Sitting of 16 December 1970

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (MELTON MOWBRAY AND SHEFFIELD) BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ENVIRONMENT

    Birmingham (Road Works Programme)
    Mr. Carterasked the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much the road works programme in the City of Birmingham will be cut as a result of the proposed reductions in Government expenditure.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The Government's road programme is planning to rise by about 8½ per cent. at constant prices to 1974–75. Principal road schemes in Birmingham or elsewhere depend on the rate at which local authorities throughout the country prepare individual schemes to grant-application stage.
    Mr. Carter: Will the Under-Secretary give the House an assurance that any road scheme in the City of Birmingham which does not qualify for a Government grant will not have its loan sanction turned down by the Department? Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that the conservative council in the City of Birmingham has, in each year that it has been in office, reduced the amount spent on roads in the city?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that these are matters for the Birmingham City Council. We are discussing principal road schemes, and the initiative must lie with the city.

    Public Developments (Compensation)
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a further statement on his intention to improve the compensation rights of individuals affected by public developments.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): I shall make a statement when we have completed our comprehensive review of the compensation code.
    Mr. Lane: I am grateful for that reply. Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind that there is strong feeling about the inadequacy of the present law to ensure justice for individuals, and that when the Government are ready to make their proposals there will be loud cheers at the keeping of yet another Conservative election pledge?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Conlan: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that when roads are constructed through large towns like Gateshead, for example, owner-occupiers are injuriously affected not so much by the roads running through their properties but by the value of their properties declining because of the close proximity of those roads?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, I very much appreciate these problems. The City of Worcester, which I represent, has similar problems.

    Private House Purchase (Loans)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities applied for extra home loans finance for purchase of private houses and how many were refused them during the current financial year; and if he will name those authorities in both categories.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): Three hundred and nineteen authorities in

    1315
    England have applied for an additional allocation. It has been necessary to refuse 123. Sixty-five which asked for a second allocation have also had to be refused. I will, with permission, list the names in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Allaun: I thank the Under-Secretary for that reply. Is it not a fact that some of these local authorities with the worst problems find their quotas exhausted very early in the year? Will the Minister help them, particularly as they provide houses for people when the building societies will, unfortunately, often not entertain them?
    Mr. Channon: Yes. I entirely agree with everything said by the hon. Gentleman. It is the greatest pity that his own Government reduced the amount so that only about a quarter—[Interruption.] It happens to be true. Hon. Gentlemen do not like it. It is the greatest pity that the Labour Government reduced the amount so that only about a quarter of the number of people who in 1964 got houses through local authority mortgage loans were able to do so in 1969.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Why does the hon. Gentleman's Department turn down the repeated application from South Shields where his party continuously complained of the late Government's cutting-down? Why does not his Department allow the application?
    Mr. Channon: Because, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, we are operating this year under the allocation set down by his Government. When we have a chance the hon. Gentleman will find the situation will be very different.
    Following is the information:

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES WHICH HAVE RECEIVED AN ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION (196)

    County Borough Councils

    Birmingham

    Manchester

    Birkenhead

    Northampton

    Bolton

    Oldham

    Bradford

    Portsmouth

    Bristol

    Rochdale

    Burnley

    St. Helens

    Canterbury

    Salford

    Chester

    Sheffield

    Darlington

    Southampton

    Exeter

    Southend-on-Sea

    Gateshead

    Stockport

    Gloucester

    Stoke-on-Trent

    Grimsby

    Sunderland

    Huddersfield

    Teesside

    Kingston upon Hull

    Torbay

    Liverpool

    Warley

    Luton

    York

    London Borough Councils

    Barnet

    Kensington and

    Bromley

    Chelsea

    Croydon

    Kingston upon Thames

    Greenwich

    Newham

    Islington

    Southwark

    Wandsworth

    Borough Councils

    Altrincham

    Keighley

    Andover

    King's Lynn

    Ashlon-under Lyne

    Macclesfield

    Barnstaple

    Mansfield

    Basingstoke

    Nelson

    Beccles

    Penryn

    Bedtord

    Prestwich

    Bodmin

    Queenborough-in-

    Chatham

    Sheppey

    Cheltenham

    St. Albans

    Chipping Norton

    St. Ives (Hunts)

    Cleethorpes

    Sale

    Crewe

    Scunthorpe

    Droitwich

    Shrewsbury

    Dunstable

    Slough

    Eastleigh

    Spenborough

    Fleetwood

    Swinton and

    Folkestone

    Pendlebury

    Glossop

    Tamworth

    Gosport

    Tenterden

    Gravesend

    Thetford

    Guildford

    Truro

    Haslingden

    Watford

    Heywood

    Wisbech

    Hyde

    Urban District Councils

    Aireborough

    Frimley and

    Alfreton

    Camberley

    Alton

    Golborne

    Ampthill

    Hazel Grove and

    Arnold

    Bramhall

    Ashington

    Herne Bay

    Atherton

    Hoddesdon

    Audenshaw

    Hougliton-le-Spring

    Basildon

    Hoyland Nether

    Bedworth

    Ilminster

    Beeston and

    Irlam

    Kirkby

    Stapleford

    Bentley-with-Arksey

    Knottingly

    Bletchley

    Leatherhead

    Bollington

    Longdendale

    Brandon and

    Marple

    Newquay

    Byshottles

    Brentwood

    Ramsbottom

    Burgess Hill

    Redditch

    Bushey

    St. Neots

    Cannock

    Sandy

    Cheshunt

    Sowerby Bridge

    Chigwell

    Stanley

    Chorleywood

    Sutton-in-Ashfield

    Colne Valley

    Swanscombe

    Conisbrough

    Thornton Cleveleys

    Corby

    Trowbridge

    Crawley

    Urmston

    Cuckfield

    Winsford

    Dawley

    Wirral

    Dorking

    Witham

    Farnborough

    Rural District Councils

    Abingdon

    Belper

    Barnard Castle

    Bucklow

    Basingstoke

    Chailey

    County Councils

    Kent

    West Sussex

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES WHICH HAVE BEEN REFUSED AN ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION (123)

    County Borough Councils

    Barrow-in-Furness

    Solihull

    Bolton

    Southport

    Bournemouth

    South Shields

    Coventry

    Wallasey

    Leeds

    Walsall

    Newcastle upon Tyne

    Warrington

    Nottingham

    Worcester

    Rotherham

    London Borough Councils

    Hackney

    Sutton

    Harrow

    Borough Councils

    Bacup

    Lymington

    Beverley

    Maidenhead

    Calne

    Mossley

    Chelmsford

    Newcastle-under

    Clitheroe

    Lyme

    Crosby

    Ossett

    Darwen

    Rye

    Dukinfield

    Taunton

    Farnworth

    Tewkesbury

    Goole

    Todmorden

    Kendal

    Truro

    Lancaster

    Weston Super Mare

    Leigh

    Winchester

    Loughborough

    Urban District Councils

    Benfleet

    Crompton

    Bishop Auckland

    Cudworth

    Braintree & Bocking

    Denby Dale

    Bredbury & Romily

    Droylsden

    Brightlingsea

    Elland

    Broadstairs &

    Ely

    St. Peters

    Epping

    Budleigh Salterton

    Farnham

    Burnham-on-Crouch

    Felling

    Consett

    Felixstowe

    Rural District Councils

    Barrow-upon-Soar

    Howden

    Bingham

    Isle of Wight

    Bridge Blean

    Lichfield

    Bromyard

    Malling

    Caistor

    Mitford and

    Camelford

    Launditch

    Chapel-en-le-Frith

    Repton

    Cranbrook

    Rotherham

    Deben

    St. Austell

    Derwent

    Tenterden

    Dorking and Horley

    Wellington

    Dover

    West Ashford

    East Kesteven

    Wortley

    Gipping

    Yeovil

    Hollingbourn

    SUPPLEMENTARY LIST OF AUTHORITIES WHICH RECEIVED ONE ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION BUT WERE REFUSED A SECOND (65)

    County Borough Councils

    Birkenhead

    Manchester

    Bradford

    Northampton

    Canterbury

    St. Helens

    Chester

    Sheffield

    Gateshead

    Stockport

    Huddersfield

    Sunderland

    Liverpool

    Torbay

    Luton

    London Borough Councils

    Bromley

    Kensington and

    Islington

    Chelsea

    Borough Councils

    Andover

    Macclesfield

    Basingstoke

    St. Ives

    Cheltenham

    Swinton and

    Cleethorpes

    Pendlebury

    Eastleigh

    Truro

    Fleetwood

    Wisbech

    Gravesend

    Urban District Councils

    Aireborough

    Hazel Grove and

    Audenshaw

    Bramhall

    Beeston and

    Kirkby

    Stapleford

    Knottingley

    Brandon and

    Longdendale

    Byshottles

    Newquay

    Dawley

    Thornton Cleveleys

    Farnborough

    Trowbridge

    Golbourne

    Urmston

    Winsford

    Rural District Councils

    Belper

    Maldon

    Chanctonbury

    Meriden

    Chester

    New Forest

    Chester le Street

    Pewsey

    Depwade

    Pocklington

    Gloucester

    Saint Ives

    Leominster and Wigmore

    Sedgefield

    Tadcaster

    Liskeard

    Wantage

    Long Ashton

    Wokingham

    Housing
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he proposes to increase the number of houses started in the public and private sectors, respectively.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): As I indicated in the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 25th November, measures already taken to help the building industry and our proposals for the reform of housing finance should benefit both the public and the private sectors.—[Vol. 809, c. 407.]
    Mr. Allaun: The right hon. Gentleman will notice that the building trade employers are not very optimistic. Is it not obvious that if the Minister makes this really swingeing cut in subsidies there is bound to be a further reduction in council house building? Is that really what the Minister intends?
    Mr. Amery: No, Sir. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we are starting from a pretty difficult foundation. House building output fell by 11 per cent. at constant prices in the last year of the previous Government. The decline in completions in 1969 was the worst since the war. There were 82,000 fewer houses started in 1969 than in 1964. So we are starting from a fairly difficult launching pad.
    Mr. James Hill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that on difficulty has been the squirrel-like attitude of some local councils in hoarding land and not releasing it for development?
    Mr. Amery: I agree that this is one problem. My hon. Friend the Undersecretary is in touch with a number of local authorities at the present time to try to ease this problem. We are optimistic about the outcome of these talks.
    Mr. Crosland: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that when many Tory councils reduced their council building programme last year they were carrying out the advice given by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? Is he not further aware that we can make no sensible Projection about what is likely to happer to the housing programme until we have a statement amplifying his right hon. Friend's statement of 3rd November? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea when we are likely to get further details?
    Mr. Amery: On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I beg him to believe me when I say that he has totally misunderstood what my right hon. Friend said earlier. He should make a study of my right hon. Friend's words. I hope to begin conversations with local authority associations next week.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent consultations he has had with local authorities and other building agencies about future building programmes.
    Mr. Amery: My Department keeps in close touch with housing authorities about their housebuilding programmes.
    Mr. Eadie: But the right hon. Gentleman must be aware, in keeping in close touch with housing authorities or housing agencies, that there is at this moment substantial unemployment in the construction industry. Since his Government profess; to show some concern about this, would it not be more sensible to employ these construction workers on building houses?
    Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do the very difficult inheritance which we have received, and which the construction industry has received, from the previous Administration. I see signs of some pick-up in both civil engineering and private sector housing, and I am hoping that we shall presently see this reflected in the public sector as well.
    Mr. Allason: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the fact that selective employment tax adds about £135 to the cost of an average house?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, my hon. Friend is right about that—[HON. MEMBERS: "No,

    1321
    he is not."] As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to reduce it, so we shall reduce the cost of building and increase the demand for it.
    Mr. Freeson: Referring to that part of the Question which deals with local authorities' housing programmes, is the Minister aware that the major cut-back in housing construction by local authorities has taken place since the advent of the Conservative Party to town halls up and down the country, which took advice from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? What action does he propose to take with his own friends in the town halls this side of the elections next May to get them to reverse their policies and enlarge the programmes again?
    Mr. Amery: If the hon. Gentleman will adopt perhaps a less partisan and more responsible attitude towards the problem, I think he will realise that he failed to secure co-operation with the local authorities. I believe that I shall succeed.
    Mr. Arthur Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in the course of his review of housing finance, he will have regard to the fact that the incidence of the present housing subsidy structure for local authority schemes favours redevelopment rather than conversion and renovation of existing properties; and if he will take steps to review this arrangement.
    Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Jones: May I have my right hon. Friend's assurance that in the review of housing he will have regard to the social advantages there clearly are of conversion and improvement schemes?
    Mr. Amery: We regard improvement and conversion as central to our whole policy. There are four million houses which can be made comfortable homes but which, without this grant, could become slums.
    Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no retrospective cutting down of subsidies already in payment on existing houses?
    Mr. Amery: I shall be making a fuller statement in due course after my dis-
    1322
    cussions with the local authorities on the course of our reform of housing finance, but it must be clear to the hon. Gentleman that we are going over from financing bricks and mortar to financing families who need the help.

    Royal Parks (Pop Festivals)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will give an assurance that the full expense and damage of future pop festivals in the Royal Parks will be met by the organisers and not become a charge to public funds.
    Mr. Channon: Musical entertainments of all kinds in the Royal Parks are provided at public expense. There has been little damage, and my hon. Friend will know that the cost of clearing up after the recent pop festival was small.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is not this an activity which should be financed by those responsible? Should not the public pay for their enjoyment? Will my hon. Friend consider the proposition that the organisers of such events should make a deposit in case of damage which may become a charge to public funds?
    Mr. Channon: I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said, but the cost of clearing up was very small. In the case of military and brass band concerts in the Royal Parks, the approximate cost of fees to performers was £11,000. I shall bear in mind any views that my hon. Friend or anyone else puts to me.
    Mr. Denis Howell: We on this side oppose these charges. Will the hon. Gentleman say how he conceives it possible to charge for admission to museums while taking a contrary view on this question?
    Mr. Channon: I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman can oppose these charges. It was his Government which imposed them.

    British Waterways Board
    Mr. John Wellsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what his future policy will be about enabling the British Waterways Board to retain more of its earnings in order to develop its capital resources and to acquire adjacent properties that will enable the board to operate on a more profitable basis.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): The board Sir, has no surplus earnings. I am very willing to consider any proposition that would reduce the burden on the taxpayer or the extent of Government involvement.
    Mr. Wells: Is it not true that the board may not have surplus earnings but it makes a profit in certain sectors and this has to be repaid to the Treasury, whereas a certain element of limited ploughback could enable it to acquire more properties and thereby make greater use of its assets and thus speed up the implementation of Conservative policy for the Waterways Board?
    Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend, who has great knowledge of this matter, knows that this proposal has been put forward by others, but I must tell him that while there were net profits on freight services of £46,000 in 1969, the net loss on running commercial waterways was £330,000.
    Mr. John Wellsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give a general direction to the British Waterways Board to show in its accounts in future the profits or losses on its pleasure-boat operation, and to publish a supplement to its accounts revealing these figures.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: No, Sir. The British Waterways Board already publishes this information in its accounts.
    Mr. Wells: While I am well aware of the figures which appear in Table D2 of the accounts last year, the word "net" creeps in in this category, and what the word "net" means is highly suspect. Will my hon. Friend look at this again with a view to having a proper break-down published, showing the depreciation of the boats, the repairs, the insurance and the administration that can rightly be ascribed to boats, as opposed to general administration?
    Mr. Griffiths: I understand that the figures in the accounts are net of all properly attributable expenses and overheads and that they represent the true outcome of the board's pleasure boat operations. On my hon. Friend's suggestion, certainly I will look at this matter.

    Local Authorities (Work-Studied Bonus Schemes)
    Mr. Moyleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will issue a circular to local authorities recommending them to extend work-studied bonus schemes for greater numbers of their employees, as recommended by the National Board for Prices and Incomes, Report No. 29.
    The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): Yes, Sir. This is an appropriate time to do so since, with my right hon. Friend's encouragement, the Local Authorities Management Services and Computer Committee—L.A.M.S.A.C.—has taken steps to increase the extended advisory service it offers to local authorities setting up such schemes.
    Mr. Moyle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Would he not agree that this is a far better way of maintaining the hard-won peace in the local authority area than uttering hysterical cries about someone like Sir Jack Scamp when he undertakes a difficult job at short notice in the public interest?
    Mr. Page: This encouragement to local authorities was under consideration long before the Scamp Report, and my right hon. Friend visited local authorities with this purpose in mind very shortly after coming into office.

    Road Services
    Mr. Foxasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken, having regard to the provision of Section 135(2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, to ensure that, in considering an application for a road service licence, the Traffic Commissioners will take full account of the failure of existing licence holders for similar services to provide the services required by the public; and if he will review the law relating to road service licences to give greater emphasis to the needs of the user rather than established operators.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The answer to the first part of the question is that the traffic commissioners do take account of any failure on the part of existing licence

    1325
    holders. On the second part, we are already reviewing the licensing system generally.
    Mr. Fox: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he bear in mind that the failure of an operator to give an adequate service under licence not only effectively and permanently kills demand but is more than likely to result in the loss of a substantial number of passengers to the industry?
    Mr. Griffiths: I am aware that the bus industry has problems. My right hon. Friend's review will take these matters into account, because we are anxious to ensure that this system is suitable for present-day needs.

    Offensive Odours
    Mr. Wellbelovedasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that his powers to take action to eliminate the nuisance caused by offensive odours are sufficient; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Under the Public Health Acts it is the responsibility of the local authority to require, and of the courts to enforce, the abatement of offensive odours which are a nuisance.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the London Borough of Bexley to those provisions? Is he aware that in my area there is a major sewerage works which gives off a most distressing and nauseating stench? While it may not be harmful to health, it is certainly most inconvenient to my constituents.
    Mr. Walker: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. David Stoddart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is quite a widespread problem, and that in the Shrivenham Road area in my constituency people are plagued by smells from burning animal carcases? It really is a most horrible smell. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he should strengthen the powers and ensure that local authorities use those which they already have?
    Mr. Walker: They have considerable powers and, likewise, the courts have
    1326
    powers to enforce them. I am sure that the people in the area referred to by the hon. Gentleman should contact the local authority about this problem.

    Luton Airport (Aircraft Noise)
    Mr. Allasonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what reply he has sent to the letter from the Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise dated 18th November about the grant of planning approval at Luton Airport.
    Mr. Graham Page: I have had a copy from my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), and I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of my reply.
    Mr. Allason: Is my hon. Friend aware that when planning permission was granted to Luton our right hon. Friend expressed confidence that Luton would not cause increased disturbance by aircraft noise, but that Luton now proposes to increase night jet flight take-offs by 42 per cent. in the season?
    Hon. Members: Reading!
    Mr. Allason: Will my hon. Friend please take enforcement action against this breach, in the interests of the environment?
    Mr. Page: This is a difficult point, because my right hon. Friend has no power to control either the number of flights or the number of passengers using the airport. He has made it clear to Luton Borough Council that we recognise that there is widespread concern about the effects of aircraft noise in the area, particularly to the east of the airport, as a result of the intensification of activities there. We have asked the council to have due regard to these effects and to the adequacy of airport facilities before entering into future commitments with airline operators.
    Mr. Rankin: Will the hon. Gentleman make it perfectly clear that he is not aiding and abetting a low-down plan to limit the activities of Luton Airport?
    Mr. Page: So far as my right hon. Friend wants to know and to have some influence on the increase of activities there, we are limiting the increase of

    1327
    activities, but the real point is the long-term future of this airport, which must await the report from Roskill.
    Mr. John Hall: Would my hon. Friend agree that aircraft noise is becoming an intolerable nuisance? Many of my constituents are suffering from the effects of over-flying not only from Luton but from London Airport. Is it not time that there was a national inquiry into the development and siting of present and future airports, and an inquiry into the effects of increasing noise on the wellbeing and welfare of people?
    Mr. Page: I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. Noise is now a very serious matter. My Department deals with it as best it can under planning laws and planning applications. We would like to consider whether there is any need for further control.

    A64 (Malton Bypass)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is aware of the widespread concern over the delay in announcing a date for the start of the work on the Malton bypass scheme on the A64; and whether he has yet received the amended firm programme report.
    Mr. Michael Heseltine: I understand that the amended firm programme report will be submitted by the North Riding County Council by the end of the year. Once received, it will be considered urgently, and I hope that an announcement about a place in the programme will follow early in 1971.
    Mr. Turton: Is my hon. Friend aware that for 32 years there has been pressure for this bypass, which would remove the congestion on this road? This proposal has been in the preparation pool for three years. Why is it dragging on like this, when everybody in the West and North Riding is anxious for it to be started as soon as possible?
    Mr. Heseltine: I much appreciate the work that my right hon. Friend has put into this scheme. I hope that a possible announcement early in 1971 will help, but there have been redesign problems recently. We have to avail the solution of these, and ensure that the scheme stands up to the tests that we have to apply.

    Clyde Estuary (Ocean Terminals)
    Mr. Lambieasked the Secretary of State f pr the Environment what will be the effect of the proposed cuts in public expenditure on the plans of the Clyde Port Authority to build ocean terminals on the Clyde Estuary.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I understand the authority's plans remain unchanged.
    Mr. Lambie: May I take it from that reply that the Government will provide the necessary finance to enable the Clyde Port Authority to start immediately on the iron ore terminal which the Secretary of State for Scotland has now approved? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that unless the Scottish steel industry gets this terminal within the next 20 years it will fade away?
    Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is much better than I at looking 20 years ahead. We must await the port authority's proposals, which we shall look at sympathetically.

    Unfurnished Rented Accommodation (Premiums)
    Mr. Torneyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to stop the practice of charging premiums upon unfurnished rented accommodation which is charged in addition to a weekly rent.
    Mr. Channon: I would draw the hon. Member's attention to Part VII of the Rent Act, 1968, which makes it an offence to charge a premium for the grant, renewal or continuance of a protected tenancy.
    Mr. Torney: Is the Minister aware that t sere is a considerable racket in London at the moment whereby, in addition to the rent that a tenant wishing to take an unfurnished flat is asked to pay, he has to pay anything from £200 to £1,000 for what are called "fixtures and fittings", and, when he looks at the place, he often finds that the fixtures and fittings can be thrown out because they are absolute rubbish? In other words, is the Minister aware that landlords are placing conditions on tenancies, and will he do something about it?
    Mr. Channon: I have already said that it is an offence to charge a premium. If

    1329
    the hon. Gentleman knows of cases where this happens, I hope he will let me have details, although it is primarily a matter for local authorities to prosecute. My right hon. Friend is considering, following consultation with the Francis Committee, making it compulsory for tenants' rights to be put in their rent books as a matter of statute.

    Ports Industry
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has now completed his review of the management and operation of the ports; whether he has completed his plans for strengthening the Ports Council; and if he will now make a statement.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My right hon. Friend will make a statement as soon as possible.
    Mr. Osborn: Is it not vital that the individual ports should be run as viable commercial enterprises to a much greater extent? Has not the Ports Council a great rôle to play, as was envisaged in the 1964 Act?
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes, but it is not for the National Ports Council to run the ports. Obviously the council can and does help with advice, but matters of management are for the ports themselves.
    Mr. Tinn: Before making his statement, will the Minister look at the tremendous expansion which has taken place on Teesside, which in terms of dry cargo handled is now the third largest port in the United Kingdom? Is he aware that this success has been largely due to excellent labour relations in this publicly-owned port?
    Mr. Griffiths: My right hon. Friend will look at the situation in all ports, whether privately-owned or publicly-owned, before making his statement.
    Mr. Mulley: Does not the Minister agree that this matter has more urgency than the Government seem to attach to it? Surely before putting a proposal for a strengthened central body in the Conservative election manifesto, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite gave some thought to what they meant. Surely those in the ports industry, after more than six months, are entitled to know what the Government have in mind for the
    1330
    industry. May we be told when we shall get this important statement?
    Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend is studying the matter carefully. He is not making precipitate decisions. He will make a statement as soon as he is able.

    Traffic Offences (Automatic Disqualification)
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to amend the Road Traffic Act, 1962, so that a person is not liable to automatic disqualification unless he has committed not less than three of the specified offences on three occasions within a period of three years.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: No, Sir.
    Mr. Osborn: Is my hon. Friend aware that the existing legislation has been interpreted a little harshly? There has been correspondence giving examples. Will he look at it again?
    Mr. Griffiths: It is true that courts have discretion to mitigate the penalty of automatic disqualification if there are grounds for doing so having regard to all the circumstances. My hon. Friend, who is knowledgeable in this matter, will understand that the courts in the end must determine the application of this rule.

    Lambeth (Housing Finance)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional aid will be given to the London Borough of Lambeth for housing purposes in the next financial year.
    Mr. Channon: I expect the borough to continue to receive special additional help under Section 5 of the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967.
    Mr. Lipton: That is a vague answer. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that with 7,600 people officially homeless in the Inner London area, three times the number 10 years ago, London's housing problem has now reached catastrophic dimensions? It is no use playing with the problem, as the Government seem to be doing. When shall we have less talk and more do?
    Mr. Channon: Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House are

    1331
    deeply concerned about London's housing problem. But I cannot possibly take from the hon. Gentleman the suggestion that this is vague. This is a provision in the Act passed by his right hon. Friends. If he thought it vague, why did he not say so at the time?
    Mr. Allason: Are not right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House deeply concerned about conditions in London, including the Opposition Chief Whip, and cannot the Government give some hope that there will be considerable improvements over the appalling performance of the previous Government?
    Mr. Channon: I very much hope that that will be the case.
    Mr. Loughlin: It will not.
    Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman is a pessimist. My right hon. Friend has already taken action to try to solve this problem. As my right hon. Friend said on 3rd November, the present reforms of housing finance will mean that those areas where the housing problems are worst will get extra benefit.
    Mr. Freeson: That will not operate until after 1972. The situation is getting worse. Lambeth is a notable exception. Is the Minister aware that most authorities in London in the last two or three years have been cutting back to a drastic degree on their housing programmes? Specifically, will he take action with the Sutton Borough Council to ensure—not request—that land is made available in Sutton to assist Lambeth Borough Council, and that similar action is taken—not requested—with other authorities round London?
    Mr. Channon: I cannot understand what the hon. Gentleman was doing when he and his right hon. and hon. Friends were in office. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to imagine that, after six years of neglect of London's housing problem, by a magic wand we should cure it in six months.
    Mr. Lipton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Maclennan: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. On a number of occasions you have ruled that it is unsuitable for a Minister to reply to a Question by asking a question in turn. The last reply of the Minister was in the form of a rhetorical question. Is that acceptable?
    Mr. Speaker: It was a rhetorical question.

    Mid-Anglia
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make an official visit to mid-Anglia early in 1971.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I have no plans for an official visit to mid-Anglia early in 1971.
    Mr. Lane: Will my right hon. Friend remember that the future well-being of the Cambridge area depends upon the solution of difficult problems over roads, local government reform and general planning policy, and that if he or a colleague can find time to visit Cambridge and get a feeling of the situation for himself, he will be very welcome?
    Mr. Walker: I am grateful for that suggestion.

    Rents
    Mr. Kaufmanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for renewing the provisions of the Rents (Control of Increases) Act beyond 1971.
    Mr. Amery: None, Sir, but I shall be discussing with the local authority associations the limit on council rent increases arising from our proposals for the reform of housing finance.
    Mr. Kaufman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that that is a totally deplorable answer? Does he not realise that, following the vague threats arising from the Secretary of State's policy, which will inevitably mean large rises in rents, for both private and council tenants, particularly in my constituency, this latest announcement, which he has made with such complacency, means that the only safeguard for tenants in the grading of, and ceilings on, rents, which the Labour

    1333
    Government brought in and which, of course, his own party delightedly voted against, will now be removed?
    Mr. Amery: The hon. Member is making something of a mountain out of a molehill. Our proposals specifically provide that tenants who are in need will get rebates or allowances to cover their need.
    Mr. Crosland: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no one is making a mountain out of a molehill on this, and that his right hon. Friend's statement on 3rd November was of the most profound importance, since it will affect the housing conditions of hundreds of thousands of people? He has told us that he is starting his discussions next week. Can he tell us, as this is a matter of the greatest urgency, when he will have concluded those and when he hopes to make a further statement to the House?
    Mr. Amery: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman recognises the importance of our proposals. I cannot say exactly when the conversations will end. After all, this is a two-way traffic. When we embarked upon them, we do not set a definite limit to them; we want to hear the advice which will be given to us by the borough associations, and this may last some weeks or some months. I cannot say yet, but, of course, I will report to the House as soon as I can do so.
    Mr. Longden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that among the other results of this Act has been an enormous increase in the number of slums, simply because the landlords, the owners, cannot afford to keep their property in repair?
    Mr. Amery: I think that our reforms will enable authorities which are burdened with slums or serious overcrowding to have greater resources to deal with those problems.
    Mr. Crosland: I must press the Minister on this. When his right hon. Friend made his statement on 3rd November, which I agree reflected Tory policy, he must have known what he was doing and have had some idea of the details in his mind. Is it really conceivable that the Minister now has no idea whether those discussions with the local authorities will
    1334
    take two weeks or six months? If so, he should learn something about his job.
    Mr. Amery: Looking back at the housing record of the last Administration, I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues learned anything in six years. They seem to have learned nothing and to have forgotten nothing. Of course it would be quite wrong to say when conversations will end. When one starts a dialogue with other people, one does not set a time limit to it: one listens to their arguments and thrashes them out.
    Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one who, unlike the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden), represents many people who have—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to give notice, he should do it briefly and in the conventional way.
    Mr. Kaufman: Well, in deference to you, Mr. Speaker, briefly and in the conventional way—
    Mr. Speaker: In the conventional way: Mr. Kaufman.
    Mr. Kaufman: I beg to give notice that, in view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as early as possible.

