential, in that sense. It is in that context that I made those comments.
LORD AMULREE: I must thank the noble Lord for what lie has said, but I am bound to say that he has not convinced me and I do not agree with him at all. We must differ on that point.
My Lords, there are two parts of the Report of the Arts Council to which I should like briefly to refer. The first is the part which deals with opera in this country, and here, I think, one can have nothing but praise for the work which the Arts Council do. Where I think they are so sensible in their programmes is that they do not subsidise only works which have been given many times before, but take a special interest in contributing to the production of works which normally would not be heard: works which give a great deal of pleasure to people who, like myself, enjoy going to hear works which they do not normally hear. I am bound to say that the performances they subsidise seem to me to be of very high standard. That is something for which one should be very grateful to the Arts Council. I would especially mention
524
the subsidy given to the Festival of St. Pancras, an event which has occurred every year for a number of years (I do not remember just how many), which is good evidence of what that excellent Council have done in the past, and I hope that now that it has been transmogrified into the Camden Council they will continue to do the same thing in the future. That is an example of a local authority going into the Arts in a proper way, with a certain amount of assistance from the Arts Council. I think that the combination of the two is admirable and gives great pleasure to a large number of people. I am pleased to see that performances in St. Pancras' Town Hall are now being played to capacity. Whereas for a long time they did not get a full house, for the last two years I have been there, and the place has been completely filled. I think that is a very encouraging sign.
Another point to which I was going to refer, though I do not need to now, because the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, has referred to it, is the trouble about the Opera Centre. The noble Lord has given a detailed explanation of the unfortunate difficulties there, and I feel that it is now better that it should be dealt with as a private and domestic matter rather than as something discussed too much in public. Talking rather generally about that (and I say what I do in no sense of criticism of the Arts Council), it seems to me that some of the singers and teachers of opera in the country—and, apart from those which receive a subsidy from the Arts Council, there are not many bodies that teach and train people in opera—do wonder whether the patronage of the Arts Council may be getting a little large and in time might, as tends to occur with big bodies, tend to stifle freedom. I do not think it is so, but that is a point of view that has been expressed to me by one or two singers and teachers. I have tried to soothe them and calm them down. But I feel that this is something in which the Arts Council could do much in the way of public relations to show that that kind of fear is not going to be justified. People, however, have said that this is what happens; one saw the Carl Rosa opera company die: I admit that went a long time ago, and I am not going into that controversy now. But that is

525
one of the dangers which can occur when there is a good deal of money available from a body like the Arts Council, and I am very pleased to know that the Arts Council realise it and will take steps to stop people from saying things that are not really justified.
The other matter I want to mention—and here again the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, has rather taken a good deal of my argument from me—is the question of the visual arts, or painting. At the present time in London we suffer the appalling disadvantage that there is nowhere to show a new exhibition of pictures The noble Lord said that he thought the new gallery on the South Bank would be open in a year or possibly two. I very much hope that that will be true, and I trust that the Arts Council, with the great power and prestige they have, will see that the L.C.C. do not fall down on the promise to get the gallery open. So frequently, at the present time, when one of our picture galleries wants to give a special show of a collection the permanent exhibition has to be taken down.
The noble Lord referred to the Gulbenkian exhibition at the Tate Gallery. That is a very big exhibition, in size, and that means that a large number of permanent exhibits have had to be taken down. One has seen this happen again in the Victoria and Albert Museum; one has seen it even worse in the National Gallery, where, about two years ago, there was shown a very fine exhibition from Zürich. It belonged to a collector called Mr. Buhrle and it had been shown in Edinburgh, at the Festival. When the exhibition came down to London it was shown at the National Gallery, and the real drawback was that, although it was a first-class exhibition of painting, there was nothing there that we could not equal among the national collections and among the Courtauld Collection of the London University. But while the Buhrle collection was being shown a number of rooms at the National Gallery—three—which normally show Italian primitives had to be shut down and those pictures stored away for several months. That, I trust, is something from which we shall not have to suffer much more.
I begin to have doubts about the South Bank altogether. At present, the South Bank works quite well with the
526
Festival Hall—though I have certain criticisms, which I shall mention in a moment; but there is plenty of room for people to park their cars. Will the same thing still occur when the Festival Hall is there, when the Gallery is there, when the National Theatre is there? Will there be room for people to park their cars? Because if people cannot park their cars they will not go to the Festival Hall, the theatre or the gallery. Car parking seems to them to be an enormously important thing.
The second thing one has to be sure about is that there is somewhere for people to go and get a meal when they have been to their concert or exhibition or theatre. At the present time one can dine at the Festival Hall, rather badly, at seven o'clock, before the concert starts; but one can get nothing at all at ten o'clock, which is just the time one wants a meal. And here, it seems to me, is a real tragedy. One has one of the most attractive sites in the whole of London for eating, a big restaurant overlooking the Thames, and the L.C.C. seem to have done nothing at all to make it an attractive restaurant for people who perhaps want to spend a certain amount of money on their meal, to make part of it an expensive and good restaurant, rather than all a cheap and bad restaurant. I am sure that if the aim is to attract people to come to the South Bank it will be necessary to do a great deal to make their journey there agreeable. It is a very strange thing that, for quite a number of Londoners, to make the journey across the Thames to the South Side is like going to some new country entirely: and it has got to be made easy for them to go, and they have got to have facilities when they get there. Although that is not the direct responsibility of the Arts Council, I am sure—because they are a popular body and they have a great deal of prestige and influence—that they could do a lot to ensure that these amenities about which I have spoken are provided.
There is one more matter to which I should like to refer, and that is to hope that the Arts Council will be able to continue to give us the very fine exhibitions of paintings which they have contributed to the Edinburgh Festival. That has always seemed to me to be one of the most important parts of the Festival. But if there is to be an exhibition of

527
painting at Edinburgh there must be certain criteria: it must be a really first-class exhibition and do complete justice to the greatness of the painter. That is what has occurred in the past. At the same time, the exhibition must be good enough to encourage people to go, and to pay to go, to see it. I hope that the Arts Council will not allow themselves to waver from the high ideal and standard which they have set for themselves in the past. I should like just to add that, although in some ways I may appear to be rather critical of the Arts Council, I would far rather that they continued as they are now than that they should become a Ministry of Fine Arts. If that were to happen, I am sure that it would be the end of a great deal that I admire and enjoy in this country at the present time.
4.51 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, for initiating this debate and for his most careful speech. I am breaking my three months' silence—a period of silence which I felt was desirable as part of my apprenticeship in this House—and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking your Lordships for the warm welcome you have given me. It has been most heart-warming. I speak with some diffidence, and in a general way, because I cannot pretend that my interest in the Arts is matched by any special knowledge. We all have views about the Arts, and it is sometimes useful to subject these views to a more careful scrutiny, and in this the Report of the Arts Council gives us an idea of what we are getting for our money.
First, let us take a glance—not a world tour—at a few other countries. I take them at random. I am not taking the nine who have spent more on the Arts than we do. I have taken just a few. Let us examine their attitude to the Arts, because it is this attitude which explains the generosity or the meanness of the approach to them. The French have always esteemed and favoured the Arts. In fact, France has always regarded herself as mistress of the Arts in Europe. Subsidies are high there, and although there is a Minister of Culture, I think they get by, and he does not seem to have had an inhibiting effect on their freedom of criticism.
528
The Italians, it is said, sing all day and go to the opera at night. The Arts are a great pleasure to them, and they are prepared to pay for their pleasure. The State grant to their national opera, music and theatres is roughly over £4 million. The letter which I have from the Italian Embassy which embodied those figures included a sentence which I should like to quote:
"The greatest part in the Italian musical life is played by the subscribers, who can be called the backbone of all box offices and who provide some measure of stability to the whole business of music-making."
I hope the time will come when we shall be able to say the same thing about our audiences. The West Germans organise their culture in a big way and spend in all £39 million on the Arts, getting their funds from the Federal State and municipal and local government authorities. The regional authorities actually give £15 million of aid to the theatres. These subsidies amount to 5s. per head of the population. Unbroken production and new building is thus made possible. Cultural centres can be planned for the drama, music and painting under one roof. I obtained this information from a West German leaflet, and in it there was one small voice of criticism. It is sometimes said there that, because of the heavy subsidies, the actors are not actors but performing civil servants. Can you imagine with what envy the director of a company like our Royal Shakespeare Company looks at figures like these and compares them with the aid it receives? There is not one farthing on the rates for the Arts in Stratford. A town which profits so much from this theatre should surely give a token amount of aid.
The Austrians take the Arts as part of everyday life. It is as natural for them to go to the opera as to go out to dinner, and they do not begrudge their subsidies. Vienna gives £3½ million to the two State opera houses, and the two State theatres. The Austrian trade unions have a theatre of their own. With a population of 7 million they give the same aid to the Arts as the Arts Council to the whole of Great Britain. I am sure that they would find it most difficult to understand the Manchester City councillor who opposed a second grant of £11,000 for the Hallé Orchestra because he felt it would be better spent on housing for the old people. I think the Austrians would have wanted music for the old people, too.

529
And now we come to ourselves, and what we feel about culture generally. The British are always faintly apologetic about the Arts, and regard them as a kind of highbrow sport, and a rather expensive one at that. This feeling has not been dispelled by some of our younger painters and dramatists, whose works a large section of the public regard as a kind of shock treatment to which they will not submit. However, in the last decade or so there has been a change in their attitude to painting, because no longer is a picture a beautiful and valuable object in itself, but it has been upgraded. It has become an investment—a word which is music to British ears. In fact, the prices of pictures and other works of art are as sensitive a barometer of national prosperity as are the prices of shares on the Stock Exchange.
Now I turn to the Arts Council itself, and to its Report called Ends and Means. The Council is a remarkable organisation, as I discovered rather late in life—virtually a voluntary body, as all the panels of the best experts in the country give their work for nothing. This, more than anything else, guarantees an independence of judgment. Looking down the lists of cultural organisations which could not even exist without the aid they receive from the Arts Council, one can only conclude that it does a fine job. Experts might quibble about the exact way the money is apportioned, but the facts remain. The list of works performed in music, drama and literature, and the number of art exhibitions held—all these activities are most impressive. The aim of the Council
"to develop a greater knowledge, understanding and practice of the fine arts"
is achieved within the limits of the money available. Another aim is:
"to improve the standards of execution of the fine arts."
I think the standards obtained are high. But when we come to the third aim—namely,
"to increase the accessibility of the fine arts to the public",
it is another matter. This they cannot do alone and they have a long way to go.
The text of the Report—and I hope I shall be forgiven for saying this—really has very little bite in it. In welcoming the Treasury's agreement to
530
fix in advance the amount of the Council's grant for the years 1964–65 and 1965–66 (a very important innovation for them), it has this to say:
"This will deprive us of some of the speculative excitement of annual budgeting in an expanding economy and it imposes certain limits on the exercise of creative imagination."
I suggest that there would be no limit on the creative imagination with a bit more cash in the kitty.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
BARONESS GAITSKELL: The creative imagination could flower and flourish on a grant from the Treasury of, let us say, £5 million—and £5 million is not too much to ask from any Government in this country for the Arts.
When dealing with the relationship between the Arts Council and the Government the Report frowns on the idea of having a Minister of Culture, and I add my own frown to theirs. I agree. But the present relationship is described as a case of private enterprise and, I quote, "ridden on the snaffle". I assume that this is an equine analogy. It is Derby Day and—I am not going to be done out of my quip—I am glad that some noble Lords have put the Arts Council before the horse, and perhaps one of them will explain this phrase to me afterwards.
The whole problem of patronage, which is the present dilemma affecting the Arts, is handled with kid gloves. The local authorities are let down too lightly by the Arts Council Report, especially as one of the aims of the Council is to advise and co-operate with them. Some local authorities face up to their responsibility and make great efforts to promote the Arts, though over the country as a whole, as has been said so often, while empowered to spend up to a 6d. rate, they spend a fraction of 1d. This means £3 million instead of £50 million. The Greater London Council, the old London County Council, is the exception to this and stands out as the most generous patron of them all. Perhaps the most important part that the local authorities have to play, as the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, has said, is in housing the Arts. We have not enough theatres or concert halls or art galleries in this country. Big business, the trade unions and even the