    Capital Programmes (Circular 2/70)
    Mr. Idris Owenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on Circular 2/70, Capital Programmes, issued by his department on 12th November.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The arrangements announced in the circular to start next April give to local authorities greater freedom to make their own decisions. While the Government will continue to exercise control over the total amount local authorities may borrow, procedures will be simplified and for a large area of spending central control over detail will be relaxed.

    Thamesmead (Sewage Sludge)
    Mr. Wellbelovedasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he intends to take to ensure that sewage sludge is not dumped on open

    1335
    land a few hundred yards from residential properties on the Greater London Council's new housing development at Thamesmead; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Heseltine: None, Sir. I am sure that in operating its disposal works the G.L.C. is mindful of its statutory obligation to discharge its drainage functions without creating a nuisance. Digested sludge, which is a harmless and substantially inoffensive liquid, was put on this land in an emergency, and I understand that the site would only be used for that purpose again if a similar need arose.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: As that is a most unsatisfactory answer, would the hon. Gentleman do my constituents the courtesy of visiting Thamesmead and explaining to the tenants there that he will support the Greater London Council in depositing sewage sludge within 300 yards of occupied residential property? It is a disgraceful situation, and the Minister should be ashamed that he is not taking action to stop it.
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman might address his remarks to the people who made it necessary for the sewage to be deposited on this particular land.
    Mr. Ronald Brown: In view of the fact that the Greater London Council gave an undertaking to those of us who had discussions with it on its General Powers Bill that this could not conceivably happen, is it not a fact that it has shown us that we cannot take its word on any occasion? When its General Powers (No. 2) Bill comes up, I intend to stop it, because it has been thoroughly dishonest.
    Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the G.L.C. will take full account of what the hon. Member has said.

    Local Government Reform
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give a date for the publication of the White Paper on local government reform.
    Mr. Peter Walker: It is intended to publish a White Paper in the New Year.
    Mr. Montgomery: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but would he bear in mind that the five county
    1336
    boroughs of the West Midlands are opposed to the Maud recommendation, and that as they had a drastic reorganisation in 1966 they feel that they should be exempt from any future reorganisation?
    Mr. Walker: The boroughs concerned have certainly not hesitated to send me their views on this topic.
    Mr. Crosland: Is it not rather curious that the Government can give us a fairly exact date for a White Paper on local government reorganisation but apparently can give us no date whatsoever for a statement on housing?
    Mr. Walker: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should take the phrase "in the New Year" as being an exact date.
    Mrs. Knightasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that the interests of local government staff will be safeguarded during the course of local government reform.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The interests of local government staff adversely affected by local government reorganisation will be safeguarded, and once the Government's proposals for that reorganisation are announced I intend to enter into consultations with representatives of those likely to be affected concerning the nature of the safeguards.
    Mrs. Knight: Will the Minister recognise that local authorities are already undergoing quite a severe shake-up as a result of the Local Authority Social Services Act, and that this is in some ways detrimental to recruitment of, for instance, medical officers of health? Does he not think that it might be as well to let local authorities get over this shakeup before they are saddled with another burden of reorganisation?
    Mr. Walker: I do not consider it right to delay more than is necessary the proper reform of local government, but we will certainly ensure that local government staff are properly safeguarded.

    Palace of Westminster (Facilities for Disabled Persons)
    Mr. McElhoneasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken to make the Palace of

    1337
    Westminster more accessible to disabled people, following the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970.
    Mr. Channon: I am glad to say that disabled people can already get to the main public parts of the building by the use of existing lifts. I am looking into the possibility of providing still better access by way of ramps in Star Chamber Court. Special lavatory facilities have now been provided off the Lower Waiting Hall.
    Mr. McElhone: While I pay tribute to the work which has already been started, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, as this was the building in which this wonderful piece of legislation was created, it is only right and proper that any further alterations should have the highest priority?
    Mr. Channon: I entirely agree, and the policy so far accords broadly with, and is anticipating, the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.

    Council Houses (Sale)
    Mr. Cockeramasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has examined proposals for the use, by local authorities, of estate agents for valuation and sales promotion of council houses; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Channon: I understand that Birmingham City Council uses estate agents for this purpose. I welcome any initiative which helps to promote the sale of council houses.
    Mr. Cockerham: Is my hon. Friend aware that if he really wants to sell council houses he could not do better than employ those who are professionally skilled in the job and who, additionally, can give mortgage advice? Will he advise local councils to follow that course?
    Mr. Channon: Birmingham City Council has done an excellent job in this respect.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: Are we to understand that local authorities are paying the usual rate of commission to estate agents for the sale of council houses?
    Mr. Channon: This is a matter for the local authorities concerned, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consult them.

    Office Development Control
    Mr. Cockeramasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects his examination of the present system of office development control to be completed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 7th December to my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat).—[Vol. 808, c. 44, 45.]

    Royal Commission on the Environment
    Mrs. Fennerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now review the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on the Environment; and if he will impose both a timetable and priorities upon its deliberations.
    Mr. Peter Walker: No, Sir. The Government are already free to ask for the Commission's advice on urgent problems, without denying it the freedom of deciding to which aspects of pollution it should attach priority.
    Mrs. Fenner: While I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask him to note my natural scepticism about delaying tactics like the setting up of Royal Commissions? May I seek his assurance constantly to bear in mind the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) at the time when this Commission was established, that what the public want is not advice, consultation or co-ordination but action?
    Mr. Walker: I fully understand my hon. Friend's attitude to Royal Commissions in general. This one, however, is a perpetual Royal Commission which will be constantly reporting on various aspects of the problem.

    Definitive Footpath Maps
    Mr. Roothasked the Secretary of State for the Environment which counties sell definitive footpath maps to the public.
    Mr. Graham Page: This information is not available in my Department, but definitive footpaths are being incorporated in Ordnance Survey Maps (1 in. and

    1339
    1=25,000 series) as and when these are revised.
    Mr. Booth: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is difficult, if not impossible, for many people to exercise their right of access to many parts of the countryside unless they are able to purchase definitive footpath maps? Will he, therefore, approach county authorities to ensure that they sell definitive footpath maps relating to their areas?
    Mr. Page: Definitive footpath maps are available for inspection at county council and county district offices and copies are available at many public libraries. A large number of counties provide this facility.
    Mr. Marten: As many footpaths are utterly out of date, are hundreds of years old and were originally designed for people walking from one job to another, which they no longer do, may I ask what the Government propose to do about footpaths which go straight across fields which farmers wish to plough up?
    Mr. Page: This matter was recently considered under Statute. I do not know whether another examination is necessary now.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great public concern about the number of footpaths which are illegally closed and that the right of access to the countryside should be protected in all circumstances? Will he bear that in mind?
    Mr. Page: I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman, and he will appreciate my concern over this from a previous honour I had, of being chairman of the Pedestrians' Association.

    Gloucester (Railway Stations)
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheimasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when a decision is likely to result from the discussions which have been taking place between the British Railways Board and his Department, with regard to the re-siting of Gloucester Eastgate and Central Stations at Barnwood; and if he will give an assurance that this matter will be dealt with as speedily as possible.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Discussions about road access have been satisfactorily com-
    1340
    pleted. The decision to proceed further is one for British Rail.
    Mrs. Oppenheim: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that both Departments concerned were approached as long ago as 1968 and that, as the outcome of these discussions concerns the whole road system within the City of Gloucester, it is important that we have a definite decision one way or the other as soon as possible?
    Mr. Griffiths: I am sure that the board of British Rail is well aware of this and will mike an announcement as soon as it can.
    Mr. David Stoddart: Is it possible for the Minister to say what effect this will have on line working at Swindon? May we have an assurance that the trade unions and workers concerned will be consulted about this project before it goes ahead?
    Mr. Griffiths: I am sure that British Rail kill follow its practice of consulting the trade unions. On the first part of that supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman might care to table a Question.

    A6 Diversion, Hazel Grove
    Mr. Normantonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for progressing the A6 diversion in the Hazel Grove area.
    Mr. Michael Heseltine: My right hon. Friend hopes to publish proposals for the line of the Hazel Grove bypass during late 1971.
    Mr. Normanton: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I again draw his attention to the fact that there is a considerable sense of frustration felt by people who live in the district and by the very large volume of traffic which flows through it? May I earnestly hope that the Government will give urgent consideration to imposing the maximum priority for the completion of this work?
    Mr. Heseltine: We are well aware of the importance of devising a properly integrated system, and this is bound to take some time.

    Derelict Land (Statistics)
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will

    1341
    now review the definition of derelict land, and the method by which it is recorded for official statistics, in view of frequent authoritative representations of underestimation of this information.
    Mr. Graham Page: Proposals for assembling at regular intervals factual information on a wider basis than at present are under discussion with the local authority associations.
    Miss Fookes: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. Will he be as quick as possible and complete this within, say, six months?
    Mr. Page: I think we shall be ready a lot earlier than that, though I would not like to give a specific time.
    Mr. Cant: Would the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend whether, in considering this question of derelict land, an artificial distinction is made between man-made dereliction and natural dereliction? Will he extend the 75 per cent. grant to both areas, particularly in the case of older industrial areas like the City of Stoke-on-Trent?
    Mr. Page: For the record, it is 85 per cent. for development areas. I would rather see this go on expanding, as it is now, than try to extend it to other land until we see really good progress on the removal of these heaps.

    Empty Property (Rating)
    Mr. Kinseyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further representations he has received concerning the levying of rates on empty property; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Graham Page: My right hon. Friend has received a few representations on this subject, almost equally divided between those for greater stringency and those for greater flexibility than in the existing statutory provisions. We are examining this matter in the current review of local government finance.
    Mr. Kinsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am delighted with that reply because of the difficulties that local authorities face in dealing with this problem? Authorities are anxious not to hit house building but would like to see flexibility exempting bonus—but they do not want
    1342
    to see void shops and office property in their areas not having rates levied on them. Will he be examining this question of void shops with no fronts to them and the need for a better definition?
    Mr. Page: We believe that the locally-elected authorities are the best people to decide whether or not to adopt these procedures in their areas.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable point in drawing a distinction between the two different types of property? Since only 95 councils have used their permissive powers, will he make it compulsory for them to charge full rates and not half-rates?
    Mr. Page: No. There is no intention of making this compulsory. As I said, we believe that the local authorities are the best people to judge whether or not this is required in their areas.

    Housing Standards
    Mr. Idris Owenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will institute a departmental study of the advantages of low-cost housing as an alternative to the Parker-Morris Standard imposed on local authorities at present, which puts the cost of council housing beyond the reach of the lower-paid.
    Mr. Amery: I have carefully considered departing from the Parker-Morris Standards but have concluded that any resulting savings would be more than offset by earlier obsolescence. Under our proposed reform of housing finance, rent rebates will be available to tenants who cannot afford a fair rent for the accommodation they need.
    Mr. Owen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not always in the best interests of the young people whom we are trying to house to offer them homes which it is beyond their means to afford, for that will inevitably lead to a continuation of the ever-burdensome high level of subsidisation which the nation will eventually not be able to afford? Does he agree that everybody likes to have homes of a more luxurious character?
    Mr. Amery: I think my hon. Friend will accept that it would be a mistake in the public sector to lower standards

    1343
    and produce obsolescence earlier than we can avoid. There is a good deal of building in the private sector below the Parker-Morris Standards, and this may meet the needs of the kind of families he has in mind, particularly as we improve mortgage opportunities.
    Mr. Leonard: Is the Minister aware that the first part of that answer will be widely welcomed on this side of the House? Is he also aware that the proper way to assist lower-paid people with housing is to accept that the level of Government assistance going towards housing should be increased rather than reduced by the £200 million foreshadowed in his right hon. Friend's statement?
    Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman should turn his awareness to the fact that the rent rebate scheme which we propose will follow that which has been adopted by a number of local authorities already and, as we develop it, will meet the needs of those who really are in need, instead of calling on the taxpayer to subsidise those who are not.

    Private Cars (Hiring)
    Mr. Arthur Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration has been given to the proposal that the licence granted to private car owners should permit the use of the vehicle for private hire purposes with a view to the supplementation of public transport facilities and a more effective use of economic resources, including road space.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: We are examining the public service vehicle licensing system generally, including its relevance to small vehicles.
    Mr. Jones: Will not my hon. Friend agree that schemes of protection for public services are completely outdated in present-day circumstances, and although we have had a number of reviews of rural services—we have had three of them—has not the time come to stop reviewing and come to some decision?
    Mr. Griffiths: I am well aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend refers, and that is precisely why we are looking very carefully at the whole licensing system in order to find out whether it is flexible enough, particularly in the rural
    1344
    areas. My right hon. Friend certainly intends to make some progress in the matter.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is not the hon. Gentleman also aware of the very serious abuses of private hire schemes, and the need to pay attention to the Bill being promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) for greater control?
    Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Member has examples of abuses, I am sure that he will do his best to put them forward precisely.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now give a date for the publication of the Green Paper on local government finance.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I am hoping to publish the Green Paper in spring, 1971, but I cannot yet give a date.
    Mr. Montgomery: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great dissatisfaction felt by many people with the present rating system because it is unfair, in that it does not take account of a person's ability to pay?
    Mr. Walker: The Green Paper will certainly include comments on the present system, and look at all possible alternatives.
    Mr. Crosland: is the Minister aware that if people are dissatisfied now with the rating system they will be a great deal more dissatisfied with it next spring when, as a result of his Rate Support Grant Order, most people's rates will go up by an average of 2s. or 2s. 6d. in the £?
    Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the last two years of his Government the total amount to be raised by rates increased substantially faster than it had for many years.

    Housing Aid Centres
    Mr. Peter Archerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to encourage local authorities to establish within housing departments a housing advisory service.
    Mr. Amery: It is my intention to send a memorandum to selected local authorities in the near future. This will recommend the establishment of comprehensive housing aid centres, wherever they are needed, by local authorities or by voluntary organisations or by a combination of the two.
    Mr. Archer: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but would he not agree that there is no difficulty here, that local authority housing lists could be substantially relieved if suitable families were advised of alternative possibilities? Is this really beyond the resources of local authorities?
    Mr. Amery: I agree with the hon. Gentleman: I do not think that this is an insuperable problem. We have to stimulate the interest of public authorities. Some of them, like Lambeth, have already done a first-class job of work, but there are differences of opinion whether the housing aid centres should be within or outside the local authority. I think that it is a good thing that there should be pilot schemes in different parts so that we can learn in the light of experience.

    Industrial User Rights
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the existing legislation regarding industrial user rights.
    Mr. Graham Page: My right hon. Friend does not have in mind any general review of industrial user rights. However, the Use Classes Order is under review. He will, of course, be glad to consider any particular point which the hon. Member wishes to bring to his attention.
    Mr. Cox: I thank the Minister for that reply, but is he aware that under present legislation a local authority cannot refuse planning permission once an industrial site has acquired industrial user rights even though an area can have completely changed in character since the site was first developed? Will he therefore consider granting powers to local authorities so that they can judge each application on its merits and its suitability to the site concerned?
    Mr. Page: This would involve a change in planning law, but I will certainly look into the matter.

    Council House Tenants
    Mr. David Stoddartasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to provide that people will not be debarred from remaining or becoming tenants of council houses on grounds of income.
    Mr. Amery: No, Sir.
    Mr. D. Stoddart: That answer was expected, but will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, and advise those of his hon. Friends who have been saying that they will flush out rich tenants of council houses, that that would be an anti-social act? Will he now give an assurance that tenants will not be discriminated against on any ground at all?
    Mr. Amery: I am not aware that authorities do evict tenants in such circumstances. Councils are generally extremely reluctant to terminate tenancies other than in most exceptional circumstances.
    Captain W. Elliot: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, originally, council houses were provided for people in the lower income scale, and ought not that to be considered?
    Mr. Amery: My hon. and gallant Friend is quite right.
    Mr. Marsh: Would not the Minister agree that the supplementary question asked by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) is typical of a mind deeply embedded in a bygone age? Would he also agree that today no one believes that council estates should be single-class areas which are based purely on lower income groups?
    Mr. Amery: It is very agreeable and entertaining to find the right hon. Gentleman advocating subsidy for those who are well off.

    Greater London Council Parks
    Mr. Moyleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will receive representations from the South London Save Our Parks Committee on Greater London Council proposals for the transfer of Greater London Council parks to the boroughs, which

    1347
    require action by him to bring them into effect.
    Mr. Graham Page: The Committee's views on the G.L.C. scheme were submitted last year and were before my right hon. Friend when he decided to consult local authorities affected on a draft Order to give effect to the scheme with certain modifications.
    Mr. Moyle: As those views were made to the Secretary of State's predecessor and not to the Secretary of State himself, does not the hon. Gentleman think that it would be a good thing if his right hon. Friend heard from their own lips what people in South London thought about this scheme? In view of the upward pressure on rates and the difficulty there will be for sports clubs in making use of pitches, will he reconsider the decision and receive a deputation?
    Mr. Page: No, Sir. I think that the views have been well conveyed to my right hon. Friend, and where there appears to be a restriction on the availability of games pitches and there may be loss of central booking facilities, that case has been excluded from the Order. I am thinking of Finsbury Park.

    Air Pollution
    Mrs. Kellettasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will instruct the Warren Spring Laboratory and the Alkali Inspectorate to make available to local planning authorities any information which they may have on the incidence of air pollution by sulphur and other gases within the boundaries of each planning authority.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The Alkali Inspectorate is always ready to help local authorities with advice, though it cannot divulge information obtained in confidence, and the Warren Spring Laboratory is in regular touch with some 500 authorities about local levels of air pollution.
    Mrs. Kellett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he bear in mind that where destruction of trees and hedgerows has occurred and pollution is suspected it would be of great assistance in pinpointing the cause, and, therefore, finding a cure, if levels, particularly maximum levels, could be given to local authorities and others concerned?
    Mr. Walker: Yes. I hope that local authorities will take advantage of the service which is available to them. It is for this and similar reasons that I have decided to strengthen the Alkali Inspectorate.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: I understood the hon. Gentleman to be raising his point of order later.
Mr. McNamara: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, that is a different point of order; that is a treat in store.
Can you inform me, Mr. Speaker, whether the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food has asked your permission to answer Written Questions No. 99 and No. 101?
Mr. Speaker: If the Minister had done so, I should announce it to the House at this moment.
Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order. I am sorry to delay the House on this; point, but it is a point which I believe is of fundamental importance to the House and to hon. Members concerned. In the debate on the White Fish (Inshore Vessels) and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme on 23rd July, 1970, I intervened in a speech that the Minister of Agriculture was making and said this at the end of my intervention:
"Will the right hon. Gentleman make his statement on the future of the White Fish Authority by the end of this year?"
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
"It is likely that by the end of this year I shall make a statement. In fact, I can give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking now that I make a statement before the end of this year about the White Fish Authority and other bodies, as I think it is very important that the authority and the people who work for it, as well as the fishing industry, should not be kept … dangling, if that is the right word, for too long."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 892.]
On later occasions my hon. Friends and I pressed the Minister on this matter. On 27th October, 1970 he said this:
"I have already undertaken to make a statement about the White Fish Authority before the end of the year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1970; Vol. 805, c. 14.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, that is not a point of order. It is a point which can be raised during questions on Business tomorrow.
Mr. McNamara: Further to my point of order. There are two Questions down today for Written Answer which seem to be specifically on this point. I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on how hon. Members can be protected. Will you state how you will help to protect hon. Members when Ministers who have given undertakings to make a statement to the House dodge their undertakings on an issue which is of vital importance to us and to our constituents? The Minister knows full well that the only day which is available for him to make a statement about this matter this year will be tomorrow and that tomorrow the majority of hon. Members with fishing interests will be visiting the fish dock installations in Hull. This is a vitally important matter for us.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman came to a point of order, the point of order being that the Minister is making Answers to Written Questions, on which he cannot be questioned, rather than making a statement to the House. I have no power to interfere with a Minister's desire to make a statement either by means of a Written Answer or by means of a Statement to the House.
Mr. Maclennan: Further to that point of order. As the future of this Authority is widely regarded to be a matter of great importance, may I, through you, Mr. Speaker, appeal to the Leader of the House to make representations to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food expressing the dissatisfaction which is felt on this side of the House at the fact that the Minister has chosen to hide behind a Written Answer in this way?
Mr. Speaker: That request will have been noticed.
Mr. James Johnson: On a point of order. As I have just walked in and have met this bombshell, may I be allowed to say that, having seen a Written Question on the Order Paper and suspecting as an old Member that the Minister would perhaps make a statement today, I therefore staked my claim by tabling a Question later on the Order
1350
Paper? I would perhaps bear out all that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I do not know what my hon. Friend has said, actually, because I have only just come in. Nevertheless, I think that it is a little below the standard which one expects in the House when a Minister, who has publicly told myself and my hon. Friends in the Chamber time and again that he will make a statement on this matter before the end of the year, skulks behind this technique. I think that it is a little shabby.
Mr. Speaker: The trusting faith of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) in his colleague the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) will be noted by the House with deep emotion. I have already ruled on the point that the hon. Gentleman raised.
Mr. Buchan: On a point of order. This is an extremely important matter. It is a question, not only of the White Fish Authority, but of the Government's entire involvement with the whole structure of the fishing industry. For example, on 29th July, 1966, the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said this:
"The time has come when we should have higher prices for food and no subsidies for either the agricultural or the fishing industries … the nation has been molly-coddled for too long by receiving cheap food."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 2127.]
If it is in the Minister's mind to abolish the Authority, the whole structure of the industry is involved and he cannot be questioned on his Statement. It is therefore more important even than any announcement he may make about any particular body. It involves the Government's whole policy towards agriculture, fisheries and food. I hope that a statement will be made so that the whole position can be probed.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is in order to hope, but I have ruled on this issue.
Mr. William Hamilton rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is a lot of business ahead.
Mr. Hamilton: May I, through you, Mr. Speaker, seek to prevail upon the

1351
Leader of the House to make representations to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? The question has been put before, but it should be understood that many of us, either as consumers of fish—[HON. MEMBERS: "Point of order."]—I am on a point of order. Mr. Speaker will decide whether it is a point of order.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the Leader of the House, in view of the great importance of this question, to undertake to make representations to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is on the record as wanting to abolish the White Fish Authority and increase the price of food to the housewife. It is very important that the Minister should make an oral statement to the House with a view to being questioned. He could easily do that tomorrow without inconveniencing anybody in the House.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is merely a repetition of what has been said before.

WESTERN WELSH OMNIBUS COMPANY
Mr. George Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Wales what action he will take following the decision made by the Western Welsh Omnibus Company on 15th December, 1970, that they will close their bus depots and withdraw vital bus services in West Wales on 11th January, 1971, including those bus services that carry children to schools.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): I understand that the local authorities in Pembrokeshire have decided not to pay grant in respect of six bus services in the county and that the announcement by the Western Welsh Omnibus Company follows this decision. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, had the local authorities decided to pay grant their payments would have qualified for a 50 per cent. Exchequer grant and the remainder would rank for rate support grant. The question of further action is, therefore, in the first place a matter for the local authorities and in Carmarthenshire and Cardiganshire they have not yet disclosed their intentions. My Department has already been in touch
1352
with the authorities but in view of the more recent developments, I propose to invite the four county councils concerned to a meeting at the Welsh Office in Cardiff.
Mr. George Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware that the 50 per cent. grant that was made available through the legislation passed two years ago makes it possible for North Pembrokeshire, which will be without any form of public transport communication, to be assisted? In addition to calling the local authorities together urgently, will he give consideration to the question of the postal bus service which operates in other parts of the country? Will he discuss this with the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications?
Mr. Peter Thomas: Certainly I will give consideration to all matters affecting rural transport in Wales; in fact, consideration is being given at the moment. The local authorities in Pembrokeshire were fully aware of the availability of grant, and I regret the decision they took.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large part of Pembrokeshire will be without any form of public transport from 10th January, and that therefore the news that he is calling an urgent meeting of local authorities will be widely welcomed? Is he further aware, however, that Pembrokeshire County Council has offered a 25 per cent. grant and that it is the R.D.Cs. involved which have so far been unwilling to co-operate? Will my right hon. Friend seek to bring home to all local authorities both their responsibilities and powers in this matter?
Mr. Peter Thomas: Yes, I am fully aware of all those matters and I will certainly do my best to see that the local authorities make use of the grants which are available.
Mr. John Morris: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the Tory Party has a pretty miserable record in public transport in Wales? Does he recall that in September, 1964, a month before his Welsh electors rejected him, his right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) announced the closure of the Ruabon-Barmouth and Montgomeryshire railway lines, the Afon wen—Bangor and Carmarthen—Aberystwyth

1353
railway lines, and, because of the failure of the Tory Party to do anything about the Jack Report, subsidies for rural buses had to wait for the 1968 Transport Act before anything was done at all? What are the Government's intentions with regard to the grant-aided railway lines in Wales?
Mr. Peter Thomas: Despite the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that the meeting that we have in Cardiff will bear fruit.
Mr. Ellis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the policy, so successfully introduced by the former Government, of introducing industries into the Wrexham constituency is now being seriously jeopardised, certainly so far as the Wrexham Trading Estate is concerned, by the failure of management to persuade work people to travel from their homes to their places of work because of the high cost of bus fares? Will the right hon. Gentleman introduce a transport policy to support the successful development policy of the former Government?
Mr. Peter Thomas: I suggest that that is another question. As I have said, I am looking, with my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment, into all questions of transport in Wales.
Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a similar situation will arise in North and Mid-Wales as a result of a similar decision by the Crosville Company? Will the right hon. Gentleman take similar steps to deal with the needs of those areas and consult the local authorities in North and Central Wales?
Mr. Peter Thomas: Yes, I am aware of that. My Department is in touch with the local authorities in North Wales, but they have not yet announced a decision in respect of the threatened closure.
Mr. Roderick: Would the Minister consider consulting his colleagues about increasing the 50 per cent. grant? Is he aware that the local authorities in many of these areas that we are discusing, in the rural parts of Wales, are poor and can ill afford to provide the 50 per cent. which is required of them? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider having consultations with his colleagues with a view to increasing Government aid?
Mr. Peter Thomas: The 50 per cent. grant is laid down in the 1968 Act. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the 50 per cent. to be paid by the local authorities counts for rate support grant as well.

BUSINESSS OF THE HOUSE
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): With permission, I should like to make a short business statement.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is today revoking the Order relating to the Emergency. As a result, there will be no need to bring the Regulations before the House.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with that of the House, I wish to make a statement about certain proposals which I have today tabled in Brussels regarding United Kingdom participation in the European Economic Community's financial arrangements in the event of our accession.
In brief, Her Majesty's Government have proposed that over the first five years of our membership of the Community our contribution to the Community budget should build up by equal annual steps to a basic key which should lie in the range of 13–15 per cent. of total contributions. Thereafter, for a further three years, the year-to-year changes in our share of contributions should be subject to limitations on the lines of the correctives the Six have provided for themselves up to 1978.
We have further proposed that there should be provision to review, if necessary, the operation of the financial arrangements in an enlarged Community.
The House will expect me to explain the significance of these proposals for the United Kingdom. I must first emphasise that any estimates inevitably depend on a large number of assumptions which have to be made about the ways in which the enlarged Community would develop in the years after we and the other applicant countries had joined. To take just

1355
two of the most important factors: it is really very difficult to judge what the size of the Community's budget will be at the end of this decade, and what share of the total will be devoted on the one hand to schemes of agricultural support, from which we, with our relatively small and highly efficient agriculture, cannot expect to be major beneficiaries, and on the other to regional and industrial development and other programmes.
It is because of these uncertainties that in the past the Six themselves have in practice reviewed their own arrangements whenever unforeseen developments have upset the balance which previous agreements were expected to produce. We have, therefore, proposed to the Six that a suitable review provision should be an essential part of any agreement.
Having made clear to the House the inevitable limitations of any estimates, I can give some indication of what we expect the proposals we have put to the Community might involve. If we assume that the Community budget in 1977 was to be 4,500 million dollars as we have suggested to the Community, then under the proposals we have now made, after making an estimate for receipts, our net contribution would build up gradually from about £30 million in 1973 to about £140 million to £180 million in 1977. If, however, the Community budget remained at its current level of about 3,000 million dollars, then our net contribution would reach about £60 million to £85 million in 1977, on the same estimated basis of receipt.
We have also to take account of the fact that in the short term, membership of the Community will have certain other adverse effects on our balance of trade as a result of the increased cost of food imports and the loss of some of the trade preferences we enjoy in other markets. For this reason, it is important that we should move up gradually towards our ultimate contribution.
Neither this Government nor our predecessors have ever attempted to disguise the fact that membership of the Community will involve a substantial net contribution to the Community budget and, at least in the early stages, other balance of payments costs. But again, like our predecessors, we believe that account
1356
must also be taken of the prospect of dynamic economic advantages of membership which would be substantial. As to these, one has to make a judgment about the likely response of British industry to the opportunities and challenges that would be presented by our entry into the Community. The Government's judgment—and it is shared by the overwhelming majority of our leading industrialists—is that the response would be vigorous and determined and that we could expect to achieve a significantly higher economic growth rate if we joined the Community than if we remained outside.
The Government also consider that membership of an enlarged Community will provide considerable opportunities for British farmers. Without underestimating the problems that have to be faced in the early years of our membership, therefore, we hold firmly to the view that our entry into the Community on reasonable terms would be in the long-term economic interests of this country.
We are also convinced that enlargement of the Community would be in the interests, political perhaps even more than economic, of the whole of Western Europe. It is with these considerations in mind that the Government have formulated the proposals which I have tabled in Brussels today.
Mr. Harold Lever: In view of the complex nature of the matters which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has related to us, and since these are interconnected with other complex matters, including the levy, may I put it to him that I feel that the House would wish to have time to consider and reflect upon all these questions and take an early opportunity to debate the matter in the New Year? May I suggest that that would be a more suitable occasion to discuss these proposals
Mr. Rippon: I share the right hon. Gentleman's view about the complexities and importance of these matters. I have been in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and we have in mind that it would, perhaps, be appropriate to have a debate in both Houses of Parliament before the next Ministerial meetings on 2nd February.
Mr. Sandys: While congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on the considerable progress already made, may I ask him two questions? First, is there not a tendency, when weighing the effect of any particular proposal upon our balance of payments, to under-rate the undoubted benefits which British industry will secure—[An HON. MEMBER: "Name them."]—through access to this greatly enlarged market? Second, with reference to the discussions, of which we read in the Press this morning, among the Six in Brussels about proposals for the length of the transitional period for Britain to adjust herself to the Community arrangements, will he say whether those discussions were preceded by consultations with Her Majesty's Government?
Mr. Rippon: I think that people do tend to underestimate the benefits. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) told the House in the debate on 25th February last year, if there were simply an additional growth rate of ½ per cent. in our gross national product over five years as a result of our joining the Community, that would give us an additional £1,100 million. It is in that context that we have to consider these figures.
In reply to my right hon. Friend's second question—No, Sir, there were no consultations. As I told the House when I made an earlier statement, it was our view that this was a crucial question in the negotiations, and we hoped that the Community would not take even a provisional point of view on these matters until we had had an opportunity of pressing our case in detail and discussing it with them.
Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made an important statement, since it refines the issues involved. I have two questions to put. May we assume that the 13 per cent. to 15 per cent. contribution would be to the total budget of the enlarged Community of ten? If that be so, what is the percentage of our gross national product in relation to the ten? Second, would the ½ per cent. per annum increase in our growth cover the cost to our balance of payments of the initial phases of joining?
Mr. Rippon: Several questions are raised by this matter. As regards the initial phase of our joining, the period of greatest impact, we have said that we should move up gradually towards our figure of 13 per cent. to 15 per cent. at the estimate of contributions of the ten, 13 per cent. to 15 per cent. is based on the estimate of contributions of the Ten, not on existing contributions. In arriving at that figure, we have had regard particularly to the build-up of the contribution of the Federal Republic of Germany, which, perhaps, is nearest—though there are inevitable differences—to our own position in this matter. The bracket comes because there are various ways of making that calculation.
Mr. Thorpe: May I put the question again? Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say, if the 13 per cent. to 15 per cent. is to be our contribution, what is our percentage of gross national product in relation to the total gross national product of the Community at large?
Mr. Rippon: One of the difficulties about it is that one cannot have regard simply to gross national product, although we have had regard to it in putting forward our figure, with particular reference to the contribution of Germany. This is a gross figure of contribution to the budget. What matters, in effect, at the end of the day—and these were the figures I used—is the net contribution we have to make, having regard to receipts. It is that factor which we have to consider and, perhaps, have some discussions about in depth.
Mr. Turton: Could my right hon. and learned Friend explain the disparity between the figures which he has given today and the figures in the February White Paper? He has mentioned a subsidy to the French farmers of 15 per cent., amounting to £140 million in 1977. In the February White Paper the figure given was £270 million. Can he explain why there is such a wide disparity between the present assessments and those of his predecessors?
Mr. Rippon: I think that the basic difference between the figures which I have given and those in the White Paper is that I have referred to net contribution and the White Paper was referring to gross contribution. I think that net

1359
is right. To put the matter further into perspective, as I have explained, our net contribution under the proposals which we have made might build up approximately—the wide variation arises because the figures are rather speculative at this stage—to a figure of the order of £60 million to £180 million, depending on the size and the shape of the budget. One must then have regard also to what I described as the adverse short-term effect on trade balances, which might amount to something like £200 million to £300 million at the end of the transitional period. I think that that gives an indication of the range of figures involved.
Mr. Skinner: The Chancellor of the Duchy has made his statement today, and the Prime Minister spoke yesterday of the Government wanting to conform to the will of the majority in respect of industrial relations. Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman understand that there is a large majority against the move which he is making, and will he consult the Leader of the House so as to ensure that, before he makes any further concessions in Brussels, he receives a licence from the House?
Mr. Rippon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, these negotiations were started by our predecessors, with the overwhelming support of the House of Commons. The negotiations are now proceeding on the basis which was laid down by our predecessors. There is really no dispute in principle about it. When the negotiations are concluded, the matter will have to be presented to Parliament, which will form a view about it on the situation as it then exists. I must add that I think it quite wrong to talk in terms of concessions in negotiations of this kind.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that what worries his well-wishers in this matter is the open-ended nature of the financial commitment? What mechanism is he proposing to ensure that that open-ended commitment is somehow closed? Is it to be by a review body, by a definite financial limit being placed, or how?
Mr. Rippon: We have to bear in mind that as well as an open-ended commitment there are open-ended advantages. [An HON. MEMBER: "Name them."] We
1360
must remember that. But, because of the speculative nature of these figures and the difficulty of foreseeing what the position will be in, say, 1980 both as to the size of the Community's budget and its shape, and a whole host of other factors, we have proposed to the Community, as I said in my statement, that there should be some provision for review if things turn out in a way which none of us expect. That would apply not just to the United Kingdom but to any other member of the Community. There are, in addition, various provisions in the Treaty of Rome itself which are in the nature of safeguards.
Mr. Jay: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy agree that, in addition to all this, according to an answer given to me yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the British Government have now accepted the E.E.C. proposals for monetary union and for more rigidly fixed exchange rates? Are these also additional parts of the price which we have to pay?
Mr. Rippon: I think that it is a long way from a matter of fact, the Community being bitterly divided on the issue at the moment, that they have accepted even the first stages of the Werner Report, and much less the third stage which lies very far in the future.
Mr. Walters: Could my right hon. and learned Friend give some indication of what he thinks will be the effects on our balance of payments?
Mr. Rippon: I thought that I had done that by indicating that the net contribution to the Community on the various assumptions which I had made might be between £60 million and £180 million. One has also to take into account the other adverse short-term effects on the balance of payments which might amount to about £200 million or £300 million at the end of the transitional period.
Mr. John Mendelson: In reference to the purposes on which these large sums of money, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is inviting the country to contribute, are to be spent, has he studied the statement published by the Commission in October of this year that in the 12 months up to October some 300 million dollars had been spent on

1361
the destruction of perfectly good, first-class butter and that it is now proposed for the 12 months starting last October to spend another 300 million dollars on a similar purpose? Is he doing anything, as a condition of the House accepting entry, to change this crazy and wasteful policy before inviting us to take part in it?
Mr. Rippon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving information which has been of some encouragement to some people, not least to New Zealand. These are relevant factors in the negotiations which of course we have in mind. In fixing our contribution we are concerned not only with the gross amount we pay, but what we pay it to and what we pay it for. This is what we were discussing—both the size of the Community's budget and its shape.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that as, at least in the initial stages, the probable result of our accession would be a reduction of ½ per cent. in our growth rate below what it would otherwise be, the additional detriment which he has described would be the £1,100 million which he mentioned, but in the opposite direction?
Mr. Rippon: If any of the three British Governments which at various stages have pursued these negotiations had that in mind, I should be astonished.
Sir G. de Freitas: Coming back to the figures in the original statement; would it not be more significant if in future statements the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave not only figures of the estimated cost to us, but figures of the estimated gains to our economy?
Mr. Rippon: One of the difficulties is that all the figures are rather speculative. All our experience with Treasuries in all countries is that they have some difficulty in making forecasts for next year, much less for 1978, and those forecasts are on the budgetary side, which makes them rather easier. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman is right. The right hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) put it very reasonably when he suggested that the hardly measurable figure of ½ per cent. growth rate over five years, that is a cumulative build-up, would be an addition of £1,100 million.
1362
That growth rate has to be translated into an annual figure of benefit to the balance of payments, but in so far as the increase in the growth rate would largely result from access to this enormous market, we may assume that a fair balance can be struck in the proposals which are being made in Brussels.
Mr. Tugendhat: Could my right hon. and learned Friend tell us how these figures of 13 to 15 per cent. will compare on the same basis with the contributions of the Federal Republic of Germany, France and Italy as the nations most comparable with ourselves?
Mr. Rippon: We think that it will strike a fair balance. There will be some argument about it, but one has to have regard not only to the gross contribution but to the receipts, and what we are concerned with is that our contribution to the Community budget will not be unduly high in all the circumstances. The Community argues that one of the great advantages which we will get, being highly industrialised, will be access to its great and growing market.
Mr. Barnett: Because the broader vision of a united Europe is of such vital importance, is it not all the more important that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should make it clear to the Six that we should not be paying a grossly disproportionate net contribution? Would he therefore clarify what he was saying about review clauses for the period after the end of the transitional period? Does he consider it possible to put forward a proposal which would allow for something less than 90 per cent. of the import duties and levies and the 1 per cent. added value tax?
Mr. Rippon: We are not asking for an adaptation of the system itself, although it should be borne in mind that the Heads of Government at the Hague in 1969 envisaged that as a possibility. We envisage that we can conform to the system and we have put forward what has been described as a fair contribution on our part. We will discuss on that basis. I think that it is the only way in which we can usefully proceed.
Mr. Blaker: Regardless of the detailed arrangements which may be agreed, if it became clear in the light of experience that the arrangements for the financial

1363
contributions were damaging the economy of a particular country, would it not be in the interests of other member countries to remedy the situation? Is not that how the Community works?
Mr. Rippon: That is certainly how it works in practice and that is what the Community says. In one of its helpful first documents it pointed out that if an intolerable and inequitable situation arose, affecting the interests of any member, the Community institutions would deal with the situation. I have said that I accept the financial side safeguards in the Treaty, such as Article 108 and others, but one of the particular difficulties we still have is quantifying the results and likely benefits. In addition to our estimates for the period of five years and the correctives thereafter, there would have to be some understanding if a difficulty arose, now unforeseen, and there would have to be some review procedure. I am not being dogmatic about the review procedure. We must try to bring out something which may be accepted by the Community as a solution which will be in accordance with the principles of the Treaty.
Mr. Loughlin: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is increasing fear, both inside and outside the House, that the Government are determined to enter the Common Market at all costs? Will he make it absolutely clear to those with whom he is negotiating that the decision to go in will be taken clearly and positively by this House?
Mr. Rippon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; that was a most helpful intervention. My statement has made it clear that of course we think that cost is a relevant factor and it is perfectly clear that any proposals will have to be put to the House before any agreements are reached.
Sir B. Rhys Williams: Would my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind in relation to the Werner Committee's proposals for total monetary and economic union in Western Europe that The Times thought that this was possibly the most important development in Europe since the Roman Empire? But would he also bear in mind that Rome was not built in a day? Would he further
1364
recall that Rome was eventually built, but did not last for ever?
Mr. Rippon: I certainly hope that the Community will last even longer than the Roman Empire. There is no doubt that the proposal for increased monetary cooperation among the nations of Western Europe is something which we should welcome. What is more, it is in our long-term interests that we should be part of any discussions which take place in Western Europe about the likely nature of international monetary co-operation by which we are directly affected.
Mr. Harold Lever: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman comes to discuss monetary co-operation, will he expose to the House what his notions will be on the ancillary questions, not directly involved in the negotiations, of our own attitude to the sterling area and the subject of sterling as a reserve currency? Would he let the House know what his position will be on these matters, which will be of fundamental importance in affecting the outcome of the negotiations?
Mr. Rippon: We made it perfectly clear from the outset that these discussions were not part of the negotiations. It was agreed that there should be discussion of these matters at the appropriate time, but we have not begun such discussion yet. As it goes ahead, we will certainly keep the House informed. Meanwhile, specific questions on these matters should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, I take the point and we shall have to consider it.
Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that when he comes to the House and reports to us on his negotiations it is with some urgency that we question him as to the progress he has made and as to the articles which might or might not be involved? I put it to him that whilst these problems are of immense importance to this country, there are other problems of the third world which grow ever larger as a direct consequence of this position. Is he proposing to have discussions with the Commission on the question of harmonisation of overseas aid in future?
Mr. Rippon: That is something we are concerned with now and with which we would be concerned within an enlarged

1365
Community. All the evidence is that the Community has adopted very forward-looking policies in its relations with the under-developed countries. This is part of the problem we have to consider, particularly in relation to underdeveloped countries of the Commonwealth and those which are members of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. Of course, we have all this in mind and we would expect an enlarged Community to have a forward-looking and progressive policy in these matters.
Mr. Shore: The House will want to examine closely the arithmetic of the transitional period which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has put to us. I am sure he will agree that it is the permanent post-transitional arrangements which matter most. Will he confirm that he has accepted financial regulations to give parities in the Six—that is, that Britain will be prepared to contribute the full fruit of the levy on its agricultural imports, the total yield of its own external tariffs, plus 1 per cent. of value-added tax to the Fund in the period after the transitional period, whether five or eight years are needed? Is that so?
Mr. Rippon: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has to say about the complexity of these matters and the House will wish to consider in detail the mathematics involved, as far as one is capable of expressing these things mathematically. I have said that we have been negotiating on the basis that we accept the financial system which the Community has adopted. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I added that, of course, the Heads of Government indicated that in certain circumstances there could be adaptations.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend think that the time has come when he should spell out in clearer terms, with all the risk of affecting his negotiations, what he considers will be "reasonable terms"? This is a phrase which he has used so often, but in making his presentations he seems to represent what to me are rather onerous terms as being reasonable. The damage is clear and can be measured to some extent, but the supposed advantages are speculative. For example, can he measure "dynamism"? From the purely domestic point of view, it is a difficult situation
1366
because when we have such statements containing very important figures they are distributed only to the Opposition Front Bench and the Leaders of the Liberal Party, who have a coalition on this issue, and it means that other right hon. and hon. Members of this House who want to probe have not got the facilities in order to follow the matter through.
Mr. Rippon: My hon. Friend will recall that earlier I said that we envisaged that there should be a debate in the House before the next Ministerial meeting on 2nd February. I hope that that will help right hon. and hon. Members to have an opportunity to consider the implications. These things cannot be measured absolutely precisely. I am sure that the terms we have put to the Community are fair and reasonable. Of course, the Community says that they are too fair and reasonable and, therefore, it has put forward its own views as to what would constitute a mutual balance of advantage as between the existing Community and the applicants. That is what the negotiations are about.
Mr. McBride: I want to refer to the problem of regional industrial development. Is it the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assumption, or is it a fact, that regional industrial policy will continue as at present? Taking Wales as an example, can he envisage any reductions in the financial incentives with which we hope to attract more and more industry to the Principality?
Mr. Rippon: What I am talking about is an increase in these facilities. This is one of the reasons that I am concerned about, not only the ultimate size of the Community's budget but its shape. At present, the greater part of the Community's budget is devoted to agricultural support, and because of the nature of our small and efficient agricultural industry our receipts are very much smaller than those of anyone else, which is a factor to be borne in mind. One of the assumptions to make is that if the shape of the budget changes in the years ahead so that a smaller proportion is devoted to agriculture and a higher proportion to regional and other investment programmes, a new situation is created which is more beneficial to us.
Mr. Longden: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear that among

1367
those misguided persons and bodies which are opposed to our going into Europe on any terms there should not be included, first, the third world to which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) has referred, and, secondly, at home, our agricultural industry, since what is certain is that both will benefit?
Mr. Rippon: I am sure that my hon. Friend is perfectly right about that.
Mr. Rose: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that the transitional period of five years is long enough to ensure that average wages, holidays, redundancy payments, family allowances and other benefits in this country will go up to the superior levels in the Common Market countries? Is not the Government's current legislation directly blocking this parallel development towards parity with the Common Market countries in these respects?
Mr. Rippon: I cannot accept the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I believe that the transitional periods we are proposing are perfectly adequate and would enable us both to adjust to the difficulties and to seize the opportunities in a fair way. It is true that over a wide range of social security benefits wages and holidays the levels are rather better in the Community than they are here.
Mr. Marten: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall saying that the application had the overwhelming support of Parliament? I remind him that it was not this Parliament which did so but the last Parliament. There is a big difference in that. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may not like it, but they are going to hear it. My right hon. and learned Friend also said that there is no doubt about the dynamic economic advantages of going into the Common Market. Does not he recall that the White Paper said that this was unquantifiable, that the National Institute said that there are no advantages in going in, and that the C.B.I, report is highly suspect by a great number of businessmen? Will he inform the country and Parliament what these so-called dynamic economic advantages are?
Mr. Rippon: I do not think that my hon. Friend should complain about the change in the composition of this House; I do not. It is the upper limit of the advantages which is unquantifiable. The report to which he refers was not a report of the National Institute. It was by three of its members and was published under the auspices of the Institute, which made it clear that the authors were answerable for their own views.
Mr. Milne: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, apart from the problematical likelihood of an extension of the transitional period, he has told us nothing new on this matter at all? What he has done in his statement is to underline the importance to British farmers of the Common Market policy. He appears to be in the mood to sell our E.F.T.A. friends and our Commonwealth partners down the river in the interests of British farmers.
Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman would be well advised to study my statement before he assumes that there is nothing new in it. I think that he will find that what I have had to say is of some significance.
I attended a meeting of the E.F.T.A. Council of Ministers in Geneva recently and we are all moving forward together in a broad front. Some of our E.F.T.A. partners are applying for membership—two of them with us. Others are applying for association. Others are seeking arrangements which will have regard to their particular circumstances of neutrality, whether forced or voluntary. The hon. Gentleman need not worry on that score.
We are in close touch with the Commonwealth, both with the developed, independent nations and the developing, independent nations; we have dealt very largely already with the dependant territories, with some reservations still about Hong Kong. The hon. Gentleman is completely misinformed about the position in E.F.T.A. and the Commonwealth. Both of them know that it is in the interests of Britain, of Europe and of the free world itself that these negotiations should succeed. If there are difficulties in bringing about a successful conclusion to these negotiations, I ask my hon. Friend to believe that the problems which

1369
would be aroused by their failure are far greater.
Mr. Mather: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is not only the financial commitment that is open-ended but also the political commitment, and that this is what causes many people a great deal of concern? Could he give the House any reassurance on this matter?
Mr. Rippon: I trust that the whole life of the nation is open-ended. Things will go on even after the end of the transitional period. One cannot precisely guess what will be the position in 1980 in regard to the pattern of world trade. Of course, a great deal will happen. We can only make reasonable assumptions as to how we see progress developing.
Mr. Sheldon: What estimates has the right hon. and learned Gentleman made of the gross contributions and receipts? Is he not aware that the higher costs he envisages would be due only if we had economic growth rates rather higher than they are at present, and that the lower estimates would be applicable if our economic growth rates were lower—in other words, that the more prosperous we become the more we will be expected to pay? What ceiling is envisaged over the period involved, is it likely to be annual and what negotiations has he had about this matter?
Mr. Rippon: What I have given is what we think would be our net contri-
1370
bution. This will depend on assumptions of the size of the budget and the gross receipts. I cannot go easily into those details now, but there is some dispute between us about the accuracy of the figures of estimates. We say that our figures are the more accurate; the Community says that its figures are the more accurate. We shall have to go into the matter in detail.
It is perhaps wrong for the hon. Gentleman to have used the word "ceiling". What I have suggested is that there is a percentage contribution which we could make which we regarded as our key and that we should build up to the figure by equal stages over five years and correctives for three years thereafter. There should be correctives—that is to say, there should be no wild increases in our percentage contribution by any factor, but it would be limited by a certain percentage per annum thereafter. One would have to see what was the budget and what was our contribution. If it were to get wildly out of line at any stage, then there must be some sort of machinery within the enlarged Community in order that we should review it. The Community says, "You can take the matter for granted—what do you want provision for?" But I think that it would be helpful that we should have this provision.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.

DIEGO GARCIA (BASES)
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision of the British Government, announced in a Written Parliamentary Answer yesterday, agreeing to the construction by the United States Government of naval communications facilities at Diego Garcia in the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean which Britain will assist in manning."
That this is a specific matter can hardly be questioned.
As to its importance, I would put four crisp reasons to the House.
First, the decision represents a new turn in British defence policy by facilitating and introducing a static United States military presence in the Indian Ocean for the first time.
Secondly, the decision is likely to provoke a major Commonwealth controversy since it is directly opposed to the stated wishes of the Government of Ceylon, the nearest country to Diego Garcia, and to the express public views of the Indian Government and not least of Mrs. Indira Gandhi with whom, I understand on impeccable authority, no consultation has taken place. As such, it is a dangerous, and I believe counter-productive, game for Western white men to start playing.
Thirdly, the decision, judging from my personal knowledge of Mauritius last year, is likely to create great difficulty in relations with Mauritius. It is no use the Parliamentary Under-Secretary smiling. He will recollect that the Partie Mauritienne left the Coalition precisely on the issue of Western bases in the British Indian Ocean territorities.
Fourthly, on the decision itself the House deserves, and needs, some clarification. I would suggest that a "limited naval facility" involving the building, as I understand it, of at least harbours walls out of coral limestone for ships and creating aircraft facilities—possibly, though this is not clear, for Nimrod aircraft—in an area notorious for its cyclones and storms is not " limited ", and certainly not limited in any financial sense. As to the urgency of the decision—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting into merits.
Mr. Dalyell: As to the urgency of the matter, Mr. Speaker, construction is said to be starting in March and plans will be in motion before the House returns on 12th January.
Finally, if the British and Americans have resources available for major construction works in Asia, I suggest that those resources ought to be concentrated on building dams and harbour walls in the islands in the mouth of the Ganges and not for messing around with very doubtful projects, tilting at windmills in the Indian Ocean.
Mr. Speaker: This morning the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), with his characteristic courtesy, informed me that he would seek to move the adjournment of the House, as he has done.
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely
"the decision of the British Government, announced in a Written Parliamentary Answer yesterday, agreeing to the construction by the United States Government of naval communications facilities at Diego Garcia in the Chagos Archipelego in the Indian Ocean which Britain will assist in manning."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision. I have listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, I have given careful consideration to the representations he has made, but I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provision of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

HARE COURSING (ABOLITION) BILL (TELLERS)
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order. I am sorry to raise a second point of order, Mr. Speaker, though I do not apologise for the substance of either since I regard these issues as fairly important to the House.
Yesterday you made a Ruling, which appears in column 1199 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, on the Hare Coursing (Abolition) Bill. That Ruling took my hon. Friend

1373
the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) and myself by surprise. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Ruling arose from the incident that took place on the count on my Ten-Minute Bill which seeks to abolish the cruel sport of hare coursing. It arose because two of the people who acted as tellers against my Bill actually appeared as supporters of the Bill.
You then gave a Ruling which was as follows:
"The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) were appointed tellers for the Noes on the Question, 'That leave be given to bring in a bill.' The Question was agreed to, but immediately after telling against the Bill their names were included in the list of Members ordered to prepare and bring in the Bill. For Members whose names are to be announced as supporters of a Bill to vote or tell against the introduction of the Bill violates, in my opinion, the well-established principle of this House that a Member's vote must agree with his voice. I must therefore give directions that the hon. Members' names be removed from the list of Members ordered to prepare and bring in the Bill and that the Journal be corrected accordingly."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 15th December, 1970; Vol. 808, c. 1119.]
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, because I had no way of looking at the Ruling at that time, that I apologised to you and to the House if I had transgressed these rules or procedures. However, it is to that Ruling which you gave yesterday that I want to direct my remarks.
Several points arise out of this vote and voice procedure. I should like to refer to a speech made by my then hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Arnold Shaw) on 14th May, 1970, on the Hare Coursing Bill. He said:
"Now we come to the curious behaviour of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball)."
There was then an interjection.
"On 6th November, 1969, I had a letter from the hon. Gentleman, on House of Commons notepaper, asking me to use my place in the Ballot to take up the Bill eventually sponsored by the hon. Member for the City of Chester. The hon. Gentleman stated in this invitation that the Bill had the support of competent naturalists, which I certainly accept. I replied on 11th November regretting being unable to accede to his request."
He then goes on to discuss various points with which I will not take up the time of the House. The important point comes at the end of this part of my former hon. Friend's speech:
1374
"The hon. Gentleman voted against the Seals Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1970; Vol. 801, c. 1554.]
Looking back to Second Reading of the Seals Bill on 12th December, 1969, we find that the hon. Gentleman voted against it, although he had asked my former hon. Friend to introduce it. This is important. However, it is not for me to comment why the hon. Gentleman took that course of action. The fact is that he did.
Many of my hon. Friends were confused by what you, Mr. Speaker, then said. Therefore, I turn to page 409 of Erskine May where their problem was solved. Had they looked at the last paragraph under the voice and vote procedure they would have read:
"A Member who has made a motion is afterwards entitled to vote against it, provided he gives his voice with the 'noes' when the question is put from the chair; nor does the fact that a Member's name appears on the Notice Paper as supporting an amendment preclude him from voting against the amendment."
That seems very reasonable and proper. My submission is that the action taken by my hon. Friends was exactly the action taken by the hon. Member for Gainsborough or the conduct referred to in Erskine May at page 409, but in reverse.
The rule on page 408 is:
"Members must bear in mind that then opinion is collected from their voices in the House, and not merely by a division; and that, if their voices and their votes should be at variance, the voice will bind the vote. A Member therefore who gives his voice with the 'ayes' (or 'noes') when the Speaker takes the voices, is bound to vote with them; although a Member has been permitted to correct his voice at the second call."
There is then the example. On page 409, following the example, it says:
"The objection that a Member's vote was contrary to his voice should be taken either before the numbers are reported by the tellers or immediately afterwards; it will not be entertained after the declaration of the numbers from the chair."
I submit that an objection was taken to the voice and vote after the declaration of the result from the Chair; that the count and the declaration was one complete act. What followed in my naming those who were to prepare the Bill with me was in fact a separate act which, if the vote had gone, would never have taken place. So the declaration of the vote is a separate act. Therefore, I submit on that point, with due respect,