531
magnanimous millionaire—all these can join to become the new patrons of the Arts.
It should be as usual to see works of art in large stores, banks, offices, indeed all the places where people work and come together, as in churches and cathedrals. Whenever I go into Sanderson's, the wallpaper manufacturers, I never fail to be struck by the beauty of a large, modern stained-glass window by John Piper which faces you as you go up the stairs. Until a wider patronage is involved the Arts Council will be frustrated in its efforts to make the Fine Arts more accessible to the public. The responsibility for progress here lies with the local authorities. What is the use of our spending (I believe Lord Auckland asked this question) one-fifth of the £1,000 million on education in teaching our children to appreciate the Arts if the opportunities for continuing this are so limited afterwards?
I do not wish to give glib explanations for the hooliganism of a small section of our young people. However, parents, teachers and psychologists know that the aggressive energy and exhibitionism in the young is very strong. They know that boredom forces these into destructive channels and that the Arts can be a powerful instrument for guiding these energies into more pleasurable and creative activities. We speak increasingly of the life of leisure that lies ahead, though for some of us it seems rather like a mirage. What are we going to do with all this leisure? We have not enough sun just to idle away our time. We are condemned by our climate, if by no other considerations, to engage in pursuits which make our lives fuller and more interesting, and in this an understanding of the Arts has a very great part to play, so we should be prepared to give them much more support than we do.
I come nearly to the end of my remarks. It is known that some animals are endowed with a keener sense of sight and hearing than human beings are. This, in effect, is what an education and knowledge of the Arts does for us: it sharpens our senses and our perception. We can literally see and hear better. Psychology and philosophy can never by themselves replace literature or the
532
drama in explaining the mystery of the human personality. I come again to the Manchester City councillor who stated that there were only a very small number of people who appreciated good music, as if it were a fact for all time. Personally, I do not agree with him. There is a fund of appreciation in this country, which is untapped and uneducated, of which the Arts Council has skimmed only the surface. Unaided it cannot do more. When the rest of the community play their part leisure will present no problems and there will be no limit to the pleasure we shall be able to derive from the Arts.
5.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, I regard it as a great honour indeed that it falls to my lot to be the first to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, upon her most moving maiden speech. Everyone suffered with her at the time of Hugh Gaitskell's tragic illness and death, when she bore herself with such tremendous dignity in her sorrow. She is deeply loved on all sides and adds great distinction to your Lordships' House. I am bound to say, I am prejudiced, because what she said was very much in my own interest; but I think she realised, from the reception accorded to her, that she made a very strong impression. I hope that now she has broken the ice she will be heard here on many occasions and on many subjects. She certainly should not follow my terrible example in that respect.
On the last occasion your Lordships debated what seems to be becoming Lord Auckland's annual Motion on the Arts, I was unable to be present, but as I am Chairman of Covent Garden I hope I may say a few words to-day. May I first of all thank Lord Auckland for his kind reference to myself, which I much appreciate? Covent Garden is the largest single receiver of funds from the Arts Council. During the year to March 31st, 1963, we received about £700,000, and last year we received rather more than that. While this is much less than is received by a number of opera houses on the Continent, it is undoubtedly a large sum of money, and I feel that I must pay a tribute to the understanding spirit shown by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer and their senior officials and

533
also by the Arts Council to Covent Garden.
I am afraid that our needs are bound to go on growing. We are responsible at Covent Garden not only for the presentation of grand opera, but also for the two companies of the Royal Ballet. One of these companies, as your Lordships know, normally appears at the Royal Opera House, but it has also undertaken several major tours of the United States and it is going to undertake another one next year. It also made one very successful visit to the Soviet Union in 1961, and I hope we may be going back there again in two or three years' time. The other Ballet Company is the so-called touring section of the Royal Ballet, which spends many weeks of the year touring the Provinces and the Continent or elsewhere abroad. This is a gallant and most hardworking band for whose devoted spirit no praise can be too high, for they work very long hours in most difficult conditions, and I consider they do great service.
I believe that our ballet and our opera have now attained a very high level of excellence by the most exacting international standards, and this is obviously as it should be. But this standard cannot be achieved or maintained on the cheap. There used to be people who said that those who wanted opera and ballet should pay for it, but lately we have not heard very much of that, and even the Daily Express has been pretty silent. I believe there are now very few people who do not think that these are Arts which ought to be encouraged. It is a simple fact that without Government support admission prices would have to be doubled, and that would surely have a disastrous effect on attendances. We have, in fact, increased our prices progressively over the years. They now stand at about twice what they did in 1946, and they will go up again this autumn.
But all our experience is that you cannot recover all increases in costs by putting up your seat prices. I am afraid our experience has also shown that you cannot avoid increases in costs. About three-quarters of all the outgoings at Covent Garden, and also at Sadler's Wells, are represented by direct wage and salary payments which are largely controlled by union agreements, and as wage rates go up elsewhere so the wages paid by Covent Garden must go up. The
534
scope for higher productivity is distinctly limited; indeed, for performing artists to give their best they should really perform less and rehearse more. So one might say that our productivity, in one definition of the word, should go down. Therefore I do not think our costs can be expected to do anything but rise.
Apart from this particular consideration, there are other reasons why the costs of running Covent Garden should be allowed to rise, for at present there are a great many amenities which our theatre lacks. These are not only amenities for the public, but also for the artists. We are seriously short of rehearsal space near the theatre, we can store only a small part of the scenery on the premises—the bulk of it is at Maidstone—the dressing rooms are poor, the stage lacks depth and breadth, catering is difficult, and so on.
It so happens that an opportunity is going to present itself to put some of these matters right. The Covent Garden market will be moved away during the course of the next five or six years. Grandiose schemes are being put forward for the future development of the market area. I agree that there should be some sort of comprehensive plan for the area, but I beg that nothing should be done which in any way interferes with, or delays, the satisfaction of the needs of the Royal Opera House, which are urgent and pressing; for, if the opportunity is missed now, goodness knows when it will recur. It can recur only if we get a new opera house and I do not think that anybody wants us to have that—except possibly myself, and there I seem to be in a minority of one—because there is sentiment attached to the present opera house, the acoustics are very good, and, in any case, the Treasury are about to finance a new home for Sadler's Wells on the South Bank.
Therefore, I should like to ask the noble Earl who is going to reply to this debate, whether he will make a little more precise the undertaking which was given by the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, when your Lordships debated the Bill setting up the Covent Garden Market Authority three years ago. Lord Waldegrave then stated that when the market was replanned he hoped that the opera house would get the rehearsal rooms it so badly needed. At that time the likelihood was that the market would

535
be redeveloped in its present area. Now, with its removal in prospect, I should like to be able to feel that the Government are still aware of our needs and agree that financial assistance should be forthcoming to enable these to be met, because it is no good their agreeing that the needs are urgent without giving some sort of an undertaking that money will be provided.
There is one other matter affecting Covent Garden to which I should like to refer. It affects, in fact, many of the institutions supported by the Arts Council. I refer to the question of policy with regard to the sending of British artistic attractions—a terrible phrase, that—overseas. Under existing arrangements the Arts Council is concerned only with presentations in this country. When it is a question of an overseas tour it is either undertaken as a straightforward commercial operation, which is only seldom possible, or else undertaken with the help of a grant or guarantee from the British Council. There is, in fact, a third method, but it practically never happens. One example is when our opera company went recently to Lisbon to give two performances of Benjamin Britten's Midsummer Night's Dream, and this was entirely financed by the Gulbenkian Foundation; but that was a very special occasion.
I have a high regard for the work of the British Council, and I think they have been very unfairly abused in their time, but I do not believe that their operations in the field of the Arts are adequate. They receive a very substantial sum from public funds, but it is nearly all devoted to education. I think the amount made available for sending artistic attractions abroad is pretty much a residual item. I believe that the British Council are largely guided by the recommendations of a document called the Drogheda Report. This is the Report of a Committee which was in fact presided over by my father, and I absolutely dissociate myself from it. I think it dealt very summarily with the Arts. All one can say is that it appeared ten years ago, and possibly to-day the Committee might report differently.
Certainly, the efforts made by all the leading companies in the world to send
536
their best artistic attractions abroad have grown enormously, and I have no doubt that when, for instance, the Royal Ballet Company, or the Royal Shakespeare Theatre Company, or one of our leading orchestras goes abroad, it does an immense amount of good for the prestige of this country, and it does it at relatively small cost. But we must send the best and we must send it in style. It is no good their arriving on a tourist plane in the middle of the night, and nobody in the country knowing they are there. When we spend hundreds of millions of pounds on weapons to defend ourselves, it seems to me that we are justified in also spending a few hundred thousand pounds in an effort to make people look a little more kindlily on us.
I believe that the total amount of money expended for this purpose is at present far too low. I think that in the year to March, 1963, the British Council spent about £107,000 under this heading, and travel and hotel accommodation for one orchestral tour could make a big dent in that sum. During the year to last March the sum they spent was a good deal higher, but this was due, I think, chiefly to Mr. Shakespeare. I believe that for the current year the figure will be in the region of £175,000.
I should like to suggest to Ministers that they lay down a target of, say, half a million pounds a year for spending under this heading, and that there should be some sort of joint Arts Council—British Council Committee, with Foreign Office and Commonwealth Relations Office representation thereon, possibly with an independent chairman: and that it should be the job of this committee to draw up a plan for the next two or three years and to keep it under regular review. This would really be an immense help to the various organisations concerned with overseas touring, and I am certain that an increase in the sum of money spent under this heading would be very well worth while. At present, the arrangements are haphazard, some countries being constantly visited and others hardly ever at all. I do urge that the Government should give greater thought to this question.
Finally, I should like to pay tribute to two outstanding figures in the world of the Arts, who have retired from the active scene during the past year. First