1375
Mr. Speaker, that the naming and conduct of my hon. Friends was correct.
I should like, however, to speak to the other question which arose; namely, the backing of a Bill. The only reference which I could find in Erskine May was at page 520. It may be that I have missed a reference, but with my spectacles broken I am finding difficulty at the moment. On page 520 it says:
"Members 'backing' a Bill.—The Speaker decided, on 1 February 1893, by a private ruling, that the names of Members ordered to bring in a bill should not exceed twelve in number, while the number of names on the back of a bill presented without an order of the House for its introduction is similarly limited."
With respect, I could find no reference to your decision, Mr. Speaker, to remove names from the back of the Bill.
An important point arises here. Under the Ten Minute Rule procedure, it is possible for a Member to have a Bill accepted for First Reading by this House, be ordered to have it prepared and printed, and then, at every possible stage when it is coming forward, unless the Government of the day are impressed by the people supporting it, for it to be stopped by a single voice shouting "Object". The voice does not have to be singled out as that of a Member who is stopping the legislation going through. If your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, applied to what you said about the conduct of my hon. Friends, surely it should also have applied to hon. Members who say "Object".
The only way that an hon. Member can overcome sedentary opposition from opponents of the Measure that he is seeking to introduce is to be prepared to put in his hon. Friends to act as tellers for the "Noes" so that Members will have to stand up and be counted.
Such is the nature of the so-called sport, so horrible and repugnant to many people in our society, that the only way that my hon. Friends could explain to their constituents their reasons and justification for being prepared to act as tellers for the "Noes" was to have their names appearing as sponsors of the Bill. This is the only way, on any issue of raising opposition, and getting hon. Members to show themselves, of protecting hon. Members who go into the "No" Lobby.
1376
I apologise for the time I have taken, but it is a fundamental issue. It is important to hon. Members, and to myself in particular.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy yesterday in apologising when he did not have to apologise.
May I say, first, that I should apologise both to the hon. Gentleman and his two hon. Friends because I did not give them notice yesterday of the Ruling which I proposed to make. Mr. Speaker is bound by the courtesies of the House, like everybody else. The error was mine. I had a note from my Clerk in the morning suggesting that if I was to make a Ruling I should inform the two hon. Members concerned. I hope that the three hon. Gentlemen will accept my expression of regret.
The hon. Gentleman has given us an account of various difficulties which occur in parliamentary tactics. I cannot comment on any of those. He has referred to various strategies and tactics which have occurred in the long history of the attempt to get a Hare Coursing Bill through the House. I cannot comment on any of these.
On the issue on which I ruled yesterday, I must reaffirm my Ruling. The hon. Gentleman asked for the authority on which I made it. I must say at once that the duty of the Speaker is to ensure that the Journal and other documents of the House correctly record what took place. The two hon. Members to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred, the Members for Rugby (Mr. William Price) and for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), did not support the Bill, since the Journal will show that they told against it for the "Noes". For that reason, and as a matter of historical fact, their names cannot be recorded as supporting the Bill which was introduced. Mr. Speaker's powers over legislation are summarised in Erskine May at page 248, where it is stated that the Speaker has directed the withdrawal of entire Public Bills, and that he has also directed that a Bill received from the Lords be laid aside. There is no doubt that my authority extends to directing that a Bill should appear in a particular form, as in this case by the omission of two names in

1377
order that the Bill and the Journal should both be in conformity in recording our proceedings.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter.
Mr. Ashton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for your Ruling, but what would happen if I were now to introduce a Ten Minute Rule Bill, called the Hare Coursing (No. 2) Bill, which was infinitesimally different from the Hare Coursing (No. 1) Bill? Would I be allowed to act as a sponsor of such a Bill you having ruled that my name should be deleted from the No. 1 Bill? If it would be valid for me to introduce a No. 2 Bill, having told against the No. 1 Bill, what would be the difference, and what would your Ruling be on that?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot rule on hypothetics. If that issue comes before me I shall rule on it. There is nothing to prevent the hon. Member from taking whatever line he likes about the Hare Coursing Bill when it comes to its Second Reading before the House.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. John Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you would give the House a general guidance on the difficulty facing hon. Members who wish to table Questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about price increases. I am raising, not a particular question, but a general principle which is causing difficulty to hon. Members.
It appears that Questions may no longer be addressed to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the ground that "the Minister has disclaimed responsibility for restraining price increases". I understand that the Minister has so disclaimed responsibility, and that to some extent ignorance is bliss is a good defence. I am suggesting that the principle that indolence is also bliss cannot be maintained, because the Minister has statutory responsibilities for the matter.
For instance, under the Prices and Incomes Act, Part I of which is still in force, there is power for the Minister to refer price increases to the Prices and
1378
Incomes Board. Under various Agriculture Acts the Minister has statutory powers to determine prices. Where there are monopolies affecting prices, the Minister has power to refer them to the Monopolies Commission. During this week, when there was a state of emergency, the Minister had a statutory power which he could have used to restrain the price of candles or eggs.
Although the Minister disclaims responsibility, hon. Members nevertheless have a right to press him with Questions, even if they receive negative replies, about the exercise of the responsibilities which have been given to him by the House. If hon. Members cannot question the Minister, I submit that this is a grave abuse by a Minister of the Crown of his responsibility to answer to Parliament for things for which he is responsible by Statute.
Mr. Speaker: I thought that I had informed the hon. Member of what the position was about points of order in a letter that I sent him this morning. I have ruled on several occasions that it does not accord with the practice of the House for the refusal of a Question, or a group of Questions, by the Table Office to be raised as a point of order. If an hon. Member is dissatisfied with a decision by the Table Office, he can always have recourse to Mr. Speaker—which the hon. Member did not do in this case—and if Mr. Speaker's decision is then found unsatisfactory there are conventional parliamentary ways in which the matter can be raised by a Motion on the Order Paper.

RENTCHARGE ABOLITION
Mr. Michael Cocks: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the creation of rentcharges on freehold land; and to extinguish existing rent-charges equitably.
The Bill seeks to remedy a land tenure anomaly which, at the moment, is limited to the areas around Bristol and Manchester, whereby residential properties are freehold but subject to rentcharge. This is commonly known as a ground rent in the Bristol area, and a chief rent in the Manchester area. It is not, however, a true ground rent, but a rentcharge on freehold property. I imagine that most hon. Members are accustomed to thinking

1379
of residential property as being either completely freehold or leasehold at a ground rent, but here we have people who own the house, own the land on which it stands, and yet pay a rentcharge on it.
I should at this stage declare my interest, because for 15 years I lived in a pre-war house which carried an annual rent-charge of £6, and since September I have lived in a 70-year old house which carries an annual rentcharge of £4 15s. I hope, however, that the House will accept that this is not the prime motivation for my pursuing the Bill today.
The search for a house in my younger days brought me into contact with the system which I thought then was anomalous, and I shared the resentment which many others had against it, and recently I was pleased to find that the Law Commission had published a working paper, No. 24, on the question of rentcharges, in which it said in paragraph 30 on page 19:
"Accordingly, we consider that a prima facie case for prohibition of the creation of rentcharges in the future and the extinction of existing rentcharges is established."
In July I appealed to the general public to send me information on this subject, and I had a substantial response. I also wrote to a number of estate agents, and had replies from them, and on the basis of these replies, together with my own experience, I compiled a submission to the Law Commission.
There is an historical justification for these charges. Economically, large landowners used to release land to small builders. They received no capital in return, but accepted a perpetual rent-charge on it, and this exceeded the agricultural return on the land.
There are also covenants associated with these rentcharges. One estate agent said that the covenants were instrumental in preserving Bath's great Georgian terraces, but he went on to say that the function of the covenants had been superseded by the Town and Country Planning Acts.
The economic justification is no longer valid, and the Law Commission seems to feel that, rather than lower the capital cost of a house, which is what the developers claim, it is more of a bonus for developers, and about three-quarters of
1380
the 60 estate agents who replied to me take the same view as the Law Commission does.
Perhaps I may quote what was said by one local surveyor, auctioneer and estate agent:
"Perpetual yearly rentcharge is applicable only to freehold properties and is frankly iniquitous—it is often named in the profession as the Builders' Pension Fund … and in our opinion is a dubious method of inflating the purchase price, particularly of new property beyond the current market price."
Other agents confirmed this, using expressions such as "confidence trick", the "Bristol twist" and similar descriptions.
From the general public I received only one letter in favour of this system; the remainder were very strongly against it. Some people wrote on behalf of their neighbours in a cul-de-sac, or a road, and on behalf of colleagues at work. Some offered to collect signatures. Some included lists of people who were opposed to this practice, and the word most commonly used about it was "iniquitous".
Perhaps I may weary the House with one quotation:
"I heartily agree that it is high time this iniquitous practice was legally stopped. No one has ever satisfactorily explained why I should have to pay a rentcharge on freehold land for which I have paid the full price in a lump sum."
Others stressed that this was an anachronism, and that they received no benefit for their payments. Particularly virulent were the letters from people in other parts of the country, where this system is unknown and incomprehensible to them.
It may be said that people have a choice whether they buy their property freehold and free, or freehold with a rentcharge, but how genuine is this choice? The Law Commission's working paper estimates that about 80 per cent. of the property in the Bath, Bristol and Weston-super-Mare areas is freehold subject to rentcharge, and this is borne out by my experience and confirmed by estate agents.
In some of the newly developing areas around Bristol the situation is even worse, and one solicitor in North Somerset said that on new houses there the imposition of rentcharges was practically universal. This area is destined to grow by the year 2,000 to a town the size of Taunton and, as things are going, each one of these houses will carry a rentcharge. There

1381
is little choice for a young couple of limited means. I quote one example explaining this:
"My first experience …"
that is, of the rentcharge system—
"… was when I removed to this area four years ago, and I found there was no alternative to my acceptance of this iniquitous charge. I had to have a house in order to live near my employment. I was forced into a distasteful situation."
It is also suggested that if rentcharges are prohibited then leasehold will replace them. The people who suggest this in the Bristol area envisage that the ground rent on the leasehold will be the same as the rentcharge. I find this argument extremely difficult to follow. If this is so, it means that as the price of land rises, in order to get a fair return on the capital if only a small ground rent is imposed, then the purchaser would have to pay a very substantial part of the cost of the plot, and in this way he will be paying towards the acquisition of land which he is not then entitled to own.
I have had letters from people who have bought rentcharges as an investment who have been concerned about the raising of this issue, but they have been reassured by the proposals that these charges will be extinguished equitably and that their investment will thus be safeguarded.
Some estate agents maintain that rentcharges result in a reduction of purchase price. This is not generally held, but those who believe that such is the case stress that it is possible to redeem rentcharges under Section 191 of the Law of Property Act, 1925. Even if this right is widely known, is it worth while? There is is no guarantee that the redemption of the rentcharge will enhance the market value of the property. In addition, the working paper states that residential property in urban areas changes hands once every eight years on average, thus one may well redeem and simply pass on the benefit to the next purchaser. In spite of this, some people still redeem as a matter of principle because they find the system so objectionable. As one person said:
"It is a poisonous tag on any man's private property."
1382
If the situation were static, I should not press it on the House with such urgency. But the letters which I have received show that the system is spreading like a disease through the West Country. I have had reports of the rentcharge system being imposed, for example, in Minehead, Burnham on Sea, Shepton Mallett, Calne and on the Cotswolds, and it is absolutely rife in South Gloucestershire and North Somerset, the area around Bristol.
We carried out a sample survey of two polling districts in the rapidly developing area of Winterbourne, with 7,000 people on the register. We estimated an income of 22,618 guineas of rentcharge in that area alone. I have already said that my own charge is £4 15s. Many new rentcharges are in the region of 12, 15, 20 and even 30 guineas.
I ask the House to support the Bill, first, to simplify the land law of this country; secondly, to remove from the law the blame which it is at present receiving for allowing the system and giving it legal sanction; thirdly, to stop the spread which I have mentioned going any further; and, above all, to remove the sense of injustice. People who are struggling to buy their own homes want to own their homes and own them root and branch. If they buy freehold they want freehold. When they make rates and mortgage payments, they know that there is something to show for them. They can see nothing for rentcharges. I ask the House to support them and to remove what may once have been justified but has now become a gross local anomaly.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Cocks, Mr. Kenneth Marks, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Charles R. Morris, Mr. Arthur Palmer and Mr. David Watkins.

RENTCHARGE ABOLITION
  RENTCHARGE ABOLITION
  Bill to prohibit the creation of rentcharges on freehold land; and to extinguish existing rentcharges equitably, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon 26th March and to be printed. [Bill 76.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LAND COMMISSION (DISSOLUTION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.57 p.m.
  The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The purpose of the Bill is put very clearly and succinctly in the Long Title:
  "… to Abolish betterment levy and dissolve the Land Commission …".
  We on this side of the House, when we were in Opposition, said many times during the passage of the Bill which resulted in the Land Commission Act of 1967 that we would abolish the betterment levy and the Land Commission created by that Bill when we had the opportunity to do so. We said that in Parliament at that time and we said that in the country for the three years or so of the Land Commission's life. We said it in the Conservative manifesto for the last General Election.
  There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that we intended, on taking office, to abolish the betterment levy and to abolish the Land Commission, nor can there be any doubt in anyone's mind that we had a mandate from the public to do so. We said in the Conservative Party's manifesto and during the General Election campaign that betterment levy had increased bureaucracy and had increased the price of land. That is exactly what has happened during the three years' life of the Land Commission. We said that we would do away with betterment levy and, so far as it was justifiable, the tax imposed on land, and that we would make them subject to the normal process of capital gains tax, with the principles of income tax applicable to the person called upon to pay, that is to say, the normal allowances which income tax provides.
  We said clearly in that manifesto that we would abolish the Land Commission not because we disagreed with the very laudable objects which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen put forward at the time of the Bill—
  Mr. Frank Allaun: But right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do, really.
  Mr. Page: No, we agree with those very laudable objects of bringing land forward in the right place and at the right time, of making land cheaper and more readily available. But we will abolish the Land Commission because it never achieved those objects. In its struggling to achieve them, it has only brought considerable hardship to many people and certainly confusion in the burden placed upon those who have had to pay.
  It was claimed during the process of the Bill which resulted in the Act of 1967 that these twins, betterment levy and the acquisition powers, would make land more readily and cheaply available. In fact, since the Land Commission started its operations, land for house building has become scarcer and more expensive. Over those three years, the price of land has risen by a half.
  The Land Commission was to collect a betterment levy and was to have compulsory powers. It was claimed that by these means the right land would be brought forward at the right time and in the right place. However, after three years of effort, the Commission managed to acquire only 2,800 acres and to make available to those who wanted to build on this land only 320 acres. That is the measure of its achievement during its life. What is more, those 320 acres mostly were not where there was a land shortage. It was not in the sort of places where it was hoped that any body of this sort would bring forward land for building purposes.
  When right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite promoted the Bill which resulted in the 1967 Act, it was claimed that there would be a return to the community of the development value created by the community. But that can be done just as easily and appropriately by capital gains tax, with less hardship to those who suffer, since capital gains tax allows the homes of people to be exempt from the tax and avoids what in many cases is the great hardship of betterment levy in that one has to pay it before receiving the money on which it has to be paid.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: The hon. Gentleman is saying that the revenue obtained

  1385
  would be got by means of a capital gains tax. That is not so. If it were so, why does the Financial Memorandum explain that the Revenue will forgo £12 million a year, rising to £31 million a year in 1973, net?
  Mr. Page: Rising to that, and, in the 4 to 5 years, it would be forgoing about £11 million a year. That £11 million a year is the difference between what could be gained by the betterment levy and what could be gained by capital gains tax. That is the measure of the hardship caused by betterment levy, collecting from those who sell their homes, those who have to pay in advance of receipt of the moneys, and all those cases where time and time again we have complained in this House that hardship has fallen upon the payer.
  Mr. Frederick Willey: Since it is not clear from the Explanatory Memorandum, will the hon. Gentleman say what is the loss to the Revenue this year? It deals only with next year.
  Mr. Page: I think that it is on the face of the Memorandum. I have not the figure at my fingertips, I will get it for the right hon. Gentleman during the debate. The Memorandum says in the second line of the paragraph headed, "Financial effect of the Bill":
  "… the Consolidated Fund will forgo revenue of around £12 million next year."
  I agree that it does not give it for this years.
  Mr. Willey: We are told that it will rise to £31 million in 1973–74. It is difficult to see how the average of £11 million is arrived at.
  Mr. Page: I will arrange for figures for all these years to be given to the right hon. Gentleman during the debate.
  Mr. Denis Howell: Are the figures of future savings given in the Explanatory Memorandum based on constant prices, today's prices, or do they take account of inflation such as the 50 per cent. in three years that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned?
  Mr. Page: The 50 per cent. that I mentioned referred to the increase in the price of land. These figures are worked
  1386
  out at constant prices. Again, I will make certain about this. I admit that I have no brilliance when I come to deal with figures. I have to have them before me in black and white before I can relate them to anyone else.
  Whereas I admit readily that betterment levy has netted more for the Exchequer than capital gains tax will in future, it is that excess about which we complain. It is the type of unacceptable tax which was imposed by the Land Commission Act 1967.
  On 22nd July of this year, only five weeks after the General Election, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment informed the House of the Government's intention to bring in the Bill and to make all property transactions after 22nd July of this year free from betterment levy. My right hon. Friend said that in future, any transaction such as the sale, the lease or the development of land would no longer attract betterment levy, but that in respect of transactions that took place before 23rd July, the levy would continue to be assessed.
  On the same day, my right hon. Friend informed the House that in due course we would abolish the Land Commission and with it, eventually, this monstrously complicated, unjust, unfair and unnecessary piece of legislation.
  I wish that I could come before the House today with a one-line Bill saying:
  "The Land Commission Act, 1967, is hereby repealed."
  If I could, I would add to it the words:
  "… as from 1st February, 1967."
  However, this rotten egg is not so easily unscrambled. There are parts which can be readily repealed en bloc: for example, the strange device of Crownhold, that banner with a strange device to which the previous Government pinned their faith for a reduction in the price of land.
  What was to happen was that the Commission would buy large tracts of land and sell them off to owner-occupiers at a very low price on condition that they gave to the Commission any profit made on the sale of them. That was such a cumbersome and unworkable scheme that it was never put into operation. But it was the keynote to the reduction in land

  1387
  prices which it was claimed that the Act would bring about.
  This would be the only way in which the price of land could be brought down. The Commission would buy a large area of land, saturate the market with sales under Crownhold tenure at very low prices, and thereby bring down the price. But it was so wildly impracticable and would have involved such colossal expense, such an immense number of compulsory purchase orders and such planning complications that it was never brought into operation.
  The fundamental idea behind all this of being able to bring down the price of land by flooding the market with cheap sales was false. It was based on the belief that speculators were hoarding land and that there was a large amount of land which they could be forced to disgorge by the compulsory powers of the Commission. That myth was exploded very soon by the Commission when it carried out a land availability survey. What came out of that was that there was little evidence of hoarding of land. What the survey did show was that there was a shortage of land with planning permission for development, particularly in those pressure areas such as around London, the West Midlands and possibly the North-West.
  So, the Commission had to resort to "Big Brother" tactics, not against the mighty land speculators but against the local planning authorities, by appealing from their decisions, and against the single plot or house owner, to try to accumulate a proper area for development. This attack on planning, this use of compulsory purchase powers on the smaller plots, was a complete admission of the defeat of the system envisaged by the Act. It was an admission by the Land Commission of the misconception of the previous Government as to the way in which land could be made available at reasonable prices.
  I will explain the present Government's way of ensuring that the right land is brought to the market at the right time and at a reasonable price. First, we believe that the solution must lie with the local authorities. They must be prepared to release sufficient quantities of land for house building and to release it
  1388
  in strategic advance of requirements. It is right that I should spell this out in this way because as it is our intention to destroy the Land Commission, created to collect land for development, we ought to say how we propose to make sure that development is facilitated in future.
  To release land parsimoniously, acre by acre, in the wake of demand only creates artificial scarcity and fancy prices. It is not an easy judgment for any local authority to make, but I have visited many of the key authorities concerned during the past months, and I have found that they have a lively appreciation of the problems and a readiness to act. To assist them we have this week issued Circular 10/70 which asks first for a reassessment by local authorities of land availability and housing needs in their areas. I have had the assurance from the key authorities that they are undertaking that reassessment energetically.
  Mr. Denis Howell: All of them?
  Mr. Page: I ask the House to accept my assurance that there are a number prepared to bring forward land for development. The Circular asks that they should examine the land which they hold and, if they are holding it for use in the far future, that they should consider selling it for development now. It asks them to make a generous and immediate release of land when this can be done without detriment to good planning, safeguarding green belt. It proposes to local planning authorities a continuous monitoring of the balance between house building rates and planning permissions which are granted. Finally, it proposes that there should be wider consultations with the building industry and in this respect it is reasonable to ask local authorities to take an initiative and try to get discussions going between themselves and the building industry.
  Mr. James Dempsey: Does it apply to Scotland?
  Mr. Page: I have a Minister who represents Scotland sitting beside me and if there are any matters affecting Scotland he will intervene during the debate.
  What I have said about the principles embodied in the Circular must be taken in the framework of modern planning. As the House will know, a modem form

  1389
  of planning was instituted by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968. Local planning authorities were required to draw up structure plans in the framework of regional strategies. We are proceeding as quickly as possible with those regional strategies so as to give the structure plans of the local planning authorities a sound basis from which to start. I ask the House to look at our proposals for making land available in the framework of that new planning system.
  Turning to the levy, we agree that it is right to tax gains from land. We object to the form of taxation by betterment levy because it is a duplication of the system, particularly in its double operation on current use value and development value which both have to be discovered by a separate system, and because of the injustices which have been shown to be inherent in the charge to betterment levy. We will return to one system which gives tax allowances. My hon. Friend the Chief Secretary answered a Question on 2nd December concerning the proposals for the reform of the law, so far as was necessary in connection with capital gains tax.
  I find it unfortunate that because of the traditions of Finance Bills and so on it is not possible to amend capital gains tax in this Bill. I should like to have been able to put it all before the House in one Bill, but the provisions for retaining capital gains tax on current use values when the betterment levy was introduced were included in the Finance Bills and it is right that they should be amended in next year's Finance Bill. It has been said in reply to a Question that that will be carried out. I have mentioned that we are foregoing in an ordinary year, after a peak has been reached, some £11 million of betterment levy.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: If the purchase of land had increased with the years, as it would have done under the Land Commission, the figure would have been greatly in excess of £11 million. Gradually it would have mounted towards £100 million, and it is this sum that the Government are giving away to land owners and speculators.
  Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman is not taking account of the fact that capital
  1390
  gains tax will now cover the whole of the gain. At present it covers the increase in current use value, and betterment levy covers the development value. In future, capital gains tax will cover the whole of that area; the increase in current use value and the development value. It is, however, true that it will start from a different basis, of 1965, and that it will not apply to the sale of all residences, such as the owner-occupied home and a number of cases which were familiar under the 1967 Act. We deliberately intend that it shall not apply in these cases.
  When hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about the purchase of land, they tend to forget about the purchase of land by the Land Commission itself. Up to the present the Commission has borrowed £13 million from the Consolidated Fund to enter into purchases of land. That would have gone up to about £40 million within a couple of years.
  We are speaking of public money being used for land speculation. [Interruption.] I am sure that in some of the cases the speculation was not as good as it might have been. Indeed, we are finding that there may be losses on the sale of some of this land. It was speculating with public money in land, whatever else hon. Gentlemen opposite might like to call it. [Interruption.] If the Land Commission was carrying out its work, it would have been collecting land which somebody thought was good building land. It may be that that somebody's opinion was wrong and, as I say, there are cases where we shall unfortunately make a loss in the resale.
  Mr. Willey: The hon. Gentleman is speaking about speculating with public money. Does he intend to prohibit local authorities from, in the same way, speculating with public money?
  Mr. Page: No. In our view local authorities are better able to deal with this matter because they have a much better idea of what is required in their localities. We had the Land Commission wandering round the country, finding bits of land here and there which it thought might be good for development. It was not in the hands of local authorities which know their districts and the sort of development that is required.

  1391
  I said that I wished that the Bill could have said "The Land Commission Act, 1967, is repealed as from 7th February, 1967", when the original Measure received its Royal Assent. But that would have meant our giving back to the levy payers all the levy that has been paid in this period. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) will not have missed some of my statements on this subject from time to time and will probably quote them against me because in the early stages I was urging, when certain amendments were being made, that the small amount then concerned—it was between £1 million and £2 million—should be given back, as the people were identifiable and the assessments had not fully been made. Naturally, if that were done now, we should be giving back about £47·2 million. This is money already taken into account in public expenditure. Indeed, the previous Government, having collected it, mortgaged it in terms of anticipated expenditure.
  This being so, we had to set our face against complete retrospection. We have considered partial retrospection. For example, we asked ourselves: is it possible to give some relief to certain hardship cases? Every case of payment of betterment levy I consider to be a hardship case.
  Mr. Willey: All taxes are.
  Mr. Page: Exactly. Where does one draw the line? It might have been possible to draw the line at 22nd July and say that no more will be collected, leaving aside the £22 million that is owing by those who have been assessed. That would have been unfair on the prompt payers, on those who are still owing money because they, justifiably, have been allowed to pay by instalments, and even on those who are dragging it out by raising points in their assessments. It would, therefore, have been unfair to have said, "We will not collect any of the money that has so far not been collected".
  We might have said that we will not assess anybody else, but that would have meant the loss of about £16½ million. We estimate that as the amount which has been unassessed on chargeable acts or events before 23rd July. To have
  1392
  taken that step would have been applying the sort of principle that every time the rate of income tax is altered, one must assess the fellow who has not paid for last year on the new rate for this year.
  I do not think I need deal at length with the content of the Bill. In Clause 1 the date 22nd July is given as the date on which
  "Betterment levy shall not be charged in respect of any act or event occurring after"
  that date. Subsection (2) clearly says:
  "On such day as the Secretary of State may by order … appoint … the Land Commission shall cease to exist".
  We hope to make that date 1st April, 1971, which would be convenient from the point of view of the financial year. By that time I hope that we will have reduced the staff of the Land Commission from its 1,100 a few weeks ago, because it is continually being reduced, to about the 75 to 100 who will be necessary to keep the process going while betterment levy is being assessed and collected and the land is being sold.
  I hope that in the rundown of the Commission we have been able to satisfy every member of its staff in new positions. I believe that we have done this, some in Newcastle, who moved there when the Commission was established and who have so liked the town that they wish to stay there, and some by returning to the South. At the same time, we have, by not renewing staff elsewhere, been able to make an overall reduction in the total number of civil servants employed.
  I am pleased that the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) is in his place, because he will remember that in Committee my hon. Friends and I made great play about the little man with thick glasses sitting in an attic in Newcastle making orders which would mean hardship for everyone. In fact, that little man has acted most courteously and efficiently throughout the three years' life of the Land Commission. However much we may hate the betterment levy and the whole process and system of the Land Commission, we cannot but compliment those who have had to operate the system and who have done so with great efficiency and courtesy to the public.
  There is no need for me to deal with the Bill Clause by Clause, as the provisions are fairly obvious. All the operations of the Land Commission are to be

  1393
  handed over to the Secretary of State, who will pay to the Consolidated Fund the money collected by the Commission from the sale of land. There will no longer be a separate fund run by the Commission: it will all be run in future on the basis of the Minister administering this system in order to wind it up.
  I again express my sorrow that this is not a one-line Bill, and particularly that it contains a Schedule of many pages—Schedule 2. During the course of the Bill which became the 1967 Act I had some bitter complaint to make about Schedules. Schedule 2 comes about as follows. In the 1968 Town and Country Planning Act we "imported" a Schedule from the Land Commission Act of 1967 which dealt with the general vesting declaration after compulsory purchase orders. This Bill puts those provisions directly into the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968. I know that in Committee it is for the Chair, and in the House it is for Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy Speaker to say what is and what is not in order, but I am advised that as this is merely consolidation and does not make any new law I can escape any Amendments to the Schedules. However, we shall see as the Bill progresses—
  Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I hoped that my hon. Friend would refer to Clause 4, which deals with compensation payable to members of the Land Commission. One does not want to act in any spirit of vindictiveness, but it is the fact that these people were appointed to the Commission in the full knowledge that the lifetime of this body would probably be only that of the last Parliament. That being so, one wonders what justification there is for paying compensation for loss of office.
  Mr. Page: This is a common form Clause in such a Bill where one is dissolving a public body. It is fair in this case because some members of the Commission were engaged on a three-year contract and it is only right that compensation should be paid on the basis of that contract. I do not wish to discuss here the amounts involved but I can assure my hon. Friend that they will not put a very great burden on the taxpayers. It is right that we should take power to compensate anyone who has lost by entering into a form of contract with the Government for a period of that sort.
  1394
  If I have spoken with some relish, the House will forgive me: I have never hidden my feelings about the Land Commission and the betterment levy. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  5.34 p.m.
  Mr. John Silkin: It is rather pleasant in controversial debate of this sort to agree with the hon. Gentleman the Minister for Local Government and Development on one point at least, and that is in his tribute to the work of the individuals of the Land Commission. I am grateful to him for what he said, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) will concur with me.
  The Minister started his story with the acknowledged declaration of his party in its election manifesto and, at all times, and in the House, perfectly honestly, that it would if it came back into office abolish the Land Commission. We were all perfectly aware of this, and one cannot complain that when a Conservative Government came into operation they carried out their own ideas to which they had given prominence.
  However, I must take up just one point of omission in the Minister's story. He spoke of Conservative philosophy and the Conservative manifesto, and lightly skipped over the events of 22nd July last and then came to the present day. On 22nd July the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, now the Secretary of State for the Environment, made a very important statement to the House. He announced that immediate steps were being taken in this respect.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) said quite rightly that every attempt at instant Government had led only to chaos and confusion. The Secretary of State was implacable. He said
  "… this is an action which should be taken swiftly".
  Swiftly, that is, by administrative action. The fact is that constitutionally and legislatively this House has had to wait five months for a Bill which any schoolboy could have drafted in two weeks.
  I remind the Minister that only the other day my right hon. Friend the

  1395
  Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that this is not yet the Reichstag but the House of Commons. Action of this sort must be put to the House of Commons, and must be put speedily.
  On that earlier occasion my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) asked the Secretary of State what powers he had to say that he would no longer charge levy upon transactions taking place between 22nd July and the passing of the law of any amending legislation. To that, the Secretary of State replied:
  "The same right as the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the Budget."
  I can remember delays occurring between Budget Statements and the Finance Bills that followed them. I can remember what I thought was quite a long delay, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East was Chancellor of the Exchequer, when there was a gap between March and May, but that was only two months and in between we had a General Election. I think that some apology is due to the House for this enormous delay of five months during which the Government have been acting, much as Charles the First acted, without any parliamentary authority whatsoever.
  Mr. Graham Page: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that when the Land Commission Bill itself was brought in it was based almost entirely on a White Paper published in September, 1965. The Bill came in in February, 1967, which means a period much longer than five months. The Bill was based on that White Paper and a lot of the law dated back to 1965. There was a period of nearly two years, not five months.
  Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman's history is a little wrong, because we had the Second Reading within a matter of a relatively few weeks. There was a General Election and I think that I am right in saying that within five or six weeks of the opening of Parliament on 21st April, 1966, we had the Second Reading. The Minister had better look back on his history, because it seems to be as inadequate as his mathematics.
  1396
  Also on that occasion in July the Secretary of State for the Environment condescended to tell the House of the measures he proposed to take, leaving the legislation to come when it might. My hon. Friend the Member for Basset-law (Mr. Ashton) asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would guarantee that land disposed of would be sold, not cheaply but at a reasonable price. To that, the Secretary of State replied:
  "Certainly, the Government intend to dispose of the land in a proper way at the best possible price which can be obtained."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1970; Vol. 804, c. 549–51.]
  I have checked that the average price of land sold by the Land Commission in the period of Government up to 30th April worked out at about £4,000 an acre. As the Secretary of State has apparently been unwilling to give us this information since, can we now be told what the average price of land per acre sold by the Commission has reached in the months since July?
  Mr. Idris Owen: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the land which was acquired by the Land Commission was the type of land which was not particularly desirable and that many of the acreages which have been acquired are in areas where there is not a great demand for land? I can give the right hon. Gentleman examples if he wants them.
  Mr. Silkin: I might come to that point later. At the moment I am rather on the point of parliamentary approval. This is a matter on which I feel strongly. I will come to the merits later. I hope that all hon. Members are jealous of the House, of its rights and of its franchises. I have asked a question which I hope that the Minister will answer.
  The next point made by the Minister, as he then was, on 22nd July was that his view was that with the abolition of the Land Commission the problem of the amount of land going forward for development would be solved. Is there a difference between the number of outline planning permissions occurring since 22nd July to date this year and those occurring in the comparable period last year?
  The Minister for Local Government and Development quoted Circular 10/70, but that Circular was issued only two

  1397
  or three days ago and from the note of hysteria in its wording it appears that very little is happening. This is what the Minister says in the Circular on 14th December, five months after that celebrated statement which was to solve the question of land available for development:
  "Unless action is taken now shortage of suitable sites could become an increasingly important constraint on the housing programme."
  In his statement in July, the Secretary of State gave us the impression that he had only to make his statement saying that the Land Commission and betterment levy were dead and there would be an avalanche of suitable land available for development coming into the housing programme. If that is so, it is extraordinary that the Circular has had to be issued five months later, especially when so many of the local authorities concerned are in the hands of the Minister's political friends.
  The Secretary of State said this in his Circular:
  "It may be that the extent of the demand has been underestimated or that the pattern of the demand has itself changed …".
  No, my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby was wrong. This was not a case of instant government. This was a case of instant opposition. That is why the Tory Party was caught. That is why on 22nd July, within five weeks of the General Election result, this statement had to be made, and made swiftly, without any possible concept of what was needed to deal with the problem.
  The Minister, like myself, must have read the circular of the Secretary of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers. When I was Minister of Works I had a great deal to do with the N.F.B.T.E. as the sponsoring Minister. I hope that the federation will not take it amiss when I say that it was not the best friend that the Labour Government had, and its views on Land Commission were expressed at the time to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North. The federation said to my right hon. Friend, as it was perfectly entitled to say, that it did not think that the Land Commission would work.
  However, in its circular, which I trust that the Minister has read, the Federation says this in paragraph 6:
  1398
  "… it must be frankly said that the Commission made very little progress in achieving the two policy aims referred to in paragraph 4 …".
  Those are the ones which the Minister briefly touched on and which come from the White Paper. The federation goes on to say this, I think very fairly:
  "It was, perhaps, in existence for too short a time to help in securing that the right land was available at the right time …".
  If the National Federation of Building Trade Employers can say this, it is something that the Government should have taken into account.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): As the right hon. Gentleman quotes this document in aid in respect of the first part of his argument, does he think that it is right when it applies to the second part of his argument? Will he read on in the quotation at which he so conveniently stopped?
  Mr. Silkin: I started the quotation earlier because I wanted to give force to the builders' own criticism of the Land Commission. The federation goes on to talk about betterment. When I deal with the question of the betterment levy then perhaps I will direct myself to that also. I was saying that the federation's point was that it was opposed to the Commission. I did not hide the words that preceded what I have just quoted. I deliberately quoted these words:
  "… it must be frankly said that the Commission made very little progress …"
  I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that on this issue I have been extremely fair and have not omitted anything.
  I have dealt at some length with the question of the statement made on 22nd July, because I regard this as being a question of principle and of great importance to the House, quite apart from the question of the Commission. I hope that we shall have an apology and a full explanation of why the House has been treated in this fashion.
  I come now to the purpose of the Commission, as I see it—this instrument which the Minister for Local Government honestly and fairly told us from the start that he hated and which he repeated today that he hated. I believe that the purpose is this. We live in a small and densely populated island. For that reason,

  1399
  the planning of land is of infinitely more importance to us even than it is to other countries. During the post-war years land planning has come to be regarded as of vital importance throughout the world.
  I hope that the House, which has heard me very tolerantly so far, will hear me just a shade more tolerantly when I say that the definition of the purpose of planning which I am about to quote I regard as being the best definition I have ever heard, for two reasons. The first reason is the clarity of the words and the second is the clarity of the speaker. He stated that the purpose of planning was
  "to secure a proper balance between competing demands for land, so that all the land of the country is used in the best interests of the whole people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1947; Vol. 432, c. 947.]
  That was the then Minister of Town and Country Planning when introducing the Town and Country Planning Bill, 1947.
  The first objective of the Commission—the Minister for Local Government and Development accepted that the objective was an honourable one—was
  "to secure that the right land is available at the right time for the implementation of national, regional and local plans".
  That is taken from the White Paper "The Land Commission", Cmnd. 2771 of September, 1965.
  The hon. Gentleman, when he spoke about the objective of securing the right land, of the right land being available at the right time, did not go on to give the three categories in which the White Paper said this objective should be framed. He talked a great deal by inference of the local situation—to obtain land for local authorities at a price they can afford. That was certainly something that the Land Commission tried to obtain. It was also necessary—indeed, vital—in its overall planning that it should help house builders if possible.
  Since the Under-Secretary has asked me to read further in the circular issued by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, perhaps I should read the whole of paragraph 8 to him because I think it is of some importance:
  "There was, however, one respect in which the Land Commission was helpful to private house builders during its existence. It sometimes happens that a builder buys a parcel of land for development but is unable also to
  1400
  buy a small appendage to it, either because the owner does not wish to sell or asks too much money for it, or indeed may not be known. Yet that extra piece may be needed to round off the parcel of land and to allow for a harmonious development. There were occasions when the Commission helped house-builders by using its powers or its resources to acquire that extra piece of land. With the abolition of the Commission, cases of difficulty may well arise in the future for house-builders in acquiring the necessary appendages to plots they already own—as is indeed implicit in the provisions of Clause 3(2) of the Bill, which allows the Commission or the Secretary of State to buy such land by agreement."
  Here is another question to which I should like to direct the Under-Secretary's attention. As I read Clause 3(2), it is governed by the first subsection which says that
  "no further compulsory purchase order or agreement to acquire land shall be made in exercise of the powers conferred by that section."
  Therefore, I take it that the only purpose of enabling the Secretary of State to buy bits of land is so that he, and then the Land Commission, may dispose of the land more easily because it might be assisted in the sale if he had owned, say, an odd acre of some other piece of land, and that this was not intended to be permanent. The reason I ask this question is that the unfortunate building trades employers thought that this was going to be the permanent basis of our legislation, but it clearly is not.
  Mr. James Allason: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that this procedure which he has described was criticised heavily by hon. Members on this side of the House when we were in opposition, in that the Land Commission was threatening to use its compulsory powers on owners of small pieces of land, frightening them into giving up those pieces of land when they did not wish to do so? The Government saw the force of this and instructed the Land Commission to stop doing it.
  Mr. Silkin: I was quoting what the house builders felt about it. After all, what we are concerned with is the building of houses. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is true of every local authority that exercises compulsory powers in the country.
  Mr. Graham Page: May I help the hon. Gentleman? Subsection (2) does not give the Secretary of State any power

  1401
  of compulsory purchase. This is abolished by Clause 3(1). It gives the Secretary of State the right to buy in any small part of land, for access or something of that sort to land which he already holds.
  Mr. Silkin: In that event, the poor building trade employers are in for a very arid time.
  Mr. Michael Heseltine: This is a very important point and I would not want any misapprehension to be left. The local authorities have the powers to make the acquisitions of the kind to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring. Therefore, the demise of the Land Commission will not affect the issue.
  Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman might tell the building trades employers, because I have a feeling that they may well have been aware that such powers existed with the local authorities, but the whole point is that they were never used. The Land Commission did use them. That is why the building trades employers have paid this tribute to the work of the Land Commission.
  If I may now return to the White Paper, I have been speaking about the position locally. Now I should like to discuss it regionally and nationally, for this is something with which some institution, some agency, must be able to deal. Local authorities particularly, unreformed as they are at the moment, in small groups, in penny numbers as it were, are naturally jealous, and sometimes but not always zealous, of the housing and land interests in their own area. What they cannot see is the larger picture. I hope that I take the Minister for Local Government and Development with me. The whole history of our island is changing demographically every single day. The population is increasing by 250,000, however, every year. That is the size of a new town.
  Of course, it is possible to say that these men, and women who live longer, these children, shall be housed in Coke-town because Coketown has a housing programme, even though it is not necessary and not for the general good of the community that they should be housed there. It is possible to take that view, but I do not think it will be for very much longer. I think the nation will
  1402
  want to see its land infinitely better and more meticulously planned. A new town—250,000 people a year—is a great number. They have to be housed, given schools, work, hospitals, roads, amenities and facilities for recreation, and all these in the most suitable areas—the right area at the right time. What is meant by the right land being made available at the right time?
  May I scratch the Minister's memory a little? I want to take him back to 1963 and 1964 when both of us sat on the back benches opposite one another. At that time the then Conservative Government were boasting that they had increased their housing programme. In fact, large numbers of houses and flats were being built on the south coast of this island, being unlet and unsold for months and years. The reason was that at the price they were being built and offered for sale or to let, the people who would have taken the houses could not afford to do so. By some strange irony of fate it was the Labour Government's introduction of half rating, for totally different reasons, that helped to solve this problem, as I think the hon. Gentleman probably knows.
  The fact is this. Here were the local authorities being allowed to say, "Yes, we can grant planning permission; yes, houses and flats can come here." But they were being built in the wrong place. What one has at the moment, and I suspect for the remainder of the century, are great changes of population moving across the island from one area to another. Does the Minister really mean that this can be left entirely to the local authorities? I do not believe it. My hon. Friends do not believe it, and the country, once it is fully aware of the situation, will not believe it either. This can only be planned nationally.
  The Minister may say that we now have planning powers, and that is the whole purpose; the 1947 Act gave us planning powers, and that Act followed the New Towns Act of 1946. True, he may add that my hon. Friends did not use the New Towns Act for ten years, but they have been converted and they were using it and would wish to use it. But this is not enough. We need to plan the use of our scarcest commodity in this small island of ours, that is, the land, with the greatest possible care and precision.

  1403
  That was the basis of the Land Commission. It was able to acquire land in advance of development. I come now to the point raised by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen). He sees a lot of green fields, apparently, miles from anywhere, and he says that the Land Commission was buying the wrong land. The point is that it was using its facilities to buy land well in advance of development so that, as the years went by, land was available in the right place at the right time and, I add, at the right price.
  Here, I come again to what the builders say. The Government are acting too soon. The Commission's life has been too short. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have slaughtered this poor little baby before it could grow, but it was growing, and growing at a tremendous rate.
  I shall come now to what the Minister said in the last part of his speech on the question of the betterment levy, for otherwise I shall take too much of the time and patience of the House. The White Paper stated that the betterment levy was designed,
  "to secure that a substantial part of the development value created by the community returns to the community and that the burden of the cost of land for essential purposes is reduced."
  It is a curious fact that the words "development value" set off a kind of Pavlovian reaction in hon. Members opposite, and the word "betterment" has the whole Tory Party salivating in unison. Four times this century, since 1909, progressive Governments have attempted to deal with the problem of securing for the community the benefit from increases in land values created by the community. In 1909, in the famous Budget debate, Lloyd-George said:
  "The growth in the value, more especially of urban sites, is due to no expenditure of capital or thought on the part of the ground owner, but entirely owing to the energy and the enterprise of a community … It is undoubtedly one of the worst evils of our present system of land tenure that instead of reaping the benefit of the common endeavour of its citizens the community has always to pay a heavy penalty to its ground landlords for putting up the value of their land."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1909; Vol. IV, c. 532.]
  Those words are as relevant and as true today as they were 60 years ago.
  1404
  At that time, the rather complicated and difficult to administer solution introduced by David Lloyd-George was the increment of value duty of 20 per cent. on the increase in the value of land, and it took a Tory Government to repeal it.
  In 1931, the short-lived Labour Government set up machinery in the Finance Act to tax land values, and the rather difficult process of recording land values was set in train. But, before the tax could operate, it was repealed by the Conservative Government, by Stanley Baldwin's Government.
  The 1947 Act treated the problem in a different way, but with the same basis, by the creation of a development charge. That too, was abolished by the Tory Government of 1951–64.
  When the hon. Gentleman tells us that he and his hon. Friends are happy about the second objective, that is news to us, for four times during 60 years the Tories have done their best to stop it. But now, says the Minister, we have the capital gains tax instead. My memory is not all that good, but I seem to recall that, when we debated the capital gains tax on the Finance Bill of 1965, the most zealous advocates of the tax did not come from his benches, and I have yet to believe that, when the time comes, right hon. and hon. Members opposite will leave capital gains tax as it is.
  Even if the capital gains tax be left as it is, it does not deal with the main problem. Here, as I see them, are the differences. First, the tax bites only on a capital gain in the value of land. It bites only to the extent of 30 per cent. in the case of a private individual, so it is a differing rate of tax. It does not bite on the difference between a use value and a development value but bites only on the different values of land between April 1965 and the present day. The House will recall the Lavender Hill case. I doubt that that would be covered under the capital gains tax provisions. Indeed, I am fairly certain that it would not.
  Mr. Graham Page: A Lavender Hill case could not occur now, after the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968, could it?
  Mr. Silkin: It could have occurred before the 1968 Act and be with us at this moment, could it not? In any event, by analogy, I have no doubt that a similar

  1405
  case will arise which will not be caught under the capital gains tax but which would have been caught under the betterment levy.
  The whole point of the betterment levy—I quote again—was
  "to secure that a substantial part of the development value created by the community returns to the community".
  It was not a tax in the normal sense of a tax to provide money. It was simply the expression of a moral truth, that the community creates values—it is the community which builds roads, schools, hospitals and factories, and it is the community which increases the value of land by its efforts—and all that was said was that this is a partnership.
  Looking back on it, I confess that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North chose a very modest percentage. We said, "Here is a partnership between you, the land owner, and the community, and 60 per cent. of the increase in value will go to you and only 40 per cent. to the partner who made the increase possible". I imagine that my right hon. Friend, when he reflects on it, may be astonished at his own moderation.
  I see the main reason why the betterment levy has been changed and why we are now to operate under the capital gains tax as stemming from the difference to which reference is made in the Explanatory Memorandum on the financial effect of the Bill, which, as the hon. Gentleman put it, is to rectify hardship. That is the reason. There is a difference of £12 million next year and £31 million the year following, thereafter levelling out, it is hoped, at £11 million. We do not know about that, so let us take the first two years, a difference of £12 million and £31 million.
  Is that all hardship—£43 million worth of hardship—all widows living in small houses? Frankly, we do not believe it; neither, to be fair, does the hon. Gentleman. He believes in a kind of rough justice, but this is not rough justice. It is not justice of any sort. It does not give the community the increase in the value of land that it deserves.
  It does something worse. This has to be paid for. How are the £12 million next year and £31 million the year after to be paid? The answer came—and per-
  1406
  haps this is why the Bill did not come before the House until now—in the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27th October. These free bonanzas, with the abolition of the betterment levy of £12 million next year and £31 million the year after, will be paid out of the public purse, and if one wants to put it that way, they will be paid for out of schoolchildren's milk and the increased cost of meals.
  Mr. Graham Page indicated dissent.
  Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman does not think so, but can he give some alternatives? Something will have to be cut and something will have to be increased in price to make this £43 million available over the next two years.
  I have spoken over-long for such a short Bill, but it is a bad Bill. It is a Bill which when we are returned to office, and we shall be, we shall have to think very hard about. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen should wait for it. When the Under-Secretary has been in the House for a few more years, he will have learned patience. Four times the community has tried to enforce a decent system of land value taxing; four times it has been defeated by a Conservative Government. The next time we shall see that the egg which the hon. Gentleman spoke about is not only a good egg, but can never be unscrambled.
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. R. A. McCrindle: One of the pleasing traditions of a maiden speech is that one makes some reference to one's constituency and to one's predecessor. It would be difficult to choose a subject on which it was easier for me to make a maiden speech.
  The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) may have thought of the Land Commission up to this moment as a poor little baby, but I assure him that in my area it was seen in a different light. My constituency was as affected as any in the United Kingdom during the short existence of the Land Commission. What is more, the threats of what would have happened had a Conservative Government not been returned and the Bill introduced were considerable. Many inhabitants of the Billericay area disliked the Commission so much, perhaps even irrationally, that they rejoice that the Bill is now before the House.

  1407
  I readily pay tribute to my predecessor as an active and assiduous constituency man, but he would be the first to recognise that the torrents of reaction from those threatened by the activities of the Commission proved as difficult a task as any he had to face during the four and a half years that he represented the constituency. I am certain that he was frequently torn between the theory which underlay the Labour Government's introduction of the Commission and the practical effect as evidenced by the people who complained to him about its operation.
  The other tradition of a maiden speech is that it should be comparatively non-controversial. I had thought that I could go a little beyond the bounds required by saying to the Labour Party that looking back to 1964, and I was a candidate at the election of that year, I can see what the Labour Party was trying to do, and what it was trying to do was largely in tune with what the public was asking.
  Without benefit of hindsight, I recall talking to one of my right hon. Friends, who was then a Minister in the Conservative Government, and suggesting that a Measure whereby the public would benefit to some extent from land profits should be introduced into our manifesto. It was not thought right at the time, but, as the House will be aware, a similar scheme was subsequently introduced as Conservative policy in 1965. With an immodesty which ill befits a maiden speaker, may I say that if my right hon. Friend of those days had listened to what I said during the 1964 General Election, the Labour Party might not have been returned to power and the Bill would have been totally unnecessary. As I made a stand of this sort on that occasion, it is right to repeat that stand today.
  There is a case for the profits from the ownership of development land being taken care of through the tax system, but the right hon. Member for Deptford will not be surprised if I do not and cannot go as far as he did. That we are wise in abolishing the Land Commission and betterment levy but continuing to take care of these profits, within the philosophy of the Conservative Government, through the normal taxation system is undoubted.
  1408
  It is something of which I entirely approve.
  Equally, the Labour Party will not welcome my telling it where the Labour Government made a mistake in introducing the Land Commission and betterment levy some years ago. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will forgive me if I say that there were two mistakes in using the sledgehammer to crack a nut. First, the Labour Government brought the owner-occupier into the scheme, not because of the additional inflow of money to the coffers of the Treasury but rather in the interests of what they regarded as equity and justice. I understand that and to some extent respect it, but it is one respect in which a mistake was made.
  The second was the creation of a large impersonal body which was remote from the people affected and against which there was no redress on such occasions as, for example, municipal elections. I have many examples in my constituency of ordinary people who were intensely and perhaps irrationally resentful of the Commission's operations and resentful of the requirements to move home when they did not want to do so—I hasten to add that none of this happened and it was all just threatened under the activities of the Commission—resentful of the change of compensation as they saw it which was to be their lot and resentful particularly of the betterment levy.
  I concede that the Bill will certainly not eliminate the need for compulsory purchase and certainly will not touch compensation, but I qualified my reference to that by saying that no doubt the resentment was irrational. But that there was resentment is undoubted. It had reached the point when people in responsible positions in the community were threatening to lie in front of the first bulldozer to appear in the area as a result of the Commission's activities. No doubt this was an emotional reaction, no doubt it was dramatic and no doubt it was unfair to the Commission. I join my hon. Friend in saying that those officials of the Commission with whom I came into contact were extremely reasonable men. But in the context, whether it was emotional, dramatic and unfair did not matter, for this was a genuine feeling among those concerned.

  1409
  Some of the difficulty at least arose out of the remoteness of the decision taken. From my area, it was some 60 miles to the nearest location of the Land Commission. The very feeling that the people who were threatening to force one to move against one's wishes were away "up there" somewhere and it was difficult to get into contact with them contributed as much to the resentment as anything else. If my hon. Friend, as a by-product of what I have said, agrees to recollect what I have said when he is discussing the reform of local government, perhaps it will be no bad thing.
  On behalf of my constituents, I welcome the abolition of the Land Commission. I welcome particularly the abolition of the betterment levy: first, because, in my view, in an inflationary situation part of the betterment is bogus anyway; secondly, because the existence of the levy has not, as promised, increased the supply of building land; lastly, because it is not necessary to have this levy to ensure that the nation gains some advantage in the shape of profit from development land. I end as I began by saying on behalf of my constituents that I welcome this Bill unreservedly.
  6.21 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Willey: The whole House will join me in congratulating the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle) on his maiden speech. We thoroughly enjoyed it and look forward to hearing him again. He referred to his predecessor, Mr. Moonman, for whom I had very warm regard and admiration. Party politics aside, I am sure that he will take just as important a part in the proceedings of this House as his predecessor did.
  I must, however, correct one thing which the hon. Member for Billericay said. He is in error. He is being far too modest. He was not elected to this House because of the Land Commission, and I will put in a statistical correction. If anyone has attracted criticism over the Land Commission, then no one has attracted it more than I have, but mine was one of the two constituencies at the General Election which showed a swing to Labour.
  Of course, we are not surprised by the title of the Bill but we are surprised by its contents. The Minister seems to be
  1410
  more of a statutory contortionist than a legislator. He explained that the Bill abolishes the betterment levy, but we know that that has already been done by Ministerial diktat. With a Freudian lapse, the Secretary of State thought for a moment that he was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he was not. It was a very unconstitutional way in which to behave.
  The Bill is not only retrospective; it is a Bill of indemnity. When it comes to the question of ordinary taxation, the Minister told us that we have to look at some Parliamentary Answer to a Parliamentary Question to find out what is happening. We have to await the Finance Bill and then, apparently, we shall again get retrospective legislation. I always thought that the hon. Gentleman and I were both steadfast against retrospective legislation. He knows that I was against it in relation to the Land Commission Act, and he supported me on that occasion.
  Mr. Graham Page: But the right hon. Gentleman had to do exactly the same thing as I am having to do—leave it to the Finance Bill.
  Mr. Willey: But the levy and the relevant Finance Bill came into operation on the same day. What I object to is that the Secretary of State's action became effective in July but we have to wait until the next Finance Bill to be certain of what is going to be done then.
  Again, the dissolution of the Land Commission is to be done by Statutory Instrument. But, as the Minister has said, he does not dissolve the Land Commission, he becomes the Land Commission. He takes over all its functions laid down by the Act. That is a pretty impertinent personation, but it is worse still in other Clauses of the Bill, where we find that he is being emasculated. He is not retaining one vital power that he should retain if he is to keep to himself the powers and functions of the Land Commission.
  Then, as the hon. Gentleman has confessed, although this is a short Bill, he has managed to include three Schedules, with two appendices embodying further Schedules. Schedule 1 provides a few Amendments to the Act, and Schedule 2 repeals a few Sections. So far as one can see, the only reason for these repeals is

  1411
  the whim of the Minister. But what shocks me is that under Clause 5(1) the Minister can repeal the Act by Statutory Instrument. Can he repeal the Act as a whole or repeal it, against according to whim, Section by Section, as he pleases? This is very important. I am sure that the whole House was surprised to learn that the Minister can come here with a repeal Bill and not even know what is in the Act he is repealing.
  The Lavender Hill case has been mentioned. That was a most important case. Land speculators had bought for £7,500 and then sold for £250,000; then they wanted another £150,000 from Enfield Corporation. We dealt with that in the Land Commission Act. Does not the hon. Gentleman know that this provision was not in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968, but in the Land Commission Act, 1967?
  Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his correction. The provision is in Section 86 of the Land Commission Act, 1967, in which the Lavender Hill case was settled once and for all. Such a case could not arise again. I was wrong in quoting the 1968 Act. We are not repealing Section 86 of the Land Commission Act.
  Mr. Willey: I am rather alarmed by this situation. Civil Servants like to keep Ministers busy. Suppose the Minister has nothing to do. A civil servant mentions that there are two or three Sections of the Land Commission Act which he can repeal. If this matter had not been raised in the House today, in his ignorance the Minister might well have repealed that vital Section of the Act. I emphasise all this because there is no justification for the slipshod haste which the Government have shown over this matter.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) referred to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1953. Mr. Harold Macmillan came to the House in 1953 and said that he believed that the current legislation in some respects was defective. He believed that there was a threat of a black market and that development might be paralysed. The Minister cannot say that on this occasion. He cannot say that development is threatened by the Land Com-
  1412
  mission Act. He cannot say that there is a black market because of it.
  The hon. Gentleman should at least be surprised that he cannot say such a thing because, although he is one of the most mild-mannered of men, he joined his colleagues in making, as a principal plank in opposing the Act, the claim that development would be disrupted and held up. He said that there would be "chaos and disorder in building development". That has not happened. But because it has not happened, we might at least have reasonable propriety in dealing with the legislation.
  The Conservative Party manifesto claimed that the betterment levy had put up the price of land and houses. If that is true, then the capital gains tax will do exactly the same thing. There is not the slightest reason to think that it would do anything different. But, in fact, it is not true, or, at any rate, it is non-proven. The Land Commission, the repository of information on this question, has stated that the levy has not increased the price of land. The levy itself is pure gain.
  Let us take what has been said by the Minister for Local Government and Development. He was asked about this matter the other day at Question Time and said that comprehensive information was not available about prices of land for all purposes. He then said that, although there was no such information available, there was information about the increase in house prices. He thought it was difficult to say how much of the increase was attributable to the activities of the Land Commission and how much to other factors. This is a long way from the dogmatism of the Conservative Party manifesto.
  I prefer to take the index of prices of new houses published by the hon. Gentleman's Department. Those figures provide no evidence that prices have been affected by the levy. I take house prices for the very good reason that I feel a good deal of nonsense is spoken on both sides of the House about land prices.
  I repeat what I said at the time of the Land Commission White Paper:
  "In the case of housing land it is the price that the houses themselves fetch which primarily determines the price which will be paid for the land on which the houses are put."