537
of all, Sir William Emrys Williams, Secretary-General of the Arts Council from 1951 to 1963–a fine Lancastrian figure who, from very humble beginnings, has had a most distinguished career and who, although he has retired from his position with the Arts Council, is still, I am happy to say, extremely active and still has a great deal to contribute in the field which he has very much made his own. Secondly, Dame Ninette de Valois, the creator of the Royal Ballet, to whom people all over the world are heavily in debt. She is without question one of the great women of our generation. I am proud to have been associated with her at Covent Garden, and I am happy to know that she is going to go on devoting so much time to the teaching of pupils at the Royal Ballet School so that her ballet company can have its future assured.
5.22 p.m.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I, too, should like to join in the congratulations expressed to my noble friend Lady Gaitskell for a moving, courageous and quite brilliant speech. I feel a little presumptuous in saying that, since we both "entered school" together, but I want sincerely to congratulate her upon the way she spoke. I would also thank the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, not only for putting down this Motion but also for widening it in such a way as to enable us to talk both about the Arts Council Report and about the Arts generally. In my remarks I propose to concentrate particularly on two aspects: the position of the theatre and the position of the novelist.
First as to the theatre, which has been variously described, and often described, as "the fabulous invalid". From time to time in the last 500 years there have been reports of its imminent death. In the last fifty years we were told successively that the silent cinema would kill it; that the radio would kill it; that the talking film would kill it; and, finally, that television would kill it. But still, with a tremendous and formidable tenacity, the theatre not only clings on but seems to be fighting back. The reports of its death have been premature; and, even if it is not restored to full health, it is certainly showing marked signs of recovery. That it is doing so is, I believe, due to two factors: first, the devoted and dedicated work of indi-
538
viduals and groups who have rallied public opinion and public support, as we have seen in Chichester, Glasgow, Nottingham and so forth; and, secondly, the increased support received from the Government, through the Arts Council, and from civic authorities.
If we look at the Arts Council figures we can see how narrow, how desperate, is the margin of survival, and therefore how valid is this appeal for more money. Take Birmingham, where that wonderful theatre was started by the devoted work of Sir Barry Jackson, who spent both his life and his fortune creating a theatre for his own town. In the 1962–63 Report which is under consideration it is shown that the loss on the year was £20,000. The Arts Council grant and the civic grant came to £19,000 altogether, so they emerged in that year with a loss of £1,000, which, but for the grants, would have been a loss of £20,000. In Coventry, for the Belgrade Theatre the Arts Council grant was £14,000 and the civic grant was £6,750, a total of £20,750. The loss on the year was £22,200. So the net loss, again, was nearly £1,500. This is how narrow the margin is: this is the thread that is holding our theatres up.
I am associated with the Bromley Theatre. Up to the time of the heavy winter that we had last year, after seven years of patient effort we had built up reserves of about £3,000 in the bank. During that bad winter we lost not only that £3,000 but another £4,000. Seven years' work was wiped out by a few weeks of bad weather, and but for an immediate rescue operation from the Arts Council and some splendid help from the local authority we should have been right out of business. The theatre would have closed: there was no alternative.
The pattern outside London, and, to some extent, in London, too, is that the theatre which is run on commercial lines and run for a profit is dying. In its place, slowly—not quickly enough, but still coming—is a network of virile civic theatres with far higher artistic standards than existed formerly. I think the good is replacing the bad. We may have fewer theatres, but I think they are better. This is right and this is good, because we have now the recognition that the theatre is a service to the community. There is a school of thought

539
represented by the Manchester councillor mentioned by my noble friend Baroness Gaitskell. I use the term "a school of thought" lightly. It insists that the theatre should still be judged on commercial terms, and says, "Those who want the theatre should pay for it. If a theatre cannot pay its way, it should close"—and these people have held up their hands in horror at the idea of subsidies. Really, I think it is time we gave this idea and this approach a pauper's funeral. It is a specious argument. We pay en bloc for education, swimming pools, art galleries, libraries and many other civic services, but we do not all use them. Nobody really objects. And if we recognise the theatre as a community service, then it should be paid for, partially at least, in the same way.
I find it rather extraordinary that we still have people in this country who can take an attitude towards the theatre which puts it below the level of the public lavatory. "Subsidise the theatre?", they say, and throw their hands up in horror. The plain fact is, as the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, said, that the theatre has been subsidised for years, not merely by the Arts Council and the local authorities but by the people who work in it. It has been subsidised by low wages. The salaries paid to actors in most provincial theatres are a scandal. These people earn between £12 and £15 a week, which is below the national average. We pay them less than labourers. In fact, no self-respecting labourer would put in the hours of overtime that they do, or work in the conditions with which many of our actors are faced. They could earn more money breaking stones or digging holes in the road. That they do not is an indication of their devotion to their art and to their tenacity. They have no security, no pensions, and long periods of unemployment. And their conditions would be far worse if it were not for the work that Equity has put in on their behalf.
The Times this morning ran an editorial in which it spoke of the tendency for actors to come to London. There is no mystery about this. They do not come for the bright lights: it is because they like to eat. They come because they can get some decent fees from television and the films. I have nothing against
540
that. I have nothing against television and the films getting some of the best actors; but the process has to be taken in proportion. In the long run, if all the best actors are driven out of the provincial theatres because the salaries are so bad and the conditions so poor, and move into television, films and the London theatres, we shall cut off the very basis of those London theatres and of films and television, because the provincial theatres are largely the nurseries from which all these theatres and subsidised arts draw their original talent.
It is not so long ago since actors were classified as rogues and vagabonds. Looking at their financial status to-day we might be pardoned for thinking that the situation has not changed all that much. So if we accept the idea that the theatre is a cultural amenity and a social service, we must first of all insist that our actors are paid on a decent level and are given decent conditions—and when I speak of "actors", I am using a general term for all who work in theatres. When we are talking about raising the standard of production in theatres, let us remember that an actor can act a good deal better on a full stomach, and when he is not worried about rent and his children's future. It is said that actors feed on applause. Let us remember that they cannot live on it.
What it boils down to, time and again, is the question of money. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, said—and he tried to explain it to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, when he was questioned—that the Arts would have to play second fiddle to more essential projects. What I object to is that at the moment we are not even playing second fiddle; we are not even getting to play the triangle: we are not getting on to the stage with the orchestra. In this respect neither the Government nor the majority of local authorities have any real cause for pride. Let us not be complacent about this matter. I have been studying the Institute of Municipal Entertainment Survey for 1961–62. As we all know, under the Local Government Act, 1948, local authorities have the right to make a charge on the rates for local entertainment. Out of 535 local authorities who replied to a questionnaire, only 62 throughout this country were doing anything direct about the theatre. I know that certain numbers give hidden subsidies, in lower rents and

541
so forth; but, so far as an actual charge on the rates is concerned, only 62 did anything at all. In fact, 312 local authorities did not regard it as their responsibility to do anything about entertainment as a whole and filed a "nil" return. A further 149 did not even reply to the questionnaire. I admit that many of these places are quite small; but 21 of them are districts or towns with a population of over 20,000, who surely have a duty to provide cultural amenities and to assist cultural facilities in their locality.
London, as has been said, has a good record; yet we still have very important omissions. Take the Borough of Finchley, a wealthy borough of 69,000 population; or Surbiton, 62,000; Mitcham, 63,000; Southgate, 72,000. Not one penny for culture or entertainment was spent in those localities. They might argue that their citizens can draw on the Greater London facilities and on the London theatres. But so can their neighbours in Hampstead, which spent £4,300 in that particular year; or Lewisham, a much poorer borough, which spent £24,000. There is no excuse for these black spots. We have a borough like Marylebone, with a rateable value of nearly £7 million, which spent—and I shudder to mention it—just £50 in this particular year on entertainment and culture; while Stoke Newington, with a rateable value of only £700,000, spent nearly £14,000. Wealthy Westminster, with a rateable value of £22 million, on the edge of the West End area, "coughs up" the princely sum of £125; while Woolwich with a rateable value of under £3 million spent £15,000.
My Lords, this picture could be repeated throughout the country. Ancient and historic towns like Taunton, Newbury, Maidenhead, Durham, Altrincham, Aldershot, all with populations of over 20,000, did not spend a penny on these things. I believe that this is scandalous and that some greater impetus should come from the Government to encourage these authorities to play their full part. I am not suggesting that the people in these places are uncivilised barbarians, or even that they have bad local government; but I do suggest that they are neglecting an important and essential function of local government and that they should be
542
criticised equally with the Manchester councillor who was mentioned in this debate. To that extent they are the black spots of the nation.
But on the national scale, what example do we set? The Arts Council was formed in 1945, taking over from the war-time C.E.M.A. The grant then was £235,000. Since then (and I am taking the figures in this particular Report under discussion) in eighteen years it has zoomed upwards with all the fantastic speed of a reluctant tortoise to a total of £2,200,000. We might say that the grant started with the impossible and it has ascended to the trivial. If you say it quickly it sounds quite a lot of money. But almost half of this —and this is not sufficiently realised—is earmarked for opera and ballet and goes straight to Covent Garden and Sadler's Wells. This is quite right—I agree with those noble Lords who said that Covent Garden and Sadler's Wells should get more; but it leaves precious little for the rest. The sum of £336,000 was spent on drama in 1962, and £560,000 is going to be spent in 1964. I welcome this improvement; but even this is spread unevenly, and there is some dissatisfaction among some theatres who feel that the more fashionable and larger theatres get an unfair proportion. Quite rightly, I believe, a large section goes to the National Theatre, the English Stage Company, the Royal Shakespeare Theatre and so on. A total of nine theatres got almost two-thirds of the money available for the theatre in the year under discussion. The rest was shared out between about 35 theatres.
I agree that the Arts Council are doing miracles with limited means; they have become experts in doling out dribs and drabs. But all they can do in many cases is to give first aid—a lick of paint to prop up something that is in danger of complete collapse. We never give them sufficient resources to effect a cure. A small and inadequate grant is as uneconomic, in the long run, as it is dangerous. To give a particular example, I know a theatre which applied for a grant of between £8,000 and £10,000 to enable it to improve its standards by longer rehearsals. After lengthy discussion the Arts Council— and through no fault of its own, I believe—decided

543
that all they could give was something between £2,000 and £3,000. The result is that a theatre, which after careful budgeting wants, say, £10,000, receives perhaps half, or less. It still tries to go ahead and improve its standards over a long period. But then bad weather, or an unlucky season, comes along and the theatre is more heavily in debt than before, and the experiment has failed. So these grants must be on an adequate basis.
Then take the question of theatre buildings. We know that many are old and antiquated, with back-stage conditions for the artists which would be condemned on sight by a factory inspector. Where the building is good it ought to be modernised, improved and made comfortable and attractive. Audiences will not sit in "flea pits" any longer. The Arts Council asked the Government for a specific sum of £150,000 a year, in addition to the grant, to be set aside as a special fund for the improvement of theatre buildings. The Treasury, so far as I know, have been "sitting on" this application since 1961. I should like to ask the noble Earl who is to reply what is happening about this proposal, and why it is not possible to give something urgent to improve conditions of these buildings.
My Lords, I conclude this particular section with a few practical proposals. I propose and support the idea that the Arts Council grant, outside what is given to Covent Garden and Sadler's Wells, should be doubled; that three-fifths of this extra grant should be earmarked for the theatre, and that there should be a supplementary grant this year to bring the total up to the figure needed; that a further £150,000 should be given for development and improvement of theatre buildings as a first-aid measure. I do not want to see all the assistance coming from the top; I believe that a great deal must be done from below. Therefore, I would suggest that above a certain level, the Arts Council grant should be on a pound for pound basis with the local authority.
In 1956 Sir William Emrys Williams, the then Secretary-General of the Arts Council, who has been mentioned in this debate—and I should like to add my support to what has been said about him—put forward the idea of the formation of
544
civic arts centres throughout the country. They were to be voluntary bodies, backed by the local authorities and the Arts Council, who would work to secure a balanced and regular provision of the Arts in their areas. I should like to see that idea developed. So far it has only started in two areas in the North-East. I would suggest that the Arts Council should appoint a couple of field organisers whose task would be to stimulate interest in this idea and to get local conferences going, out of which centres could be developed. They could then retire and leave it to the local people. I would hope that many cities and boroughs could be encouraged, not only to develop theatres where they do not exist, but also to give far greater support to those that do exist now and are struggling to live on inadequate grants.
Finally, I would suggest some change in the structure and basis of the Arts Council itself. I am not necessarily in agreement with the idea that there should be a Ministry of Fine Arts or Ministry of Culture, but I believe that the Arts Council is in danger of getting a little too complacent and that it should be in a position where it can be kicked from time to time. I get the impression —I hope your Lordships will forgive me —that to some extent some of its officials live in a rarefied atmosphere, out of touch with the ordinary run of public opinion. I should like to see a basic core of elected people put on the Arts Council, representative of the various organisations prominent in the Arts, and a section of people appointed, as at present, from those with expert knowledge in various fields of the Arts, and also some who represent the great mass of the people including the people in the provinces—I mean industrialists and trade union leaders and so on, who may not have any precise knowledge of the Arts, but who have their ears to the ground of public opinion and whose common sense and knowledge of organisation would be valuable. These are practical proposals which I believe could be carried into effect and transform the situation of the Arts in this country in a period of five years.
I would turn for a few moments to another urgent problem of the Arts, already mentioned by my noble friend Lord Longford: the question of the author, particularly the novelist. I