  1413
  In short, I said that the high price of land for development is a reflection of its prospective economic use. I said that two consequences followed. If I again may quote myself, I said: first, save by the Land Commission buying or collecting the levy, the price of land is not likely to be reduced unless the price of houses is reduced; secondly, it follows that the argument that levy affects price is a weak argument because in land transactions the price primarily depends on relative strengths of the bargaining position of the landowner in relation to the purchaser for development. The bargaining position of the landowner, of course, is immensely strengthened by the fact that he is sitting on an appreciating asset. I argued from this that the all-important thing was to increase the scale of Land Commission activities as rapidly as possible. The Minister has mentioned local authorities, but the Land Commission can buy land 40 per cent. cheaper than local authorities. The Land Commission bought net after deducting the levy. On the second point, it is obvious that the activities of the Land Commission weaken the bargaining position of the landowner. In fact, many landowners have so complained.
  It is not the failure of the levy which has impelled Government action, but its success. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are not able to prove the case that the levy has affected prices. What upsets them is the fact it has succeeded and the fact that smoothly, without any difficulty, the figure rose from £½ million in the first year to £21 million last year. Far more important than the £21 million was the £31 million which was assessed during that year. Even more important still is the revelation in the Explanatory Memorandum that although half of the cases have been excluded from liability to levy and all the small cases have been removed, the Government estimate that the levy in a few years would reach £65 million.
  All this has happened against the background of general acceptance of the levy. I feel that it would have been possible, as we said in the White Paper we would do, to increase the levy to 45 per cent. and then to 50 per cent. at reasonably short intervals. I believe that the Land Commission had sufficiently established the betterment levy so as to achieve these
  1414
  objectives, and personally I regret that this was not done.
  Let us take the Conservative position on this question. The Minister for Local Government and Development has referred to the history of the matter. The Conservatives begin not by saying anything about capital gains but by saying "if we accept a levy, it must be moderate". This is why I reminded the Minister of what he has said about chaos and disruption. In the light of what has been achieved, nobody can suggest that the levy was immoderate and excessive. For this reason the Conservatives turned to capital gains.
  But I have some doubts about all this. When the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was leading for the Conservatives on land matters, he said in explaining Conservative policy on land prices and land acquisition that he was against the capital gains tax. He pointed out that it was a very expensive tax and went on to say that he considered capital gains a dud tax. If that is the opinion expressed by the Conservative spokesman at the time, we surely now must be anxious and apprehensive. What are the Government's intentions about capital gains tax as a whole?
  In the past the hon. Gentleman and I have argued somewhat tediously about the differences between capital gains tax and betterment levy, and I will not rehearse the argument again. I will put it as succinctly as I can again by quoting myself:
  "We believe development value more than any other value is created by the community rather than by the efforts of the land owner and it is morally unjustifiable that he should be able to profit from it at the expense of the community."
  That is the difference in approach between the two parties on betterment. But, in fact, this has nothing to do with what is actually happening. The Government had to disguise what they were doing by resorting to the switch from betterment levy to capital gains. They are doing what Conservatives have always done: they are taking money out of a large number of pockets and putting it into remarkably few—and, believe me, they are remarkably few.
  The hon. Member knows the total number of assessments. He talks about £11 million and £31 million, but we are

  1415
  concerned about how many people are receiving this money. It is being received by people who can be counted in thousands, and by them alone. The hon. Member says that he does not know what the figure will be this year—but afterwards it will be £12 million rising to £31 million. The point is that the money is going into very few pockets. This massive pay-off will go to those people who are concerned with large land transactions—the large landowners and the large land speculators.
  I do not dispute the estimates made in the Explanatory Memorandum, but I am sure that the amounts will be considerably greater. We shall never know. We knew what the betterment levy produced, but once it is merged with other transactions, and particularly when losses are set off against it, no one will know, not even the Minister, what the return will be on land sales.
  Mr. Peter Rees: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he does not agree that the same amount would probably be collected through the existing tax system? I fail to understand his point.
  Mr. Willey: The hon. and learned Member has failed to read the Explanatory Memorandum, which points out that a sum ranging from £11 million or £12 million to £31 million will be lost to the Revenue. It is clear that the amount will be more, because it is lost in the general capital gains tax and will not be identifiable.
  We must examine this matter in the context of the Government's general fiscal policy. Let us consider dental charges. Those who go to the dentist will have to pay £12 million or more as a result of increased charges. Is it any consolation to know that an identical £12 million will go to a few large landowners and speculators? The Minister says that it was a hardship tax. What will the people attending the dentists think?
  What about school milk? The Government are taking £6 million away there. What is the Government's first priority in the distribution of money from the Exchequer? They say, "There are some poor, impoverished, large landowners"—they cannot call them small land-
  1416
  owners, any longer—"and large speculators." Apparently they must receive forthwith—without waiting for legislation—about £11 million this year. The same consideration applies in the case of prescription charges, welfare milk and school meals. This is simply the Tory policy of taking money from the many, and most hardly hit, and distributing it to those who are best off. The landowners and land speculators have a tenacious hold on the Government that must turn the brewers green with envy.
  So much for the levy; I now turn to the Land Commission. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the staff. It seems that, overall, there will be no reduction in staff. The hon. Member cannot say that he is using the Land Commission to reduce the number of civil servants.
  Mr. Graham Page: I did not say that. I said that there would be an overall reduction by not filling up wastages in other Departments.
  Mr. Willey: Other Departments will look after that. A special problem arises in Newcastle, which is of considerable importance to the northern development area. I hope that the Government will pay regard to this aspect of the problem and will recognise that the placing of the headquarters in Newcastle was of some significance to the Northern Region. I join the hon. Member in paying tribute to the Commission's staff, but I also pay tribute—and I am surprised that the Minister did not—to the chairmen and members of the Commission. I do not think that I could have appointed a more distinguished or experienced Commission.
  That is not unimportant, because after the members of the Commission had been in office for some time they declared their belief that the Commission was the most practical and economical way of achieving the objectives stated in the White Paper. The Minister nodded when I referred to the distinguished character of the members of the Commission and to their unrivalled experience. They were agreed about the objectives. It was this impressive consensus, in the light of their experience, which said that they found that it was the most practical and economical way of achieving the White Paper's objectives.

  1417
  The objective that we are now concerned with is the objective of bringing the right land forward at the right time. That is of vital importance. For instance, we must remember that 40 per cent. of private enterprise housing is built by builders who employ fewer than 20 men. It is unrealistic to expect firms operating on that scale to carry stocks of land. There is always a state of imminent crisis in the development industry. The Secretary of State is now trying to make planning the main culprit. Incidentally, planning is a field in which he has direct responsibility, so if planning is at fault he had better do something about it.
  All that the Minister does is to repeat what his predecessors has said. Within limits he is quite right, but within severe limits. We cannot solve the problem through planning unless we absolutely debase the currency of planning. In any case, this is not a quarrel with the Land Commission. The members of the Commission advised Ministers on this matter, and co-operated with the Department. Indeed, they attracted to themselves some unpopularity when, to help the Minister, they applied for planning consent.
  However much we improve the machinery of planning, I believe, as most people do, that we need some agency to help bring forward land for development. The Secretary of State and the Minister concede this. They say that it can be done by local authorities. I pause to ask the hon. Gentleman: why come forward with that proposal at this time? We are awaiting the Secretary of State's proposals for the reorganisation of local government. Everyone is convinced of the inadequacy of local government. If the Secretary of State had come to the House with proposals for the reorganisation of local government and had implemented those proposals, I should be willing to consider whether there was a case for relying upon the local authorities to carry out this function. I am not always in favour of centralisation. To the contrary. However, we know that we have not at present got local authorities which can cope with this problem.
  The Minister is doing what his predecessors did. When Mr. Harold Macmillan dissolved the Central Land
  1418
  Board, what did he say? He said: "The local authorities will do this." They have not done it. We had the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), in the light of his experience, saying, "We need a land bank." We also had the Secretary of State for Social Services saying, "We need a national agency." Every Minister who has been responsible for local authorities—I am waiting for my right hon. Friend, when he has had time to reflect, to confirm this—has found that local authorities are not capable of performing this function.
  I should now like to call in aid the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. When the right hon. Gentleman was leading for the Conservatives on land and land prices he conceded that the local authorities could not discharge this function, and said: "The trouble is that the local authorities have tried to drive too hard a bargain and buy cheaply and then failed to be ruthless enough about compulsory acquisition." The intriguing footnote on Tory policy is: goodbye lower land prices. It is, therefore, hypocritical to complain of the ruthless powers of the Land Commission when they were prepared to exhort local authorities to behave even more ruthlessly.
  But this is not the real trouble. There are other difficulties—financial difficulties. Local authorities find it unacceptable, intolerable, to bear the financial burden for private development. The Secretary of State has recognised this in his circular.
  There are many other difficulties. I have rehearsed them before. I need not rehearse them again. The proof is shown by our experience.
  I should mention one important matter which has bedevilled the mechanism of promoting better land use. We are desperately short of qualified manpower. We cannot dispose of and deal with land without lawyers, surveyors and valuers—and they are in short supply. When I looked at the problem I thought that it was wasteful to find these highly-skilled people in penny packets all over the country. They are doing an executive job. This is not policy. The local authorities and the Department are responsible for planning and policy. This is the executive arm of planning, the administrative arm.

  1419
  When I discussed this matter with the leaders of several of the large local authorities they all agreed in principle that this work ought to be rationalised. I suggested that either the Land Commission could act as agent or that, for all I cared, they could act as agents for the Land Commission. But it was wasteful to have duplication of these valuation departments everywhere. Therefore, I should think that one of the attractions of centralising this work is the great shortage of qualified manpower, which has hindered so disastrously the bringing forward of land for development.
  The Government's argument is: so be it; if the local authorities have been or will be ineffective, the Land Commission has not been worth while. That is an exaggeration. I concede that the Land Commission ought to have done more. I have explained how important I regarded the activities of the Land Commission concerning land prices and the bringing forward of land for development.
  I have told the House previously—this is set out in the first Report of the Land Commission—that I asked the Commission to build up the scale of its acquisition programme within the first two years as rapidly as possible and to concentrate on the needs of house-builders. I also indicated the areas of acute shortage. I regret that was not done.
  On prices, I asked the Land Commission to make land available for housing on concessionary terms. I was prepared to give a direction, if necessary, because the Land Commission could have been in difficulties in the early stages. I regret, again, that was not done.
  But there is no point in crying over spilt milk. If the Government are anxious about this matter, the remedy surely is not to dissolve the Land Commission but to expedite its work. So we have to ask: as this is such an obvious conclusion, why have the Government not taken this course? Why have they acted so precipitately?
  I find that explanation in the last Report of the Land Commission. That report shows that the Land Commission had brought forward and made available for development about 2,000 acres of land. That might be modest, but it was nonetheless a significant contribution to easing
  1420
  our difficulties. We must realise that the Land Commission has been bringing forward land that was not coming forward in any other way. This was land which otherwise would not have been brought forward. But, far more important—
  Mr. Michael Heseltine: What possible evidence has the right hon. Gentleman for suggesting that the land would not have been forthcoming in any other way?
  Mr. Willey: The Land Commission has said time and again that it has not intervened unless the land was not coming forward.
  Mr. Heseltine rose—
  Mr. Willey: It has also said that its activities cannot be judged merely by the extent of its own acquisitions, because, in hundreds of cases, it has brought land forward without actually acquiring it itself.
  Mr. Heseltine: Would it not be some indication of the degree of urgency to explain to the House what proportion of the 2,800 acres had been acquired compulsorily and what proportion had been acquired voluntarily? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to do that.
  Mr. Wiley: The hon. Gentleman has not understood me. He has intervened at a critical point in the light of what I am about to say. This is not related to compulsory purchase or purchase by agreement. It is land which was designated for development but was not coming on the market.
  Mr. Heseltine: I am sorry to press the point, but it is crucial. If, as is the case, 75 per cent. of the land acquired by the Land Commission was acquired voluntarily, is there not a prima facie case that it would have come on the market in any event?
  Mr. Willey: It may have come on the market at some time, but it was not being purchased by developers. It was the intervention of the Land Commission which made the land ready and available for development. The hon. Gentleman has not yet had time to learn by experience what he is talking about.
  I have mentioned that 40 per cent. of private enterprise building is carried out by firms with fewer than 20 employees. This type of builder very often wants land where the services have already been put

  1421
  in. This again was a job which the Land Commission was to do.
  Far more important than the 2,000 acres which the Land Commission brought forward and made available was the fact that there were more than 9,000 acres valued at £42 million which were approved for acquisition; in other words, in the pipeline. In addition, another 13,500 acres, valued at £68 million were under consideration and were also in the pipeline.
  That land was in the process of being brought forward for development and it was at that point that the Secretary of State and the Minister intervened to bring the whole process to a halt. They threw all that away, and already, within a few months, we have the Secretary of State sending out his panic circular because he is afraid of an increasing scarcity of land for development. He would be far better employed if he were to concentrate on helping the Land Commission to provide the staff that it needs to see that that land is brought forward rapidly to the developer.
  The Minister is not unintelligent. He knows that if he had accepted this advice, and that if the Land Commission had brought forward that land for development, apart from easing the present land shortage there would have been another result. The right hon. Gentleman and the Minister talk about land prices, but when they do so they exclude the Land Commission. As far as the Land Commission is concerned, there has been a dramatic fall in land prices because it buys its land less levy.
  We have talked about the appreciating value of land. When the Land Commission is sitting on the land, it is the Commission which obtains this appreciating value, and the remarkable thing about the figures in the third Report is the wide margin of profit that is made merely by holding land which is going forward for development. If the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister had concentrated on bringing this land forward for development they would not only have alleviated the present land shortage but would have provided the commission with a substantial profit. In fact, they would have been horrified to find that, having carried out these transactions, they had increased the Commission's land fund by about £35 mil-
  1422
  lion to £45 million. If they had done that they would have demonstrated, as the Commission itself believed, that this was the most economical and efficient way of dealing with land.
  With a land fund of £35 million to £40 million the Land Commission's own hopes of dealing with the intractable problem of twilight areas might have been met. With a land fund of £35 million to £45 million, even the right hon. Member for Streatham—who believes in the land bank—and the Civic Trust might have realised that with this fund behind it the Commission might have helped to provide what we desperately need in our urban development, and that is space. I believe that with that sort of backing we could have begun to deal with the problem of mixed development. I believe one of the scars on our urban development is the existence of ghettoes on workingclass housing estates. Last, but not least, with the land fund so augmented the Commission could have made concessionary sales of land for house-building on a large scale.
  The Commission is being dissolved not because of its failure but because the Conservatives appreciate the success of the levy. Although the Land Commission was slow in starting, the Conservatives saw the potential of its development in helping land development. I should not be so biased as to allege that the Conservative Government willed Rachmanism, but they followed a rigid, selfish doctrinaire policy which inevitably resulted in Rachmanism. They are now equally following a rigid, doctrinaire policy which will bring about the frustration of decent planning, which will set land speculators deliberately to worsen land scarcity, and which will bring back disturbance and anger at the scandal of land prices.
  7.06 p.m.
  Mr. Idris Owen: I cannot hope to compare my effort with that of the more experienced Members of the House. We have had professionalism from my Front Bench and from the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). The debate so far has been conducted in a most generous and, indeed, charming way, and I hope that what I say will not engender too much heat.
  I bring to the debate, not the experience of Front Bench debating and the

  1423
  interplay of drafting procedures, but the practical experience of land development. I should like to express my appreciation of the efforts of the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North and his Government in 1964 in recognising that there was a grave and serious land problem. No one was more critical than I was when, at that time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), in a public speech in my constituency, failed to recognise that there was a land problem.
  However, tonight I am discussing the Land Commission (Dissolution) Bill in no uncertain way, and I say that few will lament the passing of the Commission. As is evidenced by the number of hon. Members on the benches opposite, the hope is that the body will be suitably interred without the usual funeral oration. The high hopes of success for the Land Commission lay only in the hearts and minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was, indeed, a most cumbersome agency, and the problem which existed in 1964 when hon. Gentlemen opposite took office still existed in June, 1970.
  Certainly hon. Members on this side of the House could not share the enthusiastic predictions of leading right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I support that viewpoint with a few quotations, if I may crave the indulgence of the House to do so. In the 1966 election campaign it was said:
  "Labour's Land Commission will take the excess profits from the land speculator. It will ensure an adequate supply of land to meet Labour's housing targets."
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said in "New Britain" that their land policy would bring land prices down to reasonable levels, and that it would also unfreeze substantial areas of land. Another right hon. Member said in his election address:
  "A racket busting Land Commission is on the way."
  We have news for them. In a few moments I will offer a few examples of acquisitions in the Manchester conurbation.
  Let us recognise the criteria when the Land Commission was established. The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North has made certain statements this evening. Perhaps I might refer to the Second Reading debate, in the course of which
  1424
  it was said that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would not be satisfied until they had brought down land prices. They will take some satisfying. They also said that the burden of the cost of land for essential purposes must be reduced, and that, if it was accepted that the state of land prices was wholly indefensible, there was an unanswerable case for the Land Commission.
  The whole tenor of their arguments was that land prices must come down and that they must break the racket. I have news for them. They did not break the racket, they got in on it. To use the Americanism, they got a piece of the action.
  Let us look at the criteria. Since its inception, did the Commission break the land racket? Did it bring down land prices? Did it help the young couples seeking homes at prices they could afford? Did it release more land for housing? That was the basic criteria in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite when they established the Commission.
  The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North has said that the Commission was a success. There are diverse opinions in that respect. There is a right hon. Member of the Opposition—he is not here this evening—who has very positive views on the success of the Land Commission. I will quote the right hon. and very respected Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). On television on 1st October of this year—not three years ago—he said:
  "The Land Commission was a total failure. Quite clearly it was a total failure."
  What about the emphasis there? He said, "The Land Commission was …" Note the past tense; he has accepted it. He has been at the funeral.
  Mr. Bob Brown: My right hon. Friend may write drivel, but that does not make him right.
  Mr. Owen: Whether the right hon. Member writes drivel or not, as the hon. Gentleman mentions, he was given a very important position on the then Government's Front Bench and so that is the reward for writing drivel. If hon. Members opposite disagree, they can take it up with him. That is his assessment of the success of the Land Commission. As a newcomer, who am I to argue, when one considers the experience of the right

  1425
  hon. Member for Coventry, East and the fact that he is a Front Bench speaker and a former Minister.
  I ask the House to examine the claims made for the Land Commission, that it would break the land racket and bring land prices down. I speak with some experience, and I should like to explain to the hon. Gentleman that I was one of the deputation from the N.F.B.T. and F.R.H.B. that visited him in Whitehall to discuss the problems. I have been in the land development business—the third generation since 1894. In my constituency, £6,000 per acre was paid in 1965 for a small parcel of land for flat development. Precisely two months ago, within one-third of a mile of that parcel an identical piece was sold across the highway at £20,000 per acre. So much for the right hon. Member's claim that the Land Commission would bring down prices.
  Another parcel of two acres in a predominantly working-class area, surrounded by council houses and small pre-war houses, was offered for sale for the small builder—who can build economically—contiguous with a cemetery. It was worth in 1964 approximately £1,500 per acre. It brought £31,200 for two acres.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: I am sure that everyone in the House agrees with the hon. Gentleman that this is a fantastic exorbitant, extortionate situation. But will it not continue? If the Land Commission is abolished, even greater profits will remain with the sellers of the land.
  Mr. Owen: I thank the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). I will draw attention to that matter and try to answer it later. I do not wish to bore the House, because it must be agonising to hear these prices. In Cheadle, a constituency contiguous with mine, land in 1965 was priced at £5,625 per acre, and a parcel of land was sold in 1970 for £50,000 an acre.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: The hon. Gentleman is making our case.
  Mr. Owen: But this is since the establishment of the Land Commission, before the Commission is abolished, under the administration totally of hon. Members opposite. They were the gentlemen who were going to break the land racket. I repeat: they got in on it.
  1426
  The consequences are most interesting, because this is where the basis of the failure of the Commission lies. As a practical person, I want the theorist to understand the practical point of view. On the prices I have quoted, the levy could be £8,000 per acre. On those high figures, £8,000 could have been and was levied in some instances, that is, 40 per cent. of the difference between the existing use value and the selling price.
  Forty per cent., based on a nominal 10 to the acre type of development in the peripheral areas—which all hon. Gentlemen know about, the small detached houses with garages for the young, up-and-coming executive—would mean that the purchaser would have to pay £800 in levy. I ask the hon. Gentleman to take note of that point. Do not have any sympathy for the land developer or the house builder, because he merely passes on his charges to the consuming public. Whatever the developer pays, he will add it on, and a profit on top. The poor consuming public will face this. Someone quoted the former right hon. Member for Caernarvon Boroughs, the then Mr. Lloyd George. I believe that it was in the House that he said:
  "No matter how you legislate, the consumer will pay in the end".
  Remember that, because it is very important.
  Let us see how the consumer paid. In those houses that were purchased at the prices I have indicated, with that sort of levy, on a 20-year mortgage, the levy factor in the house amounted to 32s. 6d. for every week for 20 years. On a 25-year mortgage it was 30s. a week. So much for breaking the racket. That was passed on to the home-hungry, young people in the peripheral districts, the dormitory areas, as a result of the levy they were paying to the Land Commission, because it had been put on the selling price of the house.
  Mr. Reginald Freeson: Are we to take it, then, that on the next slice of land in the hon. Gentleman's constituency or area which is not subject to the levy under the system that we are now to revert to, by the Government's dissolution of the Land Commission, there will be a reduction of £800 per dwelling being sold to the up-and-coming young executive and the young

  1427
  married couple? Let the hon. Gentleman tell that to the House.
  Mr. Owen: That is a fair question. Let me look at it in this way. Once a racket has been established and once a Government have got in on the racket, it is very difficult overnight to break the spell.
  Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman appears to have misunderstood my question. He was arguing that £800 was added to the price of a house as a result of the levy. According to his argument, if the levy is removed, do we take it that there will be a reduction of £800 per house in his constituency?
  Mr. Owen: The levy will be removed as a result of the Bill, but, as my hon. Friend said, it is to be replaced by capital gains tax. In the case of developers, it will be replaced by 42½ per cent. corporation tax.
  I know that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like it, but Labour's Land Commission failed to bring down the price of land, and that was the tenor of their argument when they introduced their Bill.
  Those were the sorts of prices that the levy created for the owner-occupier—
  Mr. Frank Allaun: They were going up before the Land Commission was established.
  Mr. Owen: We have had the Land Commission three years. I hope that we shall begin to bury it tonight. In three years of operation, the Commission's yield was £23½ million and its administrative charges were £6½ million. That sum represents 27½ per cent. of its transactions, which makes it a fairly expensive agency. If an estate agent charged an hon. Member opposite 27½ per cent., he would be screaming for his blood. But that was the agency fee of the Commission, if I may so describe its administrative costs.
  My hon. Friend made the point that it is cheaper ultimately to collect betterment by way of the normal taxation process, either by capital gains tax or corporation tax. There is no doubt in my mind that that will be so ultimately.
  We have heard that the Land Commission had one great virtue irrespective of
  1428
  reducing the price of land. It was said that it would result in forward planning and in bringing forward land for future use. I have more news for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. This is my own line: I have been searching, too. Very close to my home, the Land Commission acquired 48 acres. I do not know on what basis it bought it, but it did not do its homework. If it had done some market research, it would have found that there was no demand for houses in the area.
  Mr. Freeson: Was that in Stockport?
  Mr. Owen: I am not prepared to say where it was.
  Mr. Freeson: There is certainly a demand in Stockport.
  Mr. Owen: There is in Stockport, but this was somewhere south of Stockport. A number of local builders had acquired small parcels of land, and their houses were not selling. The industrial development in the area did not demand any more housing. The Land Commission's area office has been literally hawking the land about, and it has found no takers. So much for forward planning.
  As a result of the Commission's three years of trading, it managed to dispose of 320 acres of land. That represents 100 acres per year, which is not very good.
  The Labour Party said:
  "There are thousands of owner-occupiers who have voted Conservative in the past and who have learned their lesson as a result of increased land prices."
  If that was true, what lesson have they learned as a result of the last five years? If that was true then, certainly they have learned a bitter lesson now.
  I would be the first to criticise the Conservative Government who ran our affairs between 1959 and 1964. They failed to recognise our land needs and they paid what amounted sometimes to a sickening lip-service to a property-owning democracy. They wanted people to own their homes. But land was released on a drip-feed principle. The Government were completely in the hands of the planners and, as the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North said, were not prepared to assert themselves in a proper manner. We have now Circular 10/70 which invites but does not direct local planning authorities to review their

  1429
  land needs on the basis of their planning policies. I have some news for my right hon. and hon. Friends. Local planning authorities will not take the slightest notice. Clearly my right hon. and hon. Friends have more faith in local planning authorities than I have. Some of our local planning offices have become the citadels of restriction and the Shangri-Las of bureaucrats. It is time we did something about it.
  I have a certain civic consciousness. I am a member of the National Trust and of a number of civic societies. I would fight to preserve our green belts. But what is meant by "green belt"? Is it every square yard of land which has an amenity value for the man who buys a house and says, "Pull up the ladder, Jack. I'm all right"? There are thousands of acres which are preserved merely for vested interests on the periphery and not for the wellbeing of the nation. It has to stop.
  I do not advocate intrusion into green belts. I want to see more green belt for people's enjoyment. But I do not want green belt merely to preserve someone's property value. The electorates in our planning areas are so close to the planners that they exert an undue influence through their elected representatives, and we see vested interest at its worst. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will do more by way of directives to ensure that land is released.
  I am satisfied that the people who can build homes most competitively are our small builders. They have no major overheads and they are constantly on the job, turning out homes with the maximum economy. Over the last decade, they have been denied land. They cannot compete with the moguls of the construction and development industries who can use vast sums of public capital to acquire the land that they need. When small builders go to an auction, they resemble a hungry pack of wolves fighting over a meagre carcase. Yet they are the people who are capable of building houses at the kinds of prices that my right hon. and hon. Friends want. The Government have said repeatedly that they want an element of competition in every facet of house building. If our small builders are denied the raw material that they require, this objective will never be achieved.
  1430
  That is why I welcome Circular 10/70, on the assumption that it is a sincere endeavour to break these citadels of restriction, because that is where the trouble lies. One cannot have a framework for house building with rationing of land on the drip-feed system. There must be much more forward planning. There must be much more land released. If there were a grain famine in Liverpool and grain ships were seen coming down the Mersey, the price of grain would drop. If we would only release more land for which it was beyond the capability of the nation to pay, the price would come down. I am convinced of that, and I know that my hon. Friends are convinced of it. I want them to translate their dreams and aspirations into action.
  7.31 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: We have listened with interest to the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen), and I am grateful to him for bringing some colour into what could be a technical debate. We have followed him through Shangri-la, from the court of the Grand Mogul, across the battlefield where the wolves were gathering, and we were a little disappointed when we reached the end. He ended by congratulating his right hon. Friends on introducing a Circular the uselessness of which he had clearly demonstrated earlier on.
  This frustration was apparent in the hon. Gentleman's whole approach. He demonstrated the terribly high land prices and the need for forward planning; yet the Bill, even if one takes the harshest view of the Land Commission, will destroy the one instrument that we have to meet those two purposes and put nothing whatever in its place.
  The hon. Member gave us horrific figures of land prices. This is not a new story to many of us. I understood him to argue that if there had not been the levy these prices would all have been very much less. He regards the levy as simply putting an extra bit on to the price. I do not believe that to be true. I believe the argument of my right hon. Friend—
  Mr. Idris Owen: It exacerbated a very serious problem by adding 40 per cent. to the market price of land.
  Mr. Stewart: I am obliged. The hon. Gentleman has confirmed that he did say what I thought—that he regards the levy as a sheer addition to the price. I presume therefore, that he must, if his argument has any logic, take the same view about having to pay capital gains tax on the price of land. If he feels that by abolishing the levy we should wipe out this addition to the price of land, he would presumably want to see capital gains tax wiped out as well.
  This is what alarms us. We have the Government, with their half alibi of abolishing the levy, saying that there will still be capital gains tax. We all knew, when we heard that, that it would not be very long before we should be told about the iniquities of capital gains tax and the need to do something about that. We did not except that cry to be raised in the same debate from the Government back benches, but here it is already.
  This is, at this time of the year, an extraordinary Bill to bring forward, because it has been clearly demonstrated that it will make a gift of, at a modest estimate, some £11 million a year to people very few of whom are widows and orphans and many of whom are comfortably off. It is considered seemly at Christmas for there to be a whip-round or several whip-rounds among the more fortunate members of the community for the benefit of the less fortunate. What we have here is a sort of "anti-Christmas box", where the public at large have to put into the box and a limited number of quite well-off people will profit. It is as if the poor old man by the forest fence were obliged to take flesh and wine to the court of King Wenceslas for the benefit of the more fortunate people living there.
  This problem of the price of land and what to do about increasing land values is and must be a problem as old as civilisation, because once there is an established community with a population growing and with a standard of life rising, there is bound to be an increased demand for land. People rightly want to live more spaciously, not only in their private houses but in their public buildings, and there is a demand for more land.
  A community which does nothing about this problem faces two difficulties.
  1432
  First, it allows the flagrant example of large unearned gains to go into the hands of private people, often in the most arbitrary manner. It is difficult to get social cohesion and what we are taught nowadays is called "one nation" with these flagrant examples of unearned gain.
  The other damage that it does the community is that of making the cost of providing decent public services bigger and bigger. The community has to have hospitals, roads, schools and so on. If it does nothing about this problem of the growing price of land, it finds that it has to pay more and more.
  There have been many attempts to solve this problem. One of the earliest ways in this country was the feudal device that if one owned more than a certain amount of land one had to do military service. It would, I suppose, be administratively impracticable to introduce that again today, but if we introduced it, it could have one or other, or a bit of two, interesting results.
  It might, of course, alleviate the concern of the Secretary of State for Defence about the number of people in the Armed Forces. More likely, so many of those so liable would be so anxious to divest themselves of their liability that a great deal of land would come on the market and a considerable part of the problem of high land prices would be solved. But, having cast a regretful look backwards at that solution, we must accept that it is not administratively practicable today.
  But my point is not merely flippant: it is to illustrate that this is an age-old problem, that if one does not and cannot adopt that kind of early solution, one must find another. This has been rubbed into the community by far-sighted people for a long time. One of the minority reports of the Balfour Committee on Industry and Trade, reporting towards the end of the 1920s, drew attention to the fact that it was inevitable that the public would need, for public purposes, in the coming years growing amounts of land, and that the public would be very wise to set to work in good time to buy them up before they became too dear. The nation has paid an enormously heavy price that that advice was never taken, or taken only to a very limited degree and much too late.
  Then, of course, there was the wise attempt made to deal with this by the