545
understand that the Arts Council has already made some change and it is possible that at long last the novelist will get some assistance. It is certainly time. If the position of the actor is one of drama of hope, the position of the novelist is one of Greek tragedy. It is simply not true that the novelist is different from other artists, that he can survive because he is slightly better off and does not need assistance. In a survey conducted for the Society of Authors by Mr. Richard Findlater, it was found that the vast majority of professional writers, not amateurs, earn from their writings less than the national average wage of about £15 a week. People could earn more money by breaking stones. And a large percentage of authors earn less than £5 a week. In fact, the bookseller who sells an author's book makes more out of it than the man who wrote it.
This situation has been camouflaged, because there are a tiny few who are successful and whose earnings and film sales are highly publicised. Below these peaks are hundreds of novelists and writers, who give pleasure to thousands and who are paid a pittance in return. The traditional picture of the author is one of a man starving in an attic. This is no longer true, especially since the introduction of the Rent Act, because the author cannot afford an attic and must starve elsewhere. The plain fact is that many authors have to do two jobs to earn their living and really cannot devote their time, as they should, to full-time writing. Yet, by a paradox, the reading public, through paperbacks and public libraries, is bigger than ever before and is growing. But the author gets little or no increased benefit from this expansion.
One of our great sources of pride in this country is that our lending libraries are free. The fact is that the libraries are not really free. They are subsidised out of the rates; but they are also substantially subsidised by the novelists and authors, because they do not get paid adequately for the use of their books in public libraries. In 1961 the public libraries issued about 500 million books to borrowers, all free, and between 60 and 70 per cent. of these were fiction. The novelist gets royalty on only one book bought by the library. This
546
averages about 1s. 6d. But the author's book can be borrowed and read a hundred times and he gets only the one royalty.
Sir Alan Herbert calculated that two books of his were borrowed 3,600 times over twenty years and he got £3 from it, for the pleasure all those borrowers got from reading his books. Who can deny that he was subsidising that library and the pleasure of those readers? If we were to adopt Sir Alan Herbert's proposal about a public lending right, then he would have been paid a royalty on every borrowing.
It is a curious position that the dramatist gets something from each person who sees his plays and the musician collects, through the Performing Right Society, a royalty each time his music is played—but not the novelist. Sometimes, when I look at these figures, I think that the Government are determined to do everything possible to stamp out novelists, as if they were some unpleasant outbreak. Take, for example, their attitude towards the author's copyright. The only capital an author has is in the copyright of his books, but if he sells part of his capital, it is taxed as ordinary income by the State. Sir Compton Mackenzie sold the copyright of 21 of his books, part of a lifetime's labour, for £10,000. That was his capital, but it was not classed as a capital gain. He had to pay £6,000 of the £10,000 to the Inland Revenue in tax. I submit that that is a scandal. As Mr. Findlater points out, the author's publisher could sell his shop and count it as a capital gain, the author's agent could sell his business and count it as a capital gain, but when the man who keeps them both running by writing books sells his copyright he is taxed up to the hilt. He is even pursued beyond the grave. When an author dies, everything he writes is capitalised, the earnings assessed, and he is taxed on that for death duties.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that "Mr. James Bond" successfully converted himself into a company and sold 49 or 51 per cent. of his capital value and did not have to pay tax.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I think that my noble friend is right on that matter,

547
although I doubt very much whether Mr. Ian Fleming got away with it without having to pay some kind of company or profits tax. All I can say is that all authors are not so worldly-wise as Mr. Ian Fleming in knowing all the ramifications of the book business. I think that it should be made much simpler for authors.
I should again like to suggest one or two practical steps. I think that we should have a definite amendment to the Arts Council Charter, so that novelists may be treated on the same basis as other artists. Some survey should be made, in association with the Society of Authors, to see what practical aid can be given. We should ask the Government whether they would not consider the question of a public lending right, and whether they would not appoint a committee to see whether this obvious injustice of the novelist's subsidising the libraries by a free lending right could not some-how be ended. If we only had a scheme in which the borrower paid a lump sum of 5s. a year, to be paid into a fund which would' be divided between the Arts Council and the novelists, or something like that, that would help.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? What he says is not limited to the novelist but applies to writers of all types.
LORD WILLIS: I accept that. But what I say is that it particularly applies to novelists, so far as the public lending right is concerned. It does not apply to the same extent to dramatists. The general feeling on the matter, so far as authors are concerned with this, is that a small annual sum would be adequate; that it would not be an extremely heavy burden on the actual borrower, but would transform the situation.
I should also like to see the actual legislation altered in some way so that we do not have to go through this routine of forming companies in order to hold on to our copyright and our capital, but that it should be regarded quite naturally as our capital.
I think, too, that the same Committee which investigates this public lending right, if the Government agree to set up such a Committee, might also investigate the principle of the Phoenix Trust.
548
This is a question which I raised earlier in your Lordships' House in the debate on leisure, on the question of authors' blacklegging on the living. The Phoenix Trust was organised some time ago, but it has never been particularly successful, because it was operated on a voluntary basis, with some publishers agreeing to pay into this fund a tiny royalty on the works of out-of-copyright books, the money to be used for the benefit of living authors. I suggest that we adopt the same principle that is already the law in France, where the copyright period is extended by fifteen or twenty years, and that the benefit of this extended copyright should be paid into some such trust as the Phoenix Trust for the benefit of living novelists.
Finally (this may seem a small thing, but I think it is vital, although I cannot go into it in detail now), I should like to see the Arts Council, if they are going to do something for the novelists, give support to some of the small literary magazines, many of which do valuable work but at present have to get by on a shoestring. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the proposals I have put forward. I believe that Art is not a luxury, but a necessity, and in the theatre and in the fields of the novel there are urgent problems which have to be faced and dealt with. The true artist, the true writer—and I am not speaking with false modesty when I say that I am not talking of writers like myself, who are first-rate second-rate writers, but of the real writer, whose products are likely to live in history and give more than passing entertainment—are the people who really need help through the measures I have indicated. I hope that the noble Earl will give consideration to them.
House adjourned during pleasure, and resumed by The Lord Chancellor.
5.53 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, cannot complain about the interest his Motion has excited, and excited for more than one reason, because it has

549
given us all the great pleasure of hearing an outstanding maiden speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell. I do not remember hearing a speech in your Lordships' House for quite a long time which impressed me so much.
I am not going to take up much of your Lordships' time. I am going to take the cue for what I have to say from the opening of this Report, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, that the object of the Arts Council is to bring a knowledge and appreciation of the Arts to the masses of the people; and I shall confine my remarks to that theme in so far as it affects music. I believe that the demand for good music must be stimulated and encouraged, and I propose to make a few suggestions as to how this can be done.
I would offer congratulations to the Arts Council for the work they have done. I think they have done an outstanding work with the meagre resources which have been placed at their disposal. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, that in Covent Garden to-day we have an opera house outstanding in this world. I feel that both the administration and the artistic direction of the Covent Garden Opera are worthy of high commendation. But I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, that the first job we have to do is to persuade the Government to get ahead with their Covent Garden Market scheme. As the noble Earl said, we should have adjacent to the opera house all the ancillary buildings—rehearsal rooms, and so on—which are so necessary.
The other suggestion I want to make is that we should have a second Covent Garden Opera Company which can tour the Provinces, because the resident company, when they tour, are confined to the largest. cities—Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Newcastle and so on—as these are the only cities that have theatres to house them. What we want to-day is to spread the knowledge of first-class opera right through the Provinces.
The same applies to orchestral music. In London and the Provinces we have orchestras— the Halle, thé Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra, the Birmingham and Bournemouth Symphony Orchestras—which compare with any in
550
the world. The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, said that an inquiry was being held as to why the attendances in London for good orchestral music have fallen. I will tell him why. First of all, the prices are too high; and secondly, there is too much modern music in the programmes. I am not averse to modern music for those who like it. I do not like it, but I would not rule out modern music. However, you do not want it all pill and no sugar, and some of the programme arrangers seem to me to get a bee in their bonnets and concentrate on modern music. You cannot bring up an ignorant population on music of that kind. If you want to increase the appreciation of good music you must take into consideration the uneducated far more than you do. That is the reason.
The other thing I would say, while I am on the question of the London orchestras, is that it is always a puzzle to me why there are only two orchestras in London which give any decent conditions of employment to their players. A first-class orchestral musician is a high-class specialist, an artist, and there are only two orchestras in London, the B.B.C. and the Covent Garden Orchestra, where the players have any continuity of contract. With the others it is a case of "No play, no pay." If a horn blower has a split lip and has to have a fortnight's rest, he does not get any pay. If the violinist has a sore finger on his left hand and has to lay off for a week or two, he does not get any pay. Is that the way to encourage the really first-class musician to join a first-class orchestra? So when the Arts Council are carrying out their investigation into why the attendances at London orchestral concerts are falling off, and other matters that are germane to the promotion of good music in London, I hope they will take that point into consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, rather stressed the taking of good music into the Provinces. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, and other speakers, that when you come to the nub of this problem it is one of finance. You cannot get away from it. When orchestras, no better than our first-class orchestras in this country, in Berlin, Amsterdam, Vienna and Paris are subsidised to ten times the extent of one of ours—it is nothing for the Berlin Philharmonic to