  1433
  father of my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin), Lord Silkin, when Minister of Town and Country Planning. It was possible to make administrative criticism of his betterment provisions, but what was disastrous was to throw away the whole of that provision for getting the increased value of land into the public purse and put nothing in its place.
  That is what gave us the appalling profiteering of the 1950s and 1960s. Beside this problem of trying to get a good chunk of the increased value of land into the public purse, there is also the problem of trying to see that our land is best used. There are both the financial problem and a planning problem, and it seems to me that to deal with them both there must be a national body of some kind.
  I will not argue—it is not part of our case—that everything was perfect with the Land Commission, but I am interested to find that the amount of positive evidence advanced against it in this debate has been remarkably thin in view of the generalities of abuse that there had been before. Nearly all the instances of its alleged shortcomings seem to be in places whose names we cannot be told and against persons whose names are obscure. Admittedly, as with all human institutions, one can find fault with it.
  We are still left with a considerable problem. Having wiped out the Land Commission, there is no national body either to do the forward planning or to try to see that a good chunk of the increased value of land goes into the public purse. The door is again wide open to the most unlimited profiteering and for a continuation of precisely the evils which were graphically described by the hon. Member for Stockport, North, who made a good case not for abolishing the Land Commission but for improving it. We were disappointed that he stopped at the point when we thought his speech was leading to the conclusion that this should be driven home to his hon. Friends. I stress the importance of ensuring that the increased value of land, which is the community's creation, is not handed over simply for private profiteering.
  A few days ago the dispute in the power industry came to an end and the
  1434
  Government insisted that the words "the national interest" should be included in the terms of reference of the court of inquiry. I have always held strongly that in the determination of any wage, salary, price, rent or anything else it should not be left to the mere bargaining power of the two parties but that the national interest should be there.
  If that is true, as the Government assert it is, in the negotiation of wages and incomes from work, it should also be true in any transaction that involves getting wealth from property. It is outrageous that the Government should be insisting on the national interest when it is a question of incomes on one day of the week and a few days later, by this Bill, throwing the national interest out of the window to enable people who have no need for it to collect £11 million, £20 million or perhaps £31 million which must be paid for in ways my hon. Friends have described. That is what we are asked to do in this Measure, and that is why I hope the House will refuse to do it.
  7.43 p.m.
  Mr. James Allason: I congratulate the Government on their ingenuity in fulfilling their election pledge to abolish the Land Commission as early as 23rd July. This has been criticised by hon. Gentlemen opposite as being an unnecessarily early step. However, a quick decision was needed simply in order to get planning applications started.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite complain because, they say, a tremendous volume of land has not been coming on the market immediately. I remind them that it is a question of getting planning consents. There are parcels of land all over the country which have been deliberately withheld from the market because of people's dislike of the levy. That land will soon be coming forward. Indeed, planning applications are now being submitted.
  The Act had three main things wrong with it. First, it was incomprehensible. I had thought of opening it at any one of its 189 pages to show, by reading an extract, how only the experts can have even an idea of what it means. Secondly, it was unfair in its impact on different people. Thirdly, it was unsuccessful, and

  1435
  I regard this as being the one that condemns it the most. One might forgive legislation which is incomprehensive and somewhat unfair, but for an enactment to be unsucessful as well damns it out of hand. For these reasons the Land Commission deserves to go.
  I agree with the principle of betterment being taxed. In 1964 I, with some of my hon. Friends, urged that this should be done, but my Front Bench did not agree at that time. However, there is intense difficulty in taxing betterment, as the Labour Government found, despite the 189 pages of their Act. Their attempt has not worked.
  We must then consider the effect of action of this type on the price of land. The Land Commission in effect put a tax on land, and that resulted in land prices rising even higher. Can anybody deny that taxes increase prices? It might be a sheer coincidence, but it seems remarkable that not only has the price of land increased as a result of this tax but that every commodity, from cigarettes to petrol, increases in price when it is taxed.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: What about income tax?
  Mr. Allason: That is a tax on income, which is not a commodity.
  What the Government are proposing is a reduction in tax. We do not yet know what the result will be. At least we can be sure that a £15 million reduction in tax will result from the Bill, because we have a saving of £11 million plus the saving of the cost of the Land Commission. I am sure that gradually the price of land to house builders will be reduced, though this will happen indirectly because it will mean a slowing down in the rate of increase of land prices.
  I regret that the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) is not in his place, because I wish to rebuke him for calling this a speculator's charter. Language of that type is not necessary in this context. This is not a handout to the rich. How can a reduction in taxation be a handout when it is only a reduction in a deduction from an individual's personal property? All taxes go sky high when Labour is in power, and when we reduce them they take the
  1436
  scandalous step of calling it a handout to the rich.
  They should remember from whom they have been taking the money. The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North implied that very few ordinary people have been paying the levy; but that is not my experience. I do not know of all these gigantic land speculators who pay huge sums in levies, but I have in my constituency a widow who, had her husband lived, would have been allowed to build a house in the garden for the children without attacting levy, because the couple owned the property before the operative date. Because the husband died and the widow inherited after the operative date, she had to pay levy on the project. That kind of hardship was not remedied when some hardships were put right in 1969. It is people like that who will benefit by the removal of the levy.
  Powers of land acquisition already existed at the first appointed day for development corporations and local authorities if acquisition was necessary in the public interest. Nevertheless, on the first appointed day the Commission was given similar powers. The result has been the acquisition of 2,800 acres as a result of the administration of 950 civil servants—not much more than two acres acquired for each civil servant engaged. Fewer than 3,000 acres have been acquired in three years when our land needs were 50,000 acres a year. The acreage acquired has been chicken feed, and quite useless as a contribution to our needs.
  Things were to become very different after the second appointed day, because then the Commission was to have widespread powers to take almost any land which was available. It meant the virtual nationalisation of building land. The Leader of the Opposition said on 7th March, 1966:
  "We said we would take the urban building lands on which planning permission has been granted into public ownership. That is what the Land Commission will do."
  It is a good thing that we have not got as far as the second appointed day, and now we never shall, but now that the Commission is being abolished we have the problem of land assembly. We are left at the moment with development corporation and local authority procedures, neither of which is satisfactory. The trouble with the development corporation

  1437
  procedure is that it is necessary to set up a new corporation in each case. As to local government assembly, there are small authorities which are not very competent in assembling the necessary land, and there are some very large authorities, which are perhaps a great deal too competent.
  For instance, the Greater London Council is at present acquiring any small piece of land it can find anywhere in the Home Counties or within the boundaries of London regardless of the wishes of the local authorities or the local people concerned. It has acquired 40 acres in the middle of Tring, in my constituency, which will completely unbalance the situation there. A small rural town of 8,000 people living a very quiet life will suddenly find descending on it 2,000 Londoners who have a rather different demand on life. Such actions are very much resented. A concentrated influx of G.L.C. tenants can completely upset the balance and character of a small town or rural area—
  Mr. Allaun: But where are those people to live?
  Mr. Allason: I say that it is the wrong method of assembling land. There is need for large-scale assembly, but that is not the duty of Government. The trouble with the Commission is that it is a body which knows exactly what is needed, but the truth is that local authorities should judge their own needs, and it is they who should have a satisfactory land assembly system.
  The Commission's demerit was that it only assembled land and could not go further. The development corporation system has the demerit that a new body has to be set up on each occasion. I should like to see perhaps a group of local authorities combining to form something which was equivalent to a development corporation but which could not only assemble land but subsequently develop it, probably in conjunction with private enterprise.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: With compulsory powers of purchase?
  Mr. Allason: Yes, I fear so, because this group would be equivalent to the development corporation, which must have compulsory powers. I do not like compulsory powers, but in cases like
  1438
  this they are necessary. Local authorities have the powers already, and they are necessary in the extended system I am suggesting.
  Mr. Denis Howell: The House is following with great interest what the hon. Member proposes, but would he tell us what, apart from the betterment levy, the difference is between what he proposes and the Commission which is being abolished?
  Mr. Allason: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not been following me. I have mentioned two differences. The first is that the Commission is a centralised body, while I am speaking of a land assembly organisation based on either a group of local authorities or one large local authority. An area within a county would be satisfactory. Secondly, the Commission had the demerit that it could only assemble land and not process it. My form of development authority, similar to the development corporation but mobile, would be able to process the land as well as assemble it.
  I followed the career of the Land Commission from its birth and through the Measure's many stages here, and I am glad to be in at its death as well. The Act was at least well-meaning but was, in fact, a bumbling Socialist plot.
  7.59 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: I am amazed at the schizophrenic nature of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason). He is a most amiable man, and I like him personally but he is a nice man with nasty ideas. I find it difficult to reconcile such a nice person, on the one hand, with such reactionary ideas, on the other. He referred to the case of 2,000 Londoners who must find houses somewhere, but not where the land is best suited for them.
  The Government's several proposals in other matters will squeeze ordinary families and squeeze their social services. The Government are to increase charges for prescription, health, spectacles, school meals and school milk. At the same time as saving a few miserable pounds here and there, they are to give away £11 million, £12 million, and £31 million net to the big landowners and the big land speculators. I feel strongly about this outrage.

  1439
  I was amazed when I heard the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) use such legalistic terms about something which is a scandal. It is the kind of thing that we read about in the News of the World and the People when smaller men are involved. A huge gift is to be made to the large landowners and speculators. One nation indeed!
  Mr. Allason: And to my widow.
  Mr. Allaun: I will come to the question of the hon. Gentleman's widow. I believe that the amounts which would have accrued for the benefit of the national revenue would have greatly increased as the amount of land purchased was increased. After all, a child of two or three is not expected to have acquired all the power of an adult; nor could the Land Commission be expected to have reached after only two or three years the level of performance which it would have attained if it had been allowed to continue in operation for several years.
  When the hon. Member for Crosby was tackled about the net saving, he said, "This is only because of the equivalent hardship." That is not correct. With the exception of one or two rare anomalies, the small man—the owner-occupier—was in 1969 excluded from the ambit of the Commission's operations. Therefore, the hardship excuse does not hold water.
  The levy which is being handed back to the large landowners is the amount they would have paid in levy. Even Tory Members have on occasion mentioned the racket and scandal of land prices. One hon. Conservative Member, now retired, told us that he bought 10 acres of land for £36,000. Planning permission to build on the land was given. Within two years—he told us there was nothing dishonest about it—he sold the land for £1 million. I have previously quoted a case from the Lea Valley.
  Mr. Michael Heseltine: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how much the person concerned would have paid on that deal under the present capital gains proposals?
  Mr. Allaun: He would have paid 30 per cent. Under the Land Commission scheme he would have paid 40 per cent.,
  1440
  then 45 per cent., and as far as I am concerned it could have gone much higher, because that was unearned income—a fortune, gained not through any effort of the owner but through the efforts of the community around that plot of land.
  This is what is happening. Once planning permission is granted potato fields become a goldmine overnight. It is antisocial to abolish an attempt to deal with such injustices without putting anything in its place. I am surprised at upright men opposite supporting this action.
  I quote now an extract from the book "The Aristocrats" by Roy Perrott, published in 1968. On page 30 these words of Viscount Scarsdale of Kedleston Hall are given:
  "'But with land everything depends on the Government of the day', Lord Scarsdale went on, telling me an anecdote to illustrate the pitfalls of a landowner's life. 'When the Labour Government was in a while ago I had to sell seven acres to the local council to build a school on and they paid me the absurdly low price of £100 an acre. When the Tories got in we saw fair play for a change and the council paid us £38,000 for another seven acres.'"
  Mr. Allason: Does the hon. Gentleman remember the Pilgrim case, which gave rise to the decision to pay fair compensation for compulsory purchase?
  Mr. Allaun: What is fair to the landowner is usually unfair to the community. I return to the basic principle that if land increases in value through the efforts of the community the increase in value should be returned to the community which created it.
  The real fortunes from land speculation were made between 1959 and 1964 following the removal of the last controls on land profiteering which were imposed in 1947 by Lord Silkin, the distinguished father of my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin). I do not know how many millionaires were created during that period.
  I want now to look at the receiving end. The Greater London Council must pay £1,600 for the land on which it builds one flat—not a block of flats—before a single brick is laid. That adds 30s. to the rent of the council tenant—not for bricks and mortar or for the builder's labour, but for the plot of land on which one flat is built. Even the National Federation of Building Trade

  1441
  Employers, which as a rule is not exactly pro-Labour, admits in the circular it issued this week the heavy charge that is incurred because of land prices.
  The Government are not proposing to put anything in the place of the Land Commission. They are not proposing a new form of control. They are merely removing a control which I believe did not go far enough. Will the price of land stop rising? Everybody here—we are not children; we are sophisticated people—knows that the price of land will now rise higher than ever. The argument that it was the levy that increased the price of land because the levy was added to the price is not valid. Naturally a landowner will secure the maximum price for his land in any case whether there is a levy or not.
  The Labour Party stands by its principle on this issue. As a national executive member of the party I can say that we shall consider in the next few weeks and months what to put in place of the Land Commission because we are not prepared or content to let the situation continue as it is without any control or public ownership.
  There are several alternatives. We might well decide to return to the proposals made by Lord Silkin. There is much to be said for them. We certainly ought to give the local authorities greater power to acquire land—or perhaps we ought to have straight nationalisation of the land; it is not for me to say. But these things will be discussed. I assure hon. Members opposite that if they think this is the end of the battle, they are very much mistaken.
  Let us look briefly at one or two of the arguments that have been used against us tonight. It was said, for example, that there were 1,100 civil servants employed by the Land Commission costing, I think, £2½ million. There were far too many to do far too little. Most of them were probably sitting on their backsides most of the time. I should point out that I am not an anti-civil servant chap. I do not believe in using civil servants as scapegoats. Nevertheless I think that they were under-employed, and they cost £2½ million. Despite that, there was a good saving to the country, rising to at least £31 million by the year 1973–74. Another argument was that the Act
  1442
  has not helped with the purchase of land, but let me quote from the builders:
  "There were occasions when the Commission helped housebuilders by using its powers or its resources to acquire that extra piece of land. With the abolition of the Commission, cases of difficulty may well arise in the future for housebuilders in acquiring the necessary appendages to plots they already own …"
  I do not pretend that the building employers are defending the Land Commission; they are not. They want to see it abolished because that is part of their ideology. Nevertheless they admit that the Commission was useful to them.
  I now deal with this question of the loopholes in the Bill—and there are some. Let me give one startling example. If one developed the land before 6th April, 1967, one escaped the betterment levy. So all over the country in February and March, 1967, there were people digging little trenches across pieces of land—
  Mr. Bob Brown: And driving stakes in.
  Mr. Allaun: —and they then said it was developed and paid no levy. When one is involved with millions of £s—because these landed estates are of that sort of value—the most expensive, experienced and sophisticated lawyers in the country are employed. We shall accordingly be in difficulty in finding legislation through which they will find it impossible to drive a horse and cart. I am very glad to see from the nods of assent that there are one or two hon. Members opposite who appreciate that fact. But it must be done. Otherwise the community is being held to ransom.
  I have only one major criticism of the Land Commission—not that it went too far but that it did not go far or fast enough. Somehow we must devise legislation which will avoid what has happened—the fact that it did not succeed in doing some of the things that many of us here desperately wanted it to do.
  I shall keep to my promise and conclude now because no doubt we shall have further opportunities to speak in Standing Committee. This Bill will give freedom—freedom to land speculators to hold the community to ransom.
  8.14 p.m.
  Miss Mary Holt: I welcome this Bill for the dissolution of

  1443
  the Land Commission and the abolition of betterment levy, but I must say that I find the subject very complicated, and I shall therefore have to make considerable use of my notes.
  My first reason for saying this is that which was advanced by almost every speaker on this side of the House, that the Act, betterment levy and the Land Commission failed to achieve their objects. They failed to stabilise land prices and make land available for building. In fact they had the opposite effect. Every speaker on this side of the House has stressed the way in which betterment levy sent the price of houses soaring. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) gave some specific examples from his constituency. I can quote parallel examples in my area. In 1964 one acre of land was fetching £4,000 and is now bringing anything up to £30,000. In a suburb of a northern industrial town where there is no great pressure of population, half an acre of land sold recently for £15,000.
  The house purchaser was the one to suffer from betterment levy, which was designed originally to catch the speculator. In practice it hurt the small man doing a bit of building. Many people with a little capital suddenly found that, having sold a bit of land for building purposes, they had to pay hundreds of pounds. The big builder, by contrast, got away with it because he passed on the levy to the purchaser of the land. So we have a law which was bred out of envy and other people's good fortune, proving to be like the proverbial cobweb where the big flies break through and the lesser ones are caught.
  Betterment levy was illogical in the tax system. It hit only increases in development value and not increases in existing use value. A man who bought land for £1,000 which he sold after five years for £10,000 for building had to pay levy of 40 per cent., whereas a man who bought a house for £1,000 which he did not occupy and which he could sell after five years for £10,000 had to pay capital gains tax of 30 per cent. but not betterment levy of 40 per cent. There was an element of unfairness there which made betterment levy undesirable. In my submission, it is far better for those gains
  1444
  to be taxed through the capital gains system, as will happen under this Bill.
  Another aspect of the unfairness of betterment levy was the way in which it was not paid by statutory bodies such as the National Coal Board and other nationalised bodies. In that case, there was a hidden element of subsidy to them, as against commercial undertakings.
  This leads me to another reason. The abolition of betterment levy will simplify the tax system because it will reduce the number of taxes with different rules.
  It will also reduce the occasions when lawyers and professional men have to waste their time trying to understand the Land Commission Act, which is almost incomprehensible, as a previous speaker on this side of the House has said. It took a year to draft. It will take anyone a year to master its provisions. It has 122 Sections and 15 Schedules. The words and expressions carrying specialised meanings number 188. Some of the meanings are intended just for special parts of the Act. Listen to this. Section 64(1) states:
  "In this Part of this Act 'project of material development' means any project or scheme in pursuance of which any material development is, or is to be, carried out."
  Sections like this are as clear as mud. Ordinary people never understood either the Land Commission or betterment levy. They had the good sense not to try.
  I believe Dr. Johnson once said to somebody who could not follow his argument, "I can give you an explanation, but I cannot give you understanding." It would have been beyond Dr. Johnson's powers to give an explanation, let alone an understanding of the Land Commission Act.
  As for the Land Commission itself, I regard it as a body which introduced new and dangerous practices into the normal procedure of compulsory acquisition by Government bodies. Before the Land Commission Act, a Government body which had to acquire land compulsorily was always limited by Act of Parliament to specifying the purpose for which its powers could be used and it was required to show its actions to be in accordance with its powers. Under the Act, after the second appointed day—which is defined in the Act—the Land Commission could compulsorily acquire

  1445
  land without specifying the purpose or showing that it had acted within its powers. Let no one quote to me Section 7(4), which says that the Commission must give notice of its reasons. Things are quite different when no purposes are laid down. Also, the Minister was empowered to make an order preventing the owners of private property from having the opportunity to make objections.
  These were Star Chamber methods. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) described the Land Commission as a "poor little baby". It was a little baby with dragon's teeth. In the interest of individual freedom, I am glad to welcome the Bill to make the Land Commission disappear. I am only sorry that the end of the betterment levy is fixed for 22nd July and not 19th June, the day after the General Election.
  I welcome the Bill, and I strongly support it.
  8.21 p.m.
  Mr. Bob Brown: I must ask the indulgence of the House, not because I am making a maiden speech but because I feel under the weather. I am running a temperature—and some of the speeches from the benches opposite have not improved my condition—but I felt that I had a duty to my constituents to stay here and say a few words on behalf of Newcastle, West.
  My constituents and all of us who live in the area are most anxious about the continuing rape of the North-East under this Government, a practice which is typified by the Bill now before us. I realise that "rape" is an emotive word, and one's reactions to it will depend on whether one is at the receiving end. We are certainly on phe receiving end in the North-East, and we do not like it at all. It is fair to say that what we are witnessing is the continuing butchery of the North-East on the altar of doctrinaire policies, and the proposals in the Bill are only too typical of the policies announced since 18th June, especially those pursued in relation to my area.
  No matter what the Minister may say about what consultations there have been on the relocation of staff in other Government Departments, over 200 jobs at Kenton Bar in my constituency have now gone, or will have gone when the Land Commission is wound up.
  1446
  It is true, as the Minister said, that the Government have a mandate. I do not deny that they have a complete mandate to introduce the Bill at this stage. But this gives all the more reason to ask—I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will deal with this—why, knowing the plight of the North-East and of my constituency in particular, the Government were not decent enough to try to provide alternative employment in Newcastle, West, in other words, to send up to the North-East from the over-crowded Metropolis another Government office offering at least 200 jobs—and probably ten times that—to take over the magnificent building which the Land Commission will be leaving.
  Some hon. Members from the "soft underbelly" of the South-East may well ask, "What is he belly-aching about? After all, it is only 200 jobs". That makes me turn to the leading article in this morning's Newcastle Journal:
  "Early last month, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, told Dame Irene Ward, M.P. for Tynemouth, that her hopes for the area would be fulfilled 'beyond her wildest dreams'.
  "But when? At present, the North is enduring a waking nightmare. More than 60,000 are out of work, 800 jobs have been lost in Sunderland in the last three weeks, and the future for many more in shipbuilding and engineering is uncertain, if not bleak."
  It is no use the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward)—I am sorry she is not here, because I should like to say a lot more—extolling the virtues, to paraphrase her words, of her two lovely friends in the Cabinet who will look after the North-East. She may be thrilled to have two lovely friends in the Cabinet who will, she thinks, look after the North-East, but I am not nearly so thrilled.
  If the Industrial Relations Bill was rightly referred to as a lawyer's charter, this Bill must be seen as a speculator's charter. I make no apology for repeating words already used in the debate. No fewer than 22,835 acres of land were under consideration for acquisition, approved for acquisition, or due for completion of purchase at the end of March this year, at a cost of about £162½ million.
  Having visited its head office in my constituency and having seen the chaps there at work over several years now, I know that the Land Commission has

  1447
  really settled down to the job. It has gained the expertise which was needed. But now it is to be dismantled purely in the interests of party politics. There is no other reason but the doctrinaire politics of the party opposite.
  There has been much play made—the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) asked my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) to respond about it—of the widow's mite and of the hardship suffered through the impact of the betterment levy and the way which the incidence of development value made levy due. In my constituency, I had the case of one such little widow, whose late husband had purchased a small plot of land about 10 miles outside the city in the immediate pre-war years. The plots were then going for about £5 for something like half an acre. They intended to build their little dream house, but they never got round to it, and about 40 years later he passed on.
  That little plot of land, which was purchased for about £5, had increased in value no less than 2,000 times, so that the widow was faced with having to pay betterment levy of £3,000 or £4,000.
  I put it to the House that I should dearly like to be subject to that sort of hardship, and I am certain that thousands of my constituents would, too. We should be made financially for life.
  The Under-Secretary of State is not in his place at the moment, but I hope that the Minister will pass this question to him. Have land prices risen more steeply since July, since the time of the announcement of the Government's intention, than they did formerly?
  It would be a great tragedy if the Commission's very useful powers were to be lost altogether, although they might not have been used as widely or as extensively as I should have liked. I am thinking of, for instance, the power to secure the overall development of an area, particularly when ownership is fragmented so that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get a comprehensive plan by voluntary agreement, the power to acquire and dispose of land and properties on behalf of local authorities or other bodies which already have C.P.O. powers, particularly necessary when land overlaps local authority boundaries.
  1448
  If the Tories had not sat on their beams on the Maud Report but had got down to implementing it by introducing bigger local authorities, such as the Greater Tyneside single-tier, all-purpose authority, there would have been no problem, because such an authority would have inherited the job from the Land Commission, but the Conservatives have done nothing about the Maud Report and it will be difficult to resolve this type of problem. Yet this is one of the matters for which some such body is most required.
  If ever there was absolute nonsense, it is Circular 10/70. It is meant to be an appeal to local authorities to release land to private builders so that more houses may be built, but the appeal should have been directed in the opposite direction. My constituency is a county borough constituency, but it might be regarded as an illegitimate county borough constituency because it includes a large rural hinterland. Through it is a main road along which a "spec" builder has cornered at least three miles of ribbon development land. If there is any land shortage, it will be the local authority which is in difficulty. This is a major problem in the area.
  In view of the time, I will now permit other hon. Members to take part in the debate.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Rees: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene in the debate and I hope to keep my remarks short. For that reason, I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) will forgive me if I do not comment on his rather specialised observations. However, as a Member for a constituency in the "soft under-belly of the South-East", I should like to point out that we, too, have unemployment problems though we are very conscious of this.
  I have had occasion over the past three years for professional reasons to become uncomfortably but closely acquainted with the betterment levy, and I should like to concentrate my remarks on that. The three years' acquaintance I have had with it has not made me particularly fond of it. I listened with great interest to the apologia pro vita sub of the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), but I read with rather more

  1449
  interest his turnover article in The Times in March, 1969, which suggested that he was not so very fond of the legislative progeny which he had sired. He is entitled to change his mind, but I should have thought, with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen), that this was a case for a quick and decent burial and then hurrying off to the wake.
  As right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have reminded us, these fiscal corpses tend to be resurrected every generation, and I hope that they will, therefore, allow me to make one or two comments on their last efforts in this respect, because they have reminded us that the problem has long been recognised, and it has been recognised by Conservative Members. Let us accept that there is a problem and that there is a case for taxing development values. I would not have stated the problem in quite such tendentious phrases as those used by Labour Members because I doubt whether those values have been created entirely by the community. They are mostly the result of the distortion of the market caused by planning legislation; but let that pass.
  How was that problem faced in the period running up to 1965? There has been much talk about speculators and land developers. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) said that we tended to salivate in Pavlovian terms when we heard the words "development value". Labour Members tend to salivate when they hear "speculator" or "land developer". However, speculators and land developers serve a purpose and let us not treat them too harshly. In any event, the point I want to make is that under the existing fiscal system, even prior to 1964, they could have been taxed. They could be taxed—to go into technical detail—under Case 1 of Schedule D. I put it in that way because the right hon. Gentleman is a member of the legal profession and should recognise it. Beyond that, a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a short-term gains tax. I was not particularly enamoured of that either, but the problem had not passed unrecognised by my right hon. Friends.
  Came 1965 and the last Government introduced a very elaborate capital gains tax. It is right to point out that, with
  1450
  one major exception, capital gains tax would have sufficed to tax most of the transactions that are caught by betterment levy. The solitary major exception is that of a project of material development—in other words, a development by a land owner which is not followed by a sale.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: Case C.
  Mr. Rees: Yes, it comes under Case C. There is a case for not taxing that kind of transaction because no receipt flows in. I deprecate the tendency to be found in fiscal measures introduced by the last Government to tax transactions which do not result in cash flowing to the taxpayer. One can understand that one may or should tax a taxpayer when he has something on which to pay tax, but to do so on a purely notional gain is a rather harsh procedure. With that one main exception—and I must contradict what the right hon. Gentleman said here—most transactions would have been caught by the existing fiscal system prior to 1967. He was not making a valid point in saying that base values would have been different. It is true that they would have been, but in many cases it would have gone rather more hardly against the taxpayers.
  So we reached the position where there was no real fiscal point to the levy from the point of view of raising revenue. I must point out to my hon. Friend the Minister that I treat with considerable reserve the figures of tax forgone appearing in the Explanatory Memorandum. I do not see how they are arrived at It must be a matter of pure speculation as to how much land will come on the market at any given time and at what price. Drawing on my professional experience, I doubt whether in the long run more than a trivial amount will be lost to the Exchequer from the abolition of betterment levy. Starting from that premise, the betterment levy can only be justified as a pure political gesture.
  We on this side of the House have learned to live with pure political fiscal gestures from right hon. and hon. Members opposite, but I ask them at what cost this gesture was made. First, they had to call into being a whole new organ of Government. In principle, it must be right to concentrate the administration of