551
receive £250,000—how can our orchestras be expected to make concerts pay in the Provinces when they cannot make them pay in London? When I talk about the Provinces I am not talking about the centres of musical culture such as Manchester, Birmingham or Liverpool; I am talking about the second-grade towns. After all, there is a huge population in those towns to be catered for. You cannot say that you should spend money in subsidising orchestras that play only in those places, because I know that many of them play outside. The Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra extends its activities right down to the West Country.
When you take into consideration how you are to make a grant to an orchestra to cover any prospective loss in the Provinces. you must also take into consideration the theatre or the building in which they play. I have discussed this point with many theatrical people, who would be only too willing not to make any profit from an occasional visit by a first-class London orchestra. They told me that the only way they can—if I may use a colloquialism— "wash their faces" is by the receipts from the bar and from sales of ice cream, chocolates and programmes. That is not the way to carry first-class music into the Provinces. So it all comes down to money.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, put out the idea, with which I agree, that the municipalities, the local authorities, in this country have not done nearly as much as they could. But, to be honest and to face the facts, little as they have done in the past, in the future they will do less. The reason is that one of the biggest problems local authorities have to-day is to placate the irate population in regard to the amount of rates they have to pay. If you talk in some of these cities and towns of imposing a 6d. rate to provide classical music, there would be a riot. The plight of the ratepayer even softened the heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who only lately said that something must be done about the rating problem throughout this country.
Two years ago all the valuations went up and the amount of rates in the pound went down. It is nearly back again, and the rating in some of these cities is causing the local authorities grave concern. I do not think that you can look to anybody
552
except the central Government to provide for the cultivation of the Arts through the Arts Council. I do not think you can rely with any certainty on any substantial contribution from local authorities, except perhaps from the outstanding local authority, the London County Council, who I think have done a magnificent job and are continuing to do it.
But as the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, said, even in the home of musical culture in the North, not three or four weeks ago there was a movement to reduce the rate of grant to the Hallé Orchestra. That is a sign of the times. So I want to make the suggestion— and it is in line with the views of all other noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon —that the grant from the central Government must be increased. You cannot provide for the cultivation of the Arts without increasing the grant, and I would suggest that it should be increased by £1 million a year for the next three years, until it reaches a total of £6 million. I do not think you will achieve what I think is necessary under that amount.
I am not going to talk about novelists. I listened with great amusement to what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said about subsidising novelists. I think I should agree with them up to a point, so long as they exclude the people who write political reminiscences. I do not think those authors should be subsidised at all, particularly as that practice seems to be growing. After all there are plenty of lawyers about. Novelists do not want subsidising, and I am sure that any good lawyer will tell any author how he can get out of many of the troubles that Lord Willis had in mind, even if he cannot follow exactly Mr. Bond—whoever Mr. Bond is; I do not know.
That is the burden of what I wanted to say, and I hope that the Treasury will look at this matter very seriously. I do not want a Minister of the Arts, and I do not want the Arts Council to be altered. I think it does its job very well. I think the personnel have done their job well, and all they want now is far more encouragement and more money to carry on the good work they have done in the past.
6.9 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Auckland very much for having initiated this debate, which has brought many interesting facts to the surface. It has also had the wonderful effect of having broken the silence of the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, who I thought made a wonderful and moving maiden speech. I hope that silence will remain broken for a very long time. I must say, however, that I do not agree with my noble friend in the emphasis that he put on the importance of the Arts. To-day being what it is, I am tempted to wonder what would happen if it were known that the Derby were running at a loss. I think the Treasury would explode. Although it is true that this country could get along without the Derby, we want it; and it is even more true that we need music and the other Arts.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, also spoke of the importance of artistic education in State schools. It has been my experience that musical education in State schools, certainly in the primary grade, is a great deal better than in the private prep. school. I look back to the time when I was Director of Music at Epsom College, and each term had to look among the new boys who had arrived for possible members of the chapel choir. Almost invariably not one of them could read music and the great majority of them seemed never even to have heard of it; whereas the State primary schools, I think, do far better. So far as secondary schools are concerned, I would say that the level is pretty equal. There are some public schools which are outstanding in this respect, and there are also some outstanding grammar schools.
In the Report which we are considering mention is made of the suggestion that a Ministry of Arts should be created. The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, said that she frowned upon that, and I should like to add my frown to it, too. I should like to say here and now that it is the last thing that any member of the artistic professions would want. Those who are artists, actors, architects and musicians do not want to be tied up to a Government policy. It might possibly mean that they would
554
I earn a little more, but it would certainly mean a lessening of their artistic freedom, and that is the thing they treasure above all.
I want to deal chiefly with the section of the musical profession which raises the greatest financial problem, our orchestras. I have examined the situation with five of our major orchestras and I have no reason to think that the circumstances are any different for the others. The Report of the Arts Council seems a little complacent about this situation, but the hard fact is that all these orchestras—and they are, as others of your Lordships have said, among the finest in the world—are running at a very heavy loss. This is not altogether due to lack of public interest—though I shall have something to say about that later on—but is chiefly due to the very heavy expenses of production.
The Musicians' Union, for instance, have recently demanded increased fees for orchestral players, and I am not for a moment implying that this demand is not justifiable. Indeed I think it is, for the orchestral player's life is one of the hardest working of any. I think very few who are not in some way connected with the musical profession realise what a tremendous strain this life is. An orchestral player has very little time to himself. When he is not rehearsing, playing or travelling to his work he must give up a good deal of his time to practice in order to keep up the very high standards which his profession demands. There is also another element which no one who has not actually been a working musician can understand; that is, the emotional strain. Any player who is worth his salt will put his whole self into a performance in order to bring out the interpretation to the full, which takes far more out of one than the mere physical effort, though the physical effort is in itself great enough. So I am not questioning the decision of the Musicians' Union. After all, the cost of living has gone up, and there is hardly a profession whose salaries have not been raised. What I am questioning is the policy of the Arts Council is not having increased their grants to a point which would cover the orchestras' deficits.

555
There are, of course, other heavy expenses involved in an orchestral concert, such as the hire of the hall, the soloists' fees, if there are any soloists, which are often very heavy, and performing rights fees have to be paid on the work of any composer who died less than fifty years before. There may also be transport costs. All these expenses have to be met from three main sources: the sale of tickets, the grants from the Arts Council, and, in some cases, grants from local authorities. What is the result? The London Symphony Orchestra — and I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Auckland that it is one of the finest in the world—ended the year 1961–62 with a deficit of over £1,775. This is the result of working 60 to 70 hours per week, including travelling time, whereas Continental orchestras very seldom work more than 25 hours. Their halls are, on the whole, well attended. Therefore, what is the answer? It can only be that the grants from the Arts Council are hopelessly inadequate.
Another well-known orchestra work on a system of guarantees for specific concerts or series of concerts, and not on the year's work as a whole. Each year, however, they have to face the loss of from £2,000 to £3,000, over and above these guarantees, which of course the box office returns cannot hope to meet. These two orchestras I have mentioned are both London orchestras, but the situation with the provincial ones seems to be very much the same. One of them ended the year 1961–62 with a deficit of £8,367. Another, the Hallé Orchestra, finished up the year 1962–63 with a deficit, apart from box office returns, of £6,000. The only way, as they have said, to make this good is by giving more concerts. Even though they give far more than the average number of concerts per season, they finish every year with a deficit. The only one of the orchestras to which I wrote that seemed fairly satisfied with what they got was the Liverpool Philharmonic, and that appears to be because they are blessed with an extraordinarily enlightened and generous local government who regard that orchestra as one of their chief responsibilities.
Let us turn to the Arts Council's picture of the scene. They quote the acti-
556
vities and the number of concerts of several orchestras, including all of the five to whom I wrote, but not once do they give the slightest indication that financial difficulties are extremely great or that any orchestra is running at a loss. They describe their very active seasons in full as though they were due to support of the Council, an implication which is far removed from the truth. How can our orchestras feel that they are getting anything but very meagre support when they realise that a Continental orchestra will get a guarantee during the year, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, about ten times what we get? We in this country get £30,000, or less. I will give your Lordships one or two examples of what the Continental orchestras get; Stockholm Philharmonic, £183,000; The Amsterdam Concertgebouw, £233,000; the Berlin Philharmonic, £503,000. Does not that make our figures look rather ludicrous?
The question was raised (I think by the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe), as to whether it is necessary to maintain all these full-scale orchestras. My answer is that the results prove that it is, because they do not play only in their own particular centre; they go into all parts of the country, and all over the world. And attendance at these concerts would not be so high if these orchestras were redundant. Even in these days of broadcasting and recorded music, the music-loving public still want to hear live performances, and until one has heard them one cannot tell how different they are.
I should like now to consider a slightly different aspect of the problem. In arranging its programme for a particular concert, or series of concerts, the orchestra must naturally be careful to make it attractive to as large a section of the public as possible. They must therefore take care not to include more than a very sparse scattering of works by unknown composers, such as were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, or even the less frequently played works of familiar composers. The young English composer thus stands a very poor chance of getting performances of his work. I would pass on to your Lordships a suggestion which has been made by no less a person than Sir Arthur Bliss, the Master of the

557
Queen's Musick. He says that if and when the grants are increased to a reasonable level they should be accompanied by some such words as these, "It is hoped that you will give as much room in your programmes as you feel possible to works of contemporary British composers". No compulsion—just a hope. The fact is that the public have at last learned to enjoy good music but, unfortunately, have not got beyond the point where they enjoy only what they already know. In other words, they have not yet learned to listen. Therefore, the orchestras, for purely financial reasons, cannot afford to include a great deal in their programmes that is not well known.
The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, mentioned Sir Robert Mayer, whose name, of course, is known throughout the country. I think there is a great deal of truth in what he said recently about the importance of strengthening the relationship between the public and the orchestra. He feels the necessity for a mutual sense of belonging: the orchestra belongs to the public; the public belongs to the orchestra. How is one to create this sense? We all know the wonderful work that he has done in organising concerts for young children. But, as he says, the problem occurs when they leave school, when the vast majority forget all about music. He tells me that he is about to organise a movement, known as Youth and Music, which will cater particularly for those between 15 and 25. If such people can be kept in touch with music I believe that it will prove to be a lasting love throughout their lives. I was particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, mentioned opera, as Sir Robert Mayer feels it very important that they should be made opera-minded, as well as concert-minded; and here I entirely agree with him. Opera has not even yet achieved general popularity in the same way as concert music has. I feel that if these ideals can be achieved, a very real bond of union between the orchestra and the public will be formed. We should be proud of our orchestras; they are very fine ones.
Much attention is paid nowadays, as your Lordships know, to science, to the marvellous discoveries that it has made and the explorations which it is making; and a great deal of it is very wonderful and very awe-inspiring. But the wonders
558
of it should not blind us to the fact that not everything that is necessary for the human make-up can be based on science. A knowledge and appreciation of beauty in some form or other, whether it is music, poetry, drama, art or literature, is essential if we are to remain cultured men and women. And who can give a scientific definition of beauty? Therefore, the organisations which produce this beauty must be given the financial support to enable them to give it to the public. I am not criticising the Arts Council, because it is quite obvious that they cannot give what they have not been given. The real fault, of course, lies with the Treasury: they should give the Arts Council far more. And I am quite aware, too, of the fact that we in Parliament have no power to dictate to the Arts Council what their grants shall be: the Council, of course, are purely autonomous. On the other hand, we can at least see that the Council are given sufficient money to fulfil properly their reason for existence. Your Lordships heard, I think from the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, the figure for the total expenditure on arts—all the arts, mind you, not just music—for the current year: £3,205,000. That is an absolutely ludicrous figure when you consider that it includes every form of art in this country.
I should like to say just a word or two about the status of our best orchestras. During the last ten years or thereabouts they have so improved that they can now be considered as on a par with the best of the Continental orchestras. They go abroad, even behind the Iron Curtain, and in return the orchestras of other nations visit us. My noble friend Lord Drogheda mentioned the fact that this is an excellent thing for keeping up our prestige abroad.
No doubt many of your Lordships will have heard of a recent visit by the London Symphony Orchestra and the Bach Choir to Italy, which is not a country that is renowned for receiving foreign musicians kindly. The Orchestra and Choir gave no fewer than four performances of Britten's War Requiem and had a wonderful reception. The recording which the Bach Choir and the London Symphony Orchestra made of that same work was apparently acclaimed in America as the best classical recording of the year. Here I must declare a small interest, since I was in the Bach Choir at that time. Making that recording was

559
a fascinating experience. One of the four performances that they gave was in the distinguished surroundings of La Scala at Milan. But these things cost money, and if the situation does not change some of our finest orchestras may have to close down. That will mean the loss of this prestige, and it will also mean unemployment for fine orchestral players. That, I think, will be a national disgrace to us, and I hope and pray that the Government will see fit to take action, and to take it quickly.
I want now to say a word about choral music, since this has not been mentioned during this debate. We have a number of fine choirs. As I am no longer in it, I can mention the Bach Choir, which is really a fine choir. Though I think it has six professional tenors, it is, of course, amateur, and as such, of course, gets no grant at all. But, choral music being really the English tradition of music, it seems that it should receive a great deal more support from the Arts Council. Whether choral societies be amateur or professional, I feel that they should receive some support for their activities if their quality warrants it.
My Lords, I should like to conclude by saying a few words on a totally different subject. Recently I received a letter from the Assistant General Secretary of the British Actors' Equity Association, which is, to all intents and purposes, the trade union behind the stage. I will not quote his letter in full as it is a long one; I will quote just one or two sentences. He says:
"It has long been Equity's view that the Arts Council is insufficiently representative. Appointed people are really not answerable to anyone. Quite often, they are not in touch with the main body of opinion which can keep them apprised of developments."
Incidentally, this suggestion was confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Willis. The writer goes on:
" The situation is even worse in the field of ballet, for there is no ballet advisory group, and recommendations on the subject are made by the Music Panel, which is without informed ballet opinion."
Then he goes on to show how one of our largest ballet companies, the Festival Ballet, is in a perilous position. He says:
"The Festival Ballet became a non-profit distributing company in September, 1962, and since that time the London County Council
560
has supported them to the extent of something approaching £100,000. As a member of the London County Council, I know that the L.C.C. thinks it has had good value for money. At the same time, the Festival Ballet management also applied to the Arts Council for aid but they were turned down."
Now, apparently, the L.C.C. have decided that they are no longer going on with that grant of £100,000, and so the Festival Ballet is forced, or is likely to be forced, into a merger with a much smaller company, the Ballet Rambert. It seems a great tragedy that any company with a reputation like the Festival Ballet Company should lose its individuality by a merger like this, and due only to the fact that it is not being supported financially either by the L.C.C. or by the Arts Council. I sincerely hope that the Arts Council will be allowed more to give to the artistic organisations of this country, and that we shall have some encouraging words from my noble friend Lord Dundee.
6.39 p.m.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Auckland for initiating yet another debate on the Arts. I welcome this 18th Report of the Arts Council, with its record of a continuing achievement in all fields of the Arts. Particularly satisfactory, is the Treasury agreement to fix the Council's grant in advance for 1964–65 and 1965–66. This should materially assist the Council in planning ahead for new developments.
When your Lordships last debated the activities of the Arts Council, in March, 1963, there were several suggestions that too much of the Council's grant was spent in London and not enough in the Provinces. I have not heard that repeated to-day. It is certainly of the utmost importance that the Council's activities should be diffused throughout the country, and I believe that the record contained in Schedule 3 of the Annual Report, of grants and guarantees, which have been referred to by my noble friend Lord Cottesloe, for music, drama and art, made to orchestras, theatres and arts clubs all over England shows that the Arts Council is doing its best in this respect. But it is only to be expected that the Council grants tend to be distributed in areas where there has already developed an enthusiastic and spontaneous support of one or other of the Arts.

561
A great deal is done for the encouragement of the Arts by local festival societies, and it is satisfactory to note that nearly £18,000 was spent in 1962–63 on no fewer than twelve Festivals of the Arts. I know that the Arts Council grants very often make all the difference to the financial stability of the Festival Societies and no doubt without them one or other might be unable to continue. As nearly every year I attend the Ludlow Festival which is near my home in the country, I am well aware of the tremendous interest which can be aroused locally by such festivals for good music, good theatre and the visual Arts.
I should like to say a word about the removal of the Arts Council's exhibitions from the Tate Gallery to the South Bank, which I understand is likely to take place in 1966 or 1967 when the Arts Council will lease from the London County Council a new gallery which is to be built in that area somewhere between the Festival Hall and Waterloo Bridge. This removal will release much needed space in the Tate Gallery which for a great part of the year is occupied by the temporary exhibitions of the Arts Council at the expense of the showing of the permanent Tate Gallery collection. In a sense, therefore, the move will be of advantage to the Tate Gallery.
However there is another side to the medal, which is no doubt appreciated by the Trustees. These exhibitions take to the Tate Gallery a very large public who would not otherwise go there and who in future will go to the South Bank instead, unless the facilities for car parking and restaurants on the South Bank arc as bad as has been suggested. Of course, we cannot know how magnetic the South Bank site will be. To give your Lordships some idea of the figures involved, I would quote the numbers who have attended some of these exhibitions in recent years: the Modigliani and Soutine Exhibition, 55,000; Kokoscka, 80,000; Toulouse-Lautrec, 120,000; Daumier, 34,000; Max Ernst, 27,000; Epstein, 33,000; Picasso, 464,000; Braque, 51,000; and, going back a little further, Treasures for Vienna, 277,000.
There can be no doubt that the Tate benefits from the vast influx of additional visitors provided by these exhibitions in
562
that its own permanent collections become more widely known. To that extent the South Bank's gain will be a loss to the Tate Gallery. By the same principle the advantage of concentrating several national collections in one building or area has always been obvious, as the visitors to one collection tend to visit another in the same building or area which they would not do if the collections were widely dispersed. But, quite apart from the space taken up by the Arts Council's exhibitions, the Tate Gallery collections have out-paced the accommodation for them and new galleries are now an urgent priority. Fortunately, there is available on the Tate Gallery site a more than adequate space for a new building development that could include not only a museum of modern art, but also possibly a gallery where outside exhibitions could be held.
I think that there is a growing realisation among those interested that sooner or later some modification of the organisation of the Tate Gallery may be necessary. This is due to the increase in the collections, to the necessity for a building programme on the site and to the tempo of developments in contemporary painting and sculpture. Some believe that it might be an appropriate solution if the Tate Gallery were divided into a Museum of 20th century and 21st century Art, comprising both British and foreign modern and contemporary paintings and sculpture, and a British Collection up to, say, 1900. If such a scheme were adopted both the Museum of Modern Art and the British Collection would presumably need officials of no less a grade than Keeper to be in charge of them and to be personally responsible to the Trustees, and the Director would become a kind of administrative overlord comparable to the Director of the British Museum. Both collections would presumably remain on the Tate Gallery site. Such a solution would also satisfy those who feel that the traditional collection needs far more attention than it receives at present owing to the many gaps in the works of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries which are increasingly difficult to fill as old master pictures become scarcer and more expensive owing to American purchases in this field. That is all I want to say, except to associate myself entirely with all those noble Lords who do not want a Minister of the Fine Arts.
6.49p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this is the third in our present series of debates, which started with Automation, then Leisure, then, I believe the correct term is, focusing down to the Arts. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, for allowing us to talk on a rather narrower subject than those of the wider debates we had before—and even this debate has gone pretty wide. Indeed, I think the debate would rather suggest, judging by the very interesting but rather lengthy speeches, that art is long and life is short. Ars Longford, vita brevis.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend to say that I was far shorter than most of the leading speakers?
LORD SHACKLETON: At any rate, I think it has been an encouraging debate on the whole. We have looked at the good side and we have found it very good, though I think we can sum up the views expressed by saying that there is nothing like enough of the good. One speech, certainly, has stood out in this debate, and that was the quite outstanding speech of my noble friend Lady Gaitskell. It was quite obvious that the House, which was very ready to appreciate her speech, was in fact very gratified to find that its judgment was well based; because it was a quite outstanding, forthright maiden speech, making some straight hitting of a not too controversial kind—which was right—and there was a very broad and intelligent perspective at the end. The noble Baroness is going to have a real job if she is to achieve that standard all the time.
My Lords, I think that the Arts Council —and the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, can be gratified—has had a pretty easy run to-day. My noble friend Lord Willis and the noble Lord, Lord Somers, made certain suggestions about the membership of the Arts Council, and even if in theory there is not the justification for elected membership, it may well be that in purely human terms people will be more likely to feel content if there is some element of elected membership. There may be difficulty in this, but it is an idea that is at least worth looking at. I do not know whether the Arts Council is smug or out of touch—any Establishment body is always called smug and out of touch. But there is no doubt that it
564
has succeeded quite strikingly in the purposes which were set for it—those of priming the pump and setting up standards—and we can look with pride and satisfaction at these results. I would suggest to the Government that when we are looking at the results, we are looking at them not to praise ourselves, but only to show what can be done with a comparatively small amount of money.
When one looks back to 1914, I think it is true to say that Beecham actually had to import an orchestra. But in certain respects to-day, if this country does not lead the world—and in some subjects I think that it does lead the world—it is, at any rate, right up in the front. Once we were despised artistically, but to-day British ballet is certainly the finest, apart possibly from that in Moscow. Although it may be suggested that we have always produced great actors, the fact remains that after 50 years the National Theatre is at last coming into being, and we have not one but two; and, indeed, duplicate National Theatre Companies. Of course, the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, can himself share to a very strong degree in the satisfaction about the achievement of Covent Garden. Only a few days ago I was talking to a very intelligent and charming Frenchwoman, who was prepared to pay almost any price for the privilege of going to see Othello. Visits to Glyndebourne are, of course, almost a matter of cultural prestige to foreigners; but this applies not only to Glyndebourne, but also to Covent Garden, and this is a matter for very great pride.
None the less, having looked at this really splendid advance which has been produced with comparatively little money, we have the other side of the tale, which was so well illustrated in the speeches of my noble friend Lord Willis, the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and my noble friend Lady Gaitskell. Of course, we are doing nothing like as much from a State or community effort point of view to support the Arts, and it is in the housing of the Arts that we are in the weakest position. As regards the new Shakespeare Theatre being on the old Mercury site, I thought the Ballet Rambert was at one time on the Mercury site. Incidentally, apropos of one remark, I shall be rather sorry if the Ballet Rambert have the Festival Ballet —I will not say foisted on them; though