  1451
  all fiscal measures in two organs of Government—the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. They are highly experienced and long established. There cannot be a case for proliferation of tax-collecting agencies. Then, the last Government had to introduce a Measure of startling complexity. I shall not elaborate on that because my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Miss Holt) dealt with it very adequately. In his leisure moments, the right hon. Gentleman should have another look at the Land Commission Act. It covers 180 pages, with 17 Schedules which are incomprehensible to everyone except Sir Desmond Heap, to whom I am happy to pay a tribute.
  Mr. John Silkin: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman read the Industrial Relations Bill?
  Mr. Rees: Indeed I have, and I am happy to draw an analogy. The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) characterised that Bill as a lawyer's paradise. That came oddly from the Opposition because if anything was a lawyer's paradise—or perhaps more truthfully a professional man's hell—it was the Land Commission Act. There is nothing comparable in complexity between the two Measures. It may be difficult in practice to work out certain passages in the Industrial Relations Bill—we must wait and see—but for sheer obscurity of language and for sheer ambiguity and difficulty I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Land Commission Act is preferable.
  The right hon. Member for Blackburn—I am sorry she is not here—recommended that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment should take Lloyd's List Law Reports to bed with him. If she is in need of stimulation or sedation and gets bored with Lloyd's List, I commend to her the 17 Schedules of the Land Commission Act.
  When legislation of such complexity is introduced, it hits not only the speculators and land developers but also small people. Therefore, we must count the cost not only in terms of civil servants, but in terms of the cost of professional advice and time. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) made the telling point—I am also sorry that he
  1452
  is not here at the moment since I agree with some, if not all, of his points—that it is difficult to draw complex legislation in such a way that there will be no loopholes. The well-informed, ingenious person, who is forewarned and forearmed, will be able to drive a horse and cart through involved and complicated legislation of this kind. I could point out some loopholes in this Act, but it is now a matter of legal history—or we hope it soon will be. It is the small people, who are unaware of the complexity of the problem and who fall slap into difficulties about whom we should be worrying.
  What is involved is not just the question of civil servants' salaries, but the phenomenal cost of professional services which hon. Gentlemen opposite have imposed on the country by their ill-judged fiscal measures. Their performance has been lamentable over the past six years, and we are all paying for it.
  From time to time we are all encouraged to go in for fiscal simplification. We recently had an interesting debate in this House on the Inland Revenue Estimates, and an intriguing speech was made by the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne), who was Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the last Administration. It is a little surprising that he himself should talk about fiscal simplification—and I would inform the House that I warned the hon. and learned Gentleman that I would make this point—when it was the hon. and learned Gentleman himself who was largely responsible for the introduction of measures relating to interest and for considerable elaboration of estate duty. But let that pass, since we are delighted that he has been converted on the road from Somerset House. It is idle to talk about fiscal simplification unless we are prepared to cut out large sectors of the present fiscal system. This is the only way in which we shall make a real impact.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing in this Bill. He has made a bold and genuine attempt to simplify the fiscal system. He has done what we have all been wanting to do for years. He has cut out a whole thicket from the tax jungle in which we all grope. I congratulate him and shall support the Bill with real pleasure.
  8.42 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Cocks: I hope the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) will forgive me if I do not comment on his arguments. Quite apart from his burst of Latin, which frankly was beyond my powers of translation, the fiscal aspects of the Bill are not one on which I am competent to speak.
  I should like to say a little about the price of land, about which we have heard a good deal today. We have spoken about the acquisition of land, but I should like to deal with the disposal of land. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) spoke with refreshing frankness in this debate, and I welcomed his remarks. The impact of land prices impinges directly on the general public most personally and seriously in relation to the price of an individual's home.
  Earlier today I had the privilege of presenting a Ten Minute Rule Bill on rentcharges on freehold land which is a specialised legal problem that besets us in the Bristol area. During my researches one of the most difficult things I tried to discover was whether these rentcharges affect the selling price of a house. As the House will know, there is a tremendous difficulty in comparing house prices. So many factors affect the situation. For example, there is the position of the house, the part of the country in which it is situated, the demand, the customers' needs and idiosyncrasies.
  The only specific example of a genuine reduction in the initial capital cost of land was where a development had been carried out by Bristol Corporation in conjunction with a national developer. Here, everybody admitted that since the corporation was involved special factors arose which did not apply in normal circumstances.
  What protection has the purchaser in the question of land prices? Little attention has been given to this matter tonight. I have a submission on behalf of the Bristol Law Society on the question of rentcharges. The society says that should rentcharges on freehold property be abolished there would be an increase of leasehold. After that submission, I wrote back and gave an example of a plot of land in Bristol which was sold for £275,000 with permission for the erection of 91 units of housing. I said, "With
  1454
  this capital cost of over £3,000 per plot, what do you imagine would be the level of ground rent imposed, should this be put out on leasehold?" I received a reply to the effect that this was hypothetical, and that it was not known but there was no doubt that the rentcharge, or the ground rent, would be similar whether it was for freehold or leasehold. That seems astonishing to me. If it is true, the general public are being asked to buy the whole of that land, except for a small proportion, for a small ground rent. That is the sort of thing that should be occupying the Minister's mind.
  I am indebted to the Minister for one of the few examples of comparability that I have been able to find. I understand that he served on the Standing Committee on the Leasehold Reform Bill, during the course of which he gave the example of an estate in the Birmingham area where a line was drawn down the middle and on one side the houses were sold freehold and on the other they were sold leasehold. He said that leasehold houses were snapped up like hot cakes. The prices were about £2,500 for the freehold houses and £2,000 for the leasehold houses. There the general public had something that they could get hold of and compare, and see whether they were prepared to take a little less, in terms of tenure, for leasehold, in return for a reduction in price.
  The individual is in a terribly weak position when he is buying a house, and that is a serious situation. The most revealing remark that I had from an estate agent during my investigation—he was a sales negotiator for a national organisation—was, "My three years with this organisation as a sales negotiator taught me that prices of property were geared to demand … Generally speaking, it is held in the building industry that if houses sell too readily at a price, then the price for that property is too low, and a price increase is justified." That is what happened in that area. As each phase of the estate was released there was an increase in price. It was simply a question of demand.
  Many people can shop around. I have a near relative who spent years—he made a hobby of it—going around looking at houses. He eventually settled on the Sussex coast. He was a bachelor, who had retired, and he could afford to take

  1455
  his time. Many people have pressing domestic or private or employment reasons which require them to carry out the transaction urgently. They are at the mercy of the market.
  In trying to tackle the question of land the community was having some say in what was going on through the Land Commission. At least the community was getting some benefit from increasing values, and at least to some extent it was being protected. I should have thought that with the growing pressure of the population on our resources, and with the rising expectations which people have as to the sort of housing standards they are entitled to expect, the abolition of the Commission was an extremely retrograde step. I should have thought that the Government would think more in terms of how the individual purchaser could be protected rather than dismantling the Commission. Quite frankly, if this was a court of law and we had been weighing up the evidence presented by the other side, I should have said, on what they have told us, that the case had not been made out.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Trew: I shall follow the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) on the question of house prices. Before doing so, I must declare an interest. For the past 13 years I have worked in the construction industry, in which I still hold directorships, and for the past six years I have been concerned with housing development.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, South, and, indeed, the speeches of his right hon. and hon. Friends, illustrated that in their aims there is nothing separating the two sides of the House. We all want to see more stable or lower, house prices for purchasers, and we agree that part of the profits arising from development values should accrue to the community. What separates us is the method and the emphasis.
  The Labour Party places the emphasis on the taxing of development profits. This was emphasised in its most extreme form by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), who I know feels deeply on these matters. We place the emphasis on the release of housing
  1456
  land for development. To a certain extent the two aims are incompatible, because the more ingenious the schemes which may be devised for taxing development or betterment profits, call it what we will, the more we slow down development.
  The hon. Member for Salford, East illustrated this point when he spoke about the large profits on land dealings between 1959 and 1964. Indeed, they were large. But surely the answer is to look not only at that but at the rate of house building from 1959 to 1964 and to compare that with the rate of house building from 1966 to 1970, which was the life-span of the Land Commission.
  I believe that the Land Commission contributed to an increase in house prices for two reasons. First, the anticipated development levy was added to the price of houses, but only to a limited extent. This is the lesser of the two reasons. The second reason is that the prices of houses, like the prices of anything else, depend on supply and demand. The more slowly housing land comes on the market, the more slowly houses are developed, the higher the price will be. Undoubtedly, the Land Commission slowed down the rate of development.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Preston, North (Miss Holt), Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) referred to the complexity of the Act. Indeed, it created new branches in the professions of law and surveying. It was undoubtedly the most complex piece of legislation ever to come before this House. In virtually every land transaction which has taken place during the past four years the consideration how exactly the levy would affect the transaction took administrative effort, correspondence, and negotiation, which undoubtedly slowed down the rate at which housing land came forward for development.
  I welcome the abolition of the Land Commission. I disagree with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite when they say that there is a need for a national agency to buy land. I believe that this is best done by the local authorities, which, assisted by the district valuers, are the best judges of development values in their areas, and, on the private enterprise side, by the developers.

  1457
  Private developers make mistakes. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) referred to unsold flats on the south coast. Indeed, this was an error of judgment. But the right hon. Gentleman will agree that after the early 1960s not many more flats were built on the south coast. That is because one virtue of private enterprise is that it learns from its mistakes because they are very expensive mistakes. To this extent I still maintain that land-buying decisions are best made by the people on the spot.
  I welcome Circular 10/70 because, as I have said before, the only way in which we shall stabilise house prices is by speeding up the release of land for development. A great deal can be done simply by streamlining the planning machinery. I am taken with the Australian method of very much more detailed zoning than we have, whereby the uses to which land can be put are specified in some detail and, provided the planning application complies with that zoning, it is automatically granted, and all that is then required is compliance with the byelaws.
  Once we have dealt with the planning procedures—and I hope that we shall—we should speed up the release of more land, but I think that there is a great deal of glib talk about releasing more land. What land? Where is it to come from? One of the necessary attributes of land for residential development is that it should be near a place of employment. People are not prepared to live in the wilds, miles from where they work, and there is a limited amount of land close to places of employment.
  If a circle with a 50 mile-radius were drawn round London and round Birmingham, and circles with smaller radii were drawn round other centres of employment, we would end with a fixed amount of land, which could not be increased. Although I welcome all measures to release more land, I think that when we come to weigh up the amount of land that is available for development close to existing areas of employment we find that we are still short of a lot of building land, and for this reason I think that we shall have to look at two other important sources of residential building land, the new towns, and the twilight areas.
  1458
  I see no reason why land in the new towns should not be available to smaller builders. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) made the point, which I accept wholeheartedly, of the valuable contribution which these small builders make to housing, but I see no rôle for the Land Commission in the allocation of building land in the new towns.
  One saving grace which I always thought the Land Commission had was that it might have been of some use in the twilight areas. I believe that we have in these areas a great opportunity, which we may never have again, completely to change the face of some of our major cities. There is undoubtedly scope for joint development between private enterprise and local authorities, and I concede that the Land Commission might have made a contribution towards promoting that, but that in itself is not sufficient reason for the existence of the Land Commission. I believe that the powers of compulsory purchase that might be necessary are there already, and that one does not need a Land Commission to promote co-operation between private enterprise and local authorities.
  If it is accepted as a principle that there might be a case for some Exchequer aid to such development, one does not need a Land Commission to produce it. I therefore maintain that there is no justification for the continuing existence of the Land Commission, and I support the Bill to dispose of it.
  8.59 p.m.
  Mr. Denis Howell: We have had an interesting debate, and my first pleasant duty, although he is not here, is to express words of commendation from this bench to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle) for his speech. It was a speech of great clarity and, if he will not mind my saying so, a speech of great fairness because, as many others have done, he was trying to grapple with the tremendously important problem presented to us in the whole matter of land speculation and land supply. We look forward to hearing further contributions from him if they are of the same high order.
  The Land Commission had to go. As the hon. Gentleman properly told us, it had to go because it was part of the

  1459
  covenant, the Tory manifesto, and the fact that it was put in with all the prejudice which went with drawing up that manifesto had nothing to do with the merits of the case, as I shall try to demonstrate shortly.
  The Land Commission is not going because it is unnecessary or irrelevant to the country's needs in terms of land policy, but it is being abolished to serve the primitive instincts of the Conservative Party and the great emotional fervour which they were able to produce about this subject in the last two or three years. The abolition of the Commission was announced with almost indecent haste, one would have thought, within days of this Parliament assembling—I am glad that I carry hon. Gentlemen opposite with me—before even hon. Gentlemen opposite had looked at the problem and thought of the consequences of abolishing it.
  We appreciate that the Government can claim that they have a mandate. The interesting thing today is that we have heard little of the heart-rending cases upon which the campaign against the Commission was mounted two or three years ago. Most of the early anomalies in respect of the Commission were ironed out, first, by the Finance Act, 1969, and then by a series of fresh regulations which I introduced and which were passed by the House early this year.
  The question people are asking, the intelligent question, is "When we have got rid of the Commission, what are we to put in its place?" That is the one relevant question facing the House. In fairness to several hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is the question to which they have tried to address themselves, including the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew). But they got nowhere near providing a satisfactory answer.
  How are we to deal with the abuses of land speculation when the Commission has gone? How are we to be certain that we will get building land on to the market so that we can provide houses for the people who need them?
  The Commission naturally had a difficult start, mainly caused by the political campaigning of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. After three years there is now a widespread awareness, even in the most unlikely quarters, that
  1460
  the Commission was succeeding in the task that it was set. Many times today we have had harsh judgments about the Commission from hon. Gentlemen opposite, who expected it in three years to solve every problem in respect of land that has bedevilled this country for the last 300 years. We have returned time and again over the years, as have our predecessors, to the problem of land speculation at the expense of the community and to shortages of land. Hon. Gentlemen have judged the Commission on what it was able to do in three years. But what can we expect any piece of machinery to achieve in one three-year period?
  Just think what had to happen. First, the Commission had to be created, and it had to recruit staff. It had to develop a philosophy. It had to survey land throughout the country, and decide where land was needed. It had to hold endless discussions with local authorities in the conurbations and outside them. Proposals had to be produced, and the Commission had to run the gauntlet of public inquiries. It had to wait months—that point is against us as well as hon. Gentleman opposite—for Ministerial decisions on those public inquiries.
  In the light of all that, the time scale of three years is almost insignificant, and it is a nonsense to judge the Commission in a three-year life, as hon. Gentlemen opposite have done. Those are the questions which are now being asked not by doctrinaire Socialists but by hard-headed business men and people in the building industry.
  I now turn to the three great issues which the Bill leaves with us. The first is that of betterment. The principle of taxing betterment is now unassailable. Even the Conservative Party accepts it. Earlier today, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said:
  "We agree with the laudable object of bringing land forward."
  He supports that object. This is the first time that any official speaker on behalf of his party has conceded a single point in favour of the Commission. Today, for the first time, we have it on record that the principle behind one of the tasks of the Land Commission is acceptable to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. They accept the principle of betterment, too.
  Mr. Graham Page: We have always said that the objective which the Land Commission set out to achieve was one that we wished to achieve. We want to bring land forward. We said that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite chose the wrong way to do it.
  Mr. Howell: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, in preparation for this debate I have gone back over all our debates on land policy in the last few years. The hon. Gentleman never said it from this Box when he was in opposition. None of his right hon. and hon. Friends said it. They never said a word about it in their Manifesto. They merely said, "We will abolish the Land Commission". If they believed it, certainly they were misleading the country in their election campaign, because they never stated that the problems that the Commission was set up to deal with would be left to be dealt with when the Commission was abolished.
  The same applies to capital gains tax. The Conservative Party now accepts the principle that vast profits from land speculation cannot go untaxed. It accepts in this Bill that the betterment levy of 40 per cent. will be replaced by capital gains tax. Of course, that must be right. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) told us with great force the moral principle on which this is based. When land values escalate because of the activity of the community in granting planning permission or creating wealth from building in any part of the country, it cannot be right that the people who happen to own land should get away with tremendous bonanzas in terms of capital gains completely untaxed. No one would seek to defend that principle.
  Occasionally, it is worth going back to first principles when we talk about this subject. Land is the one commodity which cannot be manufactured or created. It can be tended and cared for. Most certainly it can be cornered, and a lot of people have been cornering land in recent years. When land is cornered, it is right that the community should have something to say about receiving a fair share of the profit that is made.
  The Labour Government fixed the betterment levy at about 40 per cent. If we are to replace it with capital gains tax, there is no argument of principle
  1462
  about the share of the return which should go to the community. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite believe that the capital gains tax, which stands at about 30 per cent. for surtax payers, is a fair share. In other words, there will be a handout of some 10 per cent. to the land speculators. That will be the immediate result of this Bill.
  This is quite clear from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill. In the 15 years that I have been in this House, I know of no other case where an Explanatory and Financial Memorandum has so blatantly explained to the House and the country the financial handout that the Government intend to give to their supporters. On their own showing, it is to be £43 million in the next two years.
  What on earth do the Government feel will be the effect of this sort of thing on the economy and on the trade unions? It was in the very same week that this Bill was produced, declaring officially its handout of £43 million in the next two weeks to land speculators, that Sir Jack Scamp had the audacity to announce a settlement for dustmen and road sweepers of 15 per cent., and he was decried in the most violent and hysterical terms by the Prime Minister. There followed a campaign of abuse against him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Ministers such as we have not seen in this country for a long time.
  What can one make of this humbug and hypocrisy, where the Government lecture the unions day after day upon the terrible dangers of creating inflation, on the need for strength, on the need for a sense of responsibility, and in the very same week produce a Bill like this with this Explanatory Memorandum? It is unforgivable and indefensible. If we add to that the attacks on the social services which have accompanied this sort of legislation, we get some idea of the magnitude of the nonsensical situation which the Conservative Government have created.
  It is a serious question to ask them—how on earth, in the light of these handouts, they can expect anyone in the trade union movement to take their demands seriously. How can they think that they are supporting responsible leadership in the trade union movement,

  1463
  when they are, by this Bill, completely undermining it?
  I am glad to see that the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) is here because he put this much more clearly than I could. He did not talk about bonanzas and hand-outs to Conservative land voters at the last election. He said, "Let us give the Land Commission a decent burial, and hurry off to the wake." That of course is precisely what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are hoping to do, in the interests of their friends.
  The price of land is another great issue. It came up three times in July, when the Secretary of State made his statement. I regret that he has not found it possible to be in this Chamber for one minute of the debate, having regard to his great responsibilities.
  On 22nd July, he said at column 550 that the Land Commission had put up the cost of houses and later said:
  "I believe that the Land Commission has had a detrimental effect on the price of land. That is one of the reasons why we are abolishing it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1970; Vol. 804, c. 553.]
  The hon. Member for Crosby told us today, "In our election manifesto, we said that betterment had increased the price of land".
  This sentiment was echoed by several of his hon. Friends and, in case there is any doubt about it, the circular which the Government sent out only two days ago on the whole of this question refers specifically to the fact that the Land Commission has added to the price of land and, thereby, of houses. This charge has been repeated time and again and there can be no doubt that hon. Gentlemen opposite believe it.
  That takes us to a very interesting question. It must follow, ipso facto, that, if the Land Commission has increased the price of land and houses, then, by all laws of logic, when it is abolished, the price of land and houses will come down again. Perhaps we can hear why that law of logic does not apply. We shall see. We shall watch this closely and will return to it again and again. If hon. Gentlemen opposite claim that the Land Commission increased the price of land and houses, we are entitled to expect those prices to come down with the
  1464
  abolition of the Commission. That is the yardstick by which we will judge this policy of the Government, though we know that it is a nonsensical argument on their part and that nothing of the sort will happen.
  The price of land has more to do with scarcity value and the absence of land with planning permission. That is an important determining factor. If one intends to follow a rigid green belt policy—which the Minister and the circular to which I referred tell us will happen—commendable though that is, it causes additional pressures to be placed on land prices. There is nothing in the absence of the Land Commission which will tackle the problem of bringing forward land with planning permission.
  Another factor that puts up land prices—some of my hon. Friends think that it is more important than scarcity value—is the law of supply and demand. If houses are in short supply, because land is in short supply, house prices rocket, and we have experienced this on many occasions. We have seen estate agents selling large estates with the first 100 or so houses at a fixed price, so that if they go quickly the prices of the rest are increased immediately. Every time hon. Gentlemen opposite say that the Land Commission has been responsible for increases in house and land prices, they are denying their philosophy of the law of supply and demand.
  We come to the question of land planning and supply, a factor of considerable importance. It has been increasingly understood because of the positive rôle which the Land Commission played, there will be no authority on which the Minister can rely to do this job. He cannot do it himself because he must decide on planning appeals. He cannot be both the executive trying to bring forward land and the final arbiter deciding important principles of planning policy.
  I was surprised at the wording of the circular because it seemed that the Secretary of State was sailing near the wind when he said that he would consider on their merits planning applications which came before him on appeal for the exercise of his discretion and that he would be
  "prepared to give way to need where it exists for the urgent release of more land for housing."

  1465
  I should have thought that many barristers appearing before planning inquiries might be entitled to argue from that wording that the dice were cast against their clients before the matter reached the Minister. For this reason I suggest that it was unwise for the right hon. Gentleman to have adopted that wording.
  One of the great virtues of the Land Commission was the fact that it was outside the immediate Government machine. The Minister could act in his quasi-judicial capacity, because applications for compulsory purchase orders were brought by the Land Commission, with which he was not immediately involved. The Commission was independent so that the right hon. Gentleman could exercise his judgment in an independent way.
  It is interesting to note that when we were in Government, eight draft C.P.Os were approved covering 1,375 acres and four were not approved by the then Minister, showing that the standard of impartial judgment in these matters was being maintained. Who will take on the rôle if the Minister cannot take it? As things are the Minister cannot take it. If we had had regional councils it could have been argued that a regional council should look at all of the land in its area, judge the planning, and so on, and then produce proposals which the Minister could independently judge. But we do not have regional councils.
  The Minister for Local Government stated this afternoon that the Government put all their faith in local authorities to get people to do what the Commission had been doing in preparing the land and bringing it forward. In this connection, paragraph 4 of the circular is very interesting because it speaks of
  "… local authorities surveying the whole of the housing needs in their area …".
  Time and again today hon. and right hon. Members opposite have spoken of local authorities solving the problem in their own areas.
  The trouble is that the land that has to be found is not situated where the great housing need lies. Birmingham is not in trouble in Birmingham: it must have land in Worcestershire, Gloucestershire and Shropshire. London is not in trouble because it does not have land in the middle of London: it is in the outer metropolitan areas that land has
  1466
  to be unfrozen. Indeed, the hysterical terms of the Circular very much suggest that even the Secretary of State has the gravest doubts whether it will have any use at all in producing land.
  It was, I think, the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) who put it even more eloquently than I can when he said that it is no use the Secretary of State asking planning officers and planning committees to produce land because they will not take the slightest notice of him. That has been our experience. My former colleague, Kenneth Robinson, when Minister, said that we had to have enough land in the outer metropolitan area to build 35,000 houses a year for seven years, and he got very little sympathy from local authorities.
  The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) has spoken most eloquently of the little village of Tring in his constituency where the Greater London Council proposes to acquire enough land to house 2,000 people. He has told us that the proposal is to be resisted because the people from London would descend on the village. It is a shocking thing for him to say. I know that it would make some difference to his majority if the proposal went through, but I do not take issue with him on that. I merely point out that all of us who feel passionately about the homeless, about the need for a man to house his family in decent and civilised conditions, can only give practical expression to our concern and compassion if we can provide land in Tring and places like it. That is the reality of the policy we must pursue, and this Bill kills one of the means of achieving that end.
  We have heard very little today about the Commission's successes, but a large number of builders, especially those in the small and medium brackets, are extremely worried about where they will get the land on which to provide houses, especially for young married couples. Only the other day a builder, who voted Conservative at the last election, said to me: "By the time the Labour Government were ejected some very good work was being done in acquiring large areas of much-needed land for young married people, against the wishes of county and local planning authorities." This is a typical view by a builder who supports the Tory Party.

  1467
  Increasingly the Land Commission was being invited to deal with cases of multi-ownership of difficult sites which could not be solved in any other way than by bringing in a body like the Commission as an outside agency.
  A typical example is a site of 200 acres in 10 different ownerships. The initial cost of providing access and sewage on such a site would be about £½ million. No small or medium-sized builder could finance such an operation, and very few large builders could face it either. Who is to finance such an operation now that the Land Commission is being disbanded?
  Let us look at some of the cases with which the Land Commission was dealing, although it is true that it had not acquired all the land. It was not always operating in the teeth of hostile local authorities. The Land Commission was called in by the Kent County Council to deal with a most complicated case.
  The Commission was called in by Surrey County Council at Woking to deal with a case of 528 acres desperately needed to house overspill from London—the homeless and people living in London slums. Only the Commission could tackle that one. Even the local authorities on which the Secretary of State is to place all his reliance could not tackle the comprehensive development which was needed.
  In Wokingham the Land Commission faced a hostile local authority, one which would do very little to help London deal with its terrible problems. There were 356 acres of land there which, in the face of the anti-social attitude of the local authority at Wokingham, could be dealt with only by an outside body producing a C.P.O. and seeking to get the Minister to approve it. The only body which could do it was the Land Commission.
  On Teesside the Land Commission was dealing with 900 acres by means of producing plans for comprehensive development.
  At Bridgend, at the invitation of the local authority, 500 acres were in the pipeline.
  The Land Commission was dealing with 500 acres at Warwick. This project never got beyond the very early stages. It was the only possible site at Warwick which could provide houses for this
  1468
  much-needed pressure area of the West Midlands. The land had to be surveyed and acquired. Sewage and roads had to be laid on. A master plan had to be prepared. The cost of the operation would have been phenomenal and quite beyond the powers even of the Warwick local authority, which is why it would have welcomed the Land Commission's activities.
  I could quote case after case. A small case at Walsall also illustrated the Commission's virtue.
  When Aston University wanted to buy 94 acres of land the only body which could come to its aid and provide the land to enable the university to get off the ground was the Land Commission, for universities have no powers of compulsory purchase.
  Hornchurch airfield is yet another example of the Commission's virtue. It took over public land to the extent of 194 acres which must be used in the first place for the extraction of gravel, but, because the Commission owned it, it could let off the lease for the extraction of gravel and then ensure that the land was properly used afterwards for the development of the public good and the greatly enhanced development values were safeguarded for the benefit of the public as a whole.
  The longer I spent on the preparation of this speech the more I became impressed with the overwhelming case for the Land Commission or a similar authority. No hon. Member opposite has told us how any of these problems are to be tackled once the Commission ceases to exist. The processes of finding land, packaging land, negotiation and C.P.Os must continue. It is remarkable how in such a short time the Commission was succeeding in its purpose.
  This is a Bill to abolish the Land Commission. It is certainly not a Bill to abolish the problems with which the Land Commission was set up to deal. Those problems will remain, whatever attitudes we take on either side of the House. They will remain, only more so. We on this side of the House predict that land speculation will again cause great public concern as a result of the activities of the present Government. Much needed land around our great conurbations will not be forthcoming in any meaningful quantities.

  1469
  For these reasons we oppose the Bill—a Bill which, in my view, is nothing more nor less than a piece of ritual slaughter to which hon. Gentlemen opposite were committed. During the lifetime of this Parliament we shall unceasingly, at every opportunity, bring before this House for detailed examination the consequences