565
I will not develop this point because I do not wish to become controversial in artistic terms. But I believe the new Theatre will have 600 seats and rather more than half of them will be at a reasonably low price of 10s. or less. This will immediately make it a great deal more profitable. Housing the Arts may be expensive, but it does make it possible, certainly in the theatre, for the cash customers to come in. It is in this field that the big effort must be made in the next few years. It is a fact that we need not four first-class concert halls, but forty. We cannot look with any satisfaction on the situation until there are enough; and, anyway, we are going to lose one of those four great concert halls for a year.
This is something in which there must be partnership between Government and local authority. Whether or not there is a direct grant, let us face the fact that quite a lot of money for this will not come from the Arts Council; it will come, as for certain other things, from a direct decision of the Government. If Manchester want to build a new opera house or theatre, or concert hall, or whatever it is, which they will certainly need, this will call for some fairly large direct Government expenditure. So I think there is no chance of any Government's being able to soldier along on the £3 million they give to the Arts Council; and in fact they have not done so. There have been important decisions in the past, and there have been important decisions by individual Chancellors of the Exchequer. I think we should pay tribute to some of those, particularly Hugh Dalton and Sir Stafford Cripps. Despite the pressure at that time, when they were having to cut other Departments, I remember going on a delegation to Sir Stafford Cripps to ask for more money for the Hallé Orchestra, and being told that he could not give it, if only for the reason that he had cut everything else except his contributions to the orchestras. My Lords, there have been these important decisions. Surprisingly, this matter depends on a degree of individual leadership in Government; and it is the fact that Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, who has frequently been criticised in this House, took some bold decisions in his time, particularly with regard to the National
Theatre.
566
Having got on to the subject of orchestras, I should like to support very strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said. Recalling this occasion when I went on this delegation to Sir Stafford Cripps, it was simply in order to get enough money to allow the Hallé time for rehearsals; to allow a decent time for travelling; to provide an opportunity for them to do what Continental orchestras sometimes do—to produce a quartet or an octet; to allow time for training and helping the new generation, and, indeed, to operate under decent conditions without the degree of overwork and insecurity that so many orchestras have. We certainly cannot take pride, despite the great artistic advance in the standard of our orchestras, when in some respects conditions are so bad for them. This is a point which I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, stressed at some length. It has nothing to do with the policy of the Arts Council, but, as every noble Lord has made clear, is entirely to do with the amount of money that the Government or the community are prepared to put into it.
We have faced squarely to-day this very difficult, simple argument that is put forward: would you rather have a decent orchestra or better housing? But those of us who are concerned with these matters would argue that art, good music and orchestras are essential to human happiness. Indeed, I think we could argue that the money which is put into these things brings in a greater return for less expenditure than any single form of Government subvention. That is why it is so disastrous and awful that, at the moment, some of these local authorities—and my noble friends Lord Willis and Lady Gaitskell made this clear—are doing absolutely nothing about it. We cannot, of course, tell local authorities what to do: they are independent bodies. But it may be that we can shame them. It may be that "TW3" having gone for Stratford, and my noble friend Lord Willis and others having gone for Stratford, they will make some contribution to the most profitable enterprise in their community. It may be we should have a black-list which should be published.
I have also studied this interesting but rather indigestible (if I may say so)

567
Institute of Municipal Entertainment's survey, and I think that, while we cannot expect the Arts Council publicly to berate local authorities, they should not refrain from publishing the gist of this sort of information, so that people may know. It may be that this will stir certain local authorities into activity. It is striking how a few individuals may be able to swing a local authority in the right direction. One noble Lord (I cannot remember whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, or another noble Lord) had hopes that at last the number of local councils who were in favour of a particular proposal was increasing each year, and that at last the balance would tip over; and any publicity which is given may help in this direction.
We know the figures given in the Report, of course. The expenditure (I think this was mentioned by one noble Lord) by local authorities out of the so-called 6d. rate provision comes to £7½ million, but after deduction of the income the actual expenditure is only £2½ million —that £7½ million is, I believe, the gross figure—and, of that, only about a quarter of a million pounds is spent on the Fine Arts. In fact, the 6d. rate, if it were used, would yield £52 million, which is vastly more than any of us is thinking is necessary now. Therefore, this is something which I would say seriously is coming out of this debate. I think there is a demand to the Government that steps should be taken, not by passing a law but by coercion, to stimulate local authorities. There is only one way, I think, in which this can be done, and that is by some degree of matching expenditure pound for pound; and this will be particularly so on the capital side in the provision of new buildings.
Having looked at the black side, I should say that, of course, there are certain local authorities which have come along very well, some of them very recently. Bristol is a very striking example, with the Bristol Old Vic and the Little Theatre, and the linking with Bristol University and the drama school there. It is interesting to see that the tide, which in the Provinces appeared to be going the wrong way, is at last turning, and that a number of local theatres (and my noble friend Lord Willis gave
568
examples: places like Salisbury and Colchester) are beginning, admittedly with difficulty, to make some real progress. Here again we find this patchy support from local authorities; and the one thing which bedevils the whole of this field, and which was again so evident from the speeches of certain of my noble friends and of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and others, is the complete insecurity of the whole business. It is a good thing, as we learn from that interesting and light-hearted introduction to the Arts Council Report, that they have got on to a three-year basis. It is an improvement, even if it has removed certain speculative excitement. One would like to see them actually get on to a quinquennial basis; and clearly, of course, they will need further money.
I do not want to detain the House long at this time, because it is getting late, but I would press very hard that the Government should consider the necessity of stimulation; and in our type of society, and in a democracy, we have to use incentives. Every speaker has attacked the idea of a Ministry of Fine Arts. Indeed, I think we might stop attacking it now, because I do not believe that anybody is ever going seriously to suggest it. I think it is something which we have now satisfactorily disposed of here, and which I think is satisfactorily disposed of everywhere. Indeed, I know of no responsible political body which would advocate it. It is interesting to look at the views of the political Parties, admittedly at a rather primitive stage, to see what they would like to do.
The Conservative Party Arts and Amenities Group advocate the Ministry of Works—and, although this may in the first instance sound a little odd, there are considerable grounds for it, particularly in relation to housing the Arts. The Labour Party view, also at a rather tentative stage, is that in either case the Arts Council should remain the sort of independent body that it is to-day, but that, instead of the Treasury being their master, so to speak, or their paymaster, some independent Minister without Portfolio of high Cabinet rank, equivalent to the role which the Lord President played in relation to science, should be their friend, their sponsor and their voice in Government. But, here again, it is important to have someone who is sympathetic, who understands and is prepared

569
to take this seriously in the order of priorities.
My Lords, we ought not, of course, to forget the other forms of patronage; and there has been some brief talk about this today. It is satisfactory that the Church is in some degree remembering its traditional rôle. We must remember that the Church, certainly in the Middle Ages, was the great patron of the Arts; and when one goes to Coventry Cathedral —not everyone may agree—one sees that there, at least, they were discharging that rôle. Then there has recently been some talk of industry. I should be very interested to see what, if anything—and I hope it will be something—comes out of the plans by the Institute of Directors; and, of course, they have got the very man to put it across.
My Lords, industry can do more, and, although I am not trying (and I really do want to make this clear) to sell the views of my own firm—and I am now speaking of the John Lewis Partnership —I should like to mention that it is perfectly possible for a firm to recognise that what is good for the public must be good for their own people. For this reason, because we do not spend money on advertising—and I am not saying whether this is good or bad—it is very simple for us to spend money on taking orchestras to towns and other places where we have our branches. If we want to add to the appeal of the orchestra, we take someone like Tereso Breganza, as we did in the case of a very remarkable concert in the Sheldonian. It is possible—and my noble friend Lady Gaitskell referred to the Piper window that she saw—for industry to recognise their obligation, and to recognise that to do so is in their own interests because it is in the interests of their workers or their shareholders as citizens of the country.
I hope the Arts Council will devote a little more effort to bringing pressure on industry —again of a gentle kind, and perhaps through more publicity—to point out what industry can do in this field. One has only to look at how Glyndebourne was saved to realise the important part that industry may have to play when the Government fail to step in. The principle is always to give a little bit better than has been asked for. This is the principle the B.B.C. has
570
applied all through the years, and that is why standards have been raised.
There are many subjects I should have liked to deal with. It is fortunate in a debate of this kind that we have so many noble Lords directly concerned in this field, either as patrons or as organisers in a public capacity, or, indeed, as artists themselves. I know that certain noble Lords wanted to take part in the debate. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, has not been able to do so, but he has, very properly, just flown to Athens, and he asked me to make his apologies. I think it is true that at no time in our history— and one noble Lord spoke about the 18th century in regard, I think, to painting —has this country played such a part in the Arts as it is playing to-day. This, again, is the result of a comparatively small sum of money. According to one estimate I have heard, we are spending a sum which runs into more than £100 million in teaching appreciation of me Arts, against the total education Bill. If this is so, and if there is this potential demand which appears to be growing, then fulfilment must be found for it.
At the moment the Government spend in all about £13 million on the Ants. This includes sums spent on historical buildings, ancient monuments and so on. Other noble Lords mentioned the figure we spend on science and development; and, as is usual, at some point somebody mentioned the egg subsidy of £35 million. These figures are not comparable and we accept that; nevertheless, I would say that we have had such a good return already, so much more is to be done, and there was so much eloquence in the speeches of noble Lords to-day that I hope the Government will increase the amount spent on the Arts or at least start looking at a larger sum, not merely for the coming year but for the following years, in order to meet these demands, and will bear in mind when doing so that it must be linked with local consent and local activities.
I have seen something of the difficulties of local festivals, the Battle Festival, and others. All of them go to the Arts Council for help and come away disgruntled and hostile, not because of the fault of the Arts Council but because the money is not there. So much initiative and keenness is shown that it should be

571
possible to work not only with the local authorities but with dedicated volunteers throughout communities, so that this money, if available, will bring a very powerful return in happiness.
7.15 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I am most sincerely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for his speech, which interested me very much indeed and I am sure it interested all your Lordships greatly. I am also grateful for the noble Lord's brevity and for the classical quotation with which he justified it. It reminded me of the famous tombstone, in Cornwall, I think, which bears that quotation. It is on the grave of a young artist, and the 18th century punning inscription reads:
"Here lie the remains of Jonathan Long-bottom, artist, who departed this life at the early age of 22 years. Ars longa vita brevis"
I had expected this debate to be of an unusually high order.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, do you think that if there were some rule against obscenity in your Lordships' House the noble Earl would be ruled out of order for that last remark?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I thought the noble Earl took an unusually long time to perform the mental translation; but his speech, if I may say so, was of an equally high and interesting kind, and he evidently has very rapid means of acquiring information because it was very early in the afternoon when he began his speech by telling us he had always been a believer in Santa Claus. We all know that the noble Earl is a man who usually acts on his beliefs, and I congratulate him on having done so on this occasion, even though the probability of his belief being true was only 15-8. When the noble Earl went on to deliver his moving speech about giving the generosity worthy of Santa Claus to deserving but impecunious writers I could not help wondering whether he had also had an even more profitable belief in Dilettante, which I see got a place at 100-1. I can promise the noble Earl that I will certainly submit his arguments, so far as it is constitutionally possible for me to
572
do so, to all the authorities who might be concerned with them.
May I also offer the congratulations of the House to the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell on her remarkably good maiden speech. On all sides of the House we were, and are, delighted to welcome the noble Lady here. I was at school with Hugh Gaitskell more than forty years ago, but I did not know him then nearly so well as I came to know him the year before last— less than a year before the end of his life—when we went together for a week to Bermuda for an Anglo-Parliamentary Union meeting. It was a most interesting week, but we did not spend all the time on business. We spent a good deal of time bathing, and Hugh Gaitskell was kind enough not only to lend me his snorkel, which I had never used before, but also to teach me how to swim in such a position as to enjoy the spectacle of submarine life. I admired the wonderful clarity and charm with which the noble Lady delivered her speech and I am sure that we all hope to hear her again.
I think everything the noble Lady said was true. I think she got all her facts right, and I agree with all of it. She frowned (or added her frown) on the idea of a Ministry of Culture, and, curiously enough, these sentiments were expressed this afternoon by almost every one of your Lordships who spoke—even the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who wanted a little more effective Parliamentary control, said he was against having a Minister of Fine Arts. And, of course, I am against it, too. It is very convenient for the Government not to have it because it means that although people may criticise what is being done, they cannot blame the Government, for the Government are not responsible. The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, was very eloquent about how it would utterly ruin the art of this country if we allowed Government interference. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, said it would destroy everything that was best in art. I agree with that, although I could not help feeling that if some European stranger had been listening to our debate he could not have helped noticing that the countries whose example some noble Lords held up to us, as spending £39 million against our £13½ million, and £4 million on opera

573
alone, had Ministries of Fine Arts or of Culture.
The reason for their development is an historical and rather interesting one. The foundation of the great opera houses and the system of subsidising art in Europe was started by the autocratic rulers of Germany, Austria, Italy and France in the 18th century. On the whole they were people of good artistic taste. They imposed the taxes they wanted and devoted a large proportion of their revenue to the Arts. When they came to be overthrown a hundred or two hundred years later by democratic regimes, the people were so accustomed to Ministries of Fine Arts and to public financing and control of art, opera and the theatre that they went on with the same system under their democratic Governments.
In this country it was different. Parliament would not vote a penny to the Arts. But in the 18th and the 19th centuries a large number of very rich private individuals gave large sums of money for that purpose. Your Lordships may remember that in the debate in 1958 to which my noble friend Lord Drogheda referred we were discussing the report of the Arts Council which was entitled A New Pattern of Patronage, which pointed out that even up to 1938 private munificence came first in the support of the Arts, but that in 1958 it was at the bottom, less than the contribution by Government and industry and all other sources of support. It went on to say that it was a good thing that support of the Arts should not be given all by one institution like the State and that there should be a great deal of variety.
As there is such universal agreement about this matter, the only comment I would make is that it is difficult for Parliamentary criticism to have teeth put into it. I hope that everybody concerned listens to the criticisms which are expressed both here and in another place about the Arts, and acts on them in accordance with their merits. But if the Government were responsible, Parliamentary criticism could be enforced by either a Vote of Censure or by a reduction of the Vote to the Ministry of Fine Arts. In that case the Government might have to resign, but, as things are now, if Parliament decided on a reduction of the grant in the Civil Estimates
574
for the Arts Council, I do not know quite what would happen. If the Arts Council resigned I doubt whether we could find another Council to put in its place, whereas I am sure that if the Government were to resign many noble Lords would think, or profess to think, that nothing would be easier than to find a substitute.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am not going to say very much more.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Then perhaps it is just as well for me to intervene. It would be difficult to criticise the Government for the errors of the Arts Council, but many of us have the view that the Government can be criticised for the size of the grant to the Arts Council. Would the noble Earl acquit the Government of responsibility for that?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I was perfectly certain that the ingenuity of the noble Earl would enable him to find justification for criticism of the Government, however great the difficulty might be of doing it. As the noble Baroness said, we have a rather shamefaced and inhibited attitude towards the Arts and we are spending much less than would he ideal. There has been so much general acquiescence on these matters in the debate that I am not going to spend any time in arguing about them. All that I want to do is to give a very sketchy, or at least brief, précis of the progress which has been made since the last Government report on Government and the Arts in Britain. There is another one coming out soon, but this one was published six years ago.
The National Theatre Company has been created and is playing to full houses at the Old Vic. An architect has been appointed to prepare designs and estimates for a new building on the South Bank. There has been increased level of support from the Arts Council to the repertory theatres in the Provinces and in Scotland. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Auckland for his sympathetic references to Scotland, where they have suffered two cruel misfortunes in the last eighteen months, by the burning down of the St. Andrew's

575
Hall in Glasgow and the new repertory theatre in Dundee, which after long and difficult effort we had at last managed to get and which I hope will be repaired. Scotland has now a Gallery of Modern Art, and plans have been worked out and will be put into effect to give the people of London a new museum of London, amalgamating the present one and the Guildhall collections.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, said, in the last six years our total expenditure more than doubled, from about £6½ million to £13½ million. He compared it with our expenditure on science of £700 million, but of course that is not quite a fair comparison, because the expenditure on science includes everything that is spent by all people of every kind, whereas this £13 million is only part of what is spent by the Government alone. As he also said, the grant to the Arts Council is now fixed for a period of three years at a time, giving an annual increase of approximately 10 per cent., so as to allow for reasonable expansion in the Council's activities together with any increase in cost. Provision without Covent Garden is about £2,100,000 and for Covent Garden another £1,055,000 for this year. The Exchequer is giving substantial assistance towards the heavy capital expenditure which had to be undertaken in connection with essential work and rewiring of the house and stage of the opera and the reconstruction of the amphitheatre and gallery. Some people will think the amount we are spending is very large, and other people will think it is pitifully small. It is all a matter of how one looks at it.
My noble friend Lord Drogheda, for whose speech I was grateful, asked me if I could improve on the statement which had been made some time ago by my noble friend Lord Waldegrave about Covent Garden Market authority. As I did not hear my noble friend's statement and cannot remember it, I do not know whether or not my statement will be an improvement on it, but at least I think it means something. It will be for the Market authority and for the Greater London Council as planning authority to decide what should be done with such part of the present Covent Garden Market area as can be
576
made available for other purposes. The Government have already expressed sympathy with the desire of the Royal Opera House to acquire extra space for rehearsals in the neighbourhood. That must not be taken as implying any commitment as regards financing of such an arrangement, but of course we would take all these matters into account in fixing the triennial grants.
Not only the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, but many other noble Lords have spoken about the contribution of local authorities. I think that it is fair to say that, with the exception of the London County Council, who have done very well, the majority have not done so well as they might. About two-thirds of the Arts Council triennial grant is spent outside London.
Under Section 132 of the 1948 Act local authorities in England and Wales are empowered to spend up to the equivalent of a 6d. rate—in Scotland, I think, it is a little less, but not much less—on the provision of entertainment. The Institute of Municipal Entertainment recently published the result of a survey which they carried out into the use made of this section in the year 1961–62. They sent a questionnaire to 996 authorities, of whom 149 did not make any reply and 235 submitted nil returns. The remaining 535 were responsible between them for a net expenditure of £2½ million, representing on average a fraction of just a 1d. rate; and, of course, this would be less on the new valuation. This includes expenditure on sport and other forms of entertainment, which really could not, under the widest definition, be classed as artistic or cultural.
Clearly there is room for much more activity and initiative by local authorities, and it is not reasonable to expect the Arts Council to make all the running. I am always glad to hear criticisms of the Government for not spending more, although it is often made by the same people who condemn them for spending too much when the Budget comes round. But I think that by exercising a small part of the discretion which Parliament has given them, local authorities could give far more to the Arts. And this would be of more value than an increase in the Arts Council

577
grant in many ways, because the qualitative benefit of such local development would be greater, as deliberate local support is worth more than Whitehall patronage. But there are some promising developments. There is the North Eastern Association for the Arts, which was set up two or three years ago. That Association has an active programme for raising funds and sponsoring major artistic projects. The Arts Council gives a grant to the Association and has considerably increased the level of its support in the current year. I think this money is very well spent.
We are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Auckland for raising this subject. He asked me a number of questions, to many of which I will do my best to reply separately. One point that he and others of your Lordships raised is the question of consultation between the Arts Council and the British Council. The Arts Council is not responsible for what is done abroad. Their grant is strictly limited to the cultivation and promotion of the Arts at home. But their advice is most valuable, and I am sure there would he no objection to trying to see if vie could get more regular and frequent consultation between the Arts Council and other bodies like the British Council, who arrange for British artists to go abroad.
I had the great privilege of being at the British Week in Dusseldorf and Duisburg last week and I saw one of the finest performances of the Royal Ballet which I have ever seen. It really was magnificent, and I can tell your Lordships that it went down very well with the Germans. I inquired who was financing it. It was neither the Arts Council nor the British Council, but the Board of Trade. This was a trade week, and they had given some of the finance for this purpose. I should like to add that nearly as much was being contributed by the German local authorities in Dusseldorf and Duisburg, both to the Royal Ballet and to the orchestral performances and the art exhibitions which were shown there.
I am also glad to hear what my noble friend Lord Auckland said about children. He emphasised, I think rightly, the greater interest that is being taken among schoolchildren and the youth of the country in art. He mentioned
578
Tchaikovsky's music and the Royal Albert Hall; he mentioned what was happening in the Provinces; he mentioned the promenade concerts, and also the Festival Hall where there have been, I think, twelve series of concerts in the last ten years, six every year, and every one has been attended by about 2,000 schoolchildren. My noble friend was right, I think, in saying that their interest and enjoyment was as great as that of many grown-up people, and it showed that it was not at all typical of British youth to go around misbehaving themselves at Margate and other places.
He asked what was being done about art in the State schools. There is now special accommodation for the study and performance of the Arts. That is a feature of all new schools built since the war. Facilities are provided for music, drama, painting and pottery-making under the instruction of specialist teachers, and more attention is being paid to music. Sound-proofed rooms are now being provided in State schools for orchestral practice, as well as cubicles for solo instrumentalists. Some remarkable results have been achieved by school orchestras and choirs. There are also more outings to museums and art galleries, and concerts are also arranged both inside and outside the curriculum. Especially popular have been the concerts arranged for schools on Saturday mornings and afternoons at the Royal Festival Hall. It would be impossible to disentangle the expense of these things from the whole of our expenditure on education, and it would not be particularly interesting. But there is no doubt that a great deal more is being given to that, than to the Arts Council, and I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is equally well spent.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I draw his attention to the question I raised about novelists and the public library lending right, and ask him whether he will give consideration to the suggestion referred to which has great support in the Society of Authors and among authors generally?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I certainly will, and I will write to the noble Lord on the point.
7.37 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, despite a very important event two miles from my home in Surrey, we have had a very full attendance here to-day and a stimulating debate. I should like to say again how grateful I am to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. Anybody who criticises this House for being complacent will surely have been confounded to-day by the standard of the debate. I should like to pay my own tribute to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell. I paid a tribute early on, before I heard her speech, and having heard it, may I say that it was a speech of which Parliament as a whole can be proud. It is the first occasion on which I have had the privilege of extending congratulations to a maiden speaker, and if I may say so there are few people to whom I would rather have had the opportunity of so doing. The noble Baroness spoke sincerely and powerfully, and the House is certainly the better for her inclusion in it.
All noble Lords have contributed valuable material to the debate, and I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord
580
Dundee, for his full and courteous reply. I think the point about local government help for the Arts has been strongly made, and I certainly hope that local authorities will read very carefully what has been said. In thanking again all who have taken part, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SAINT DIONIS BACKCHURCH CHURCHYARD (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
NATIONAL PROVIDENT INSTITUTION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, without amendment.

NORFOLK ESTUARY BILL
The Queen's Consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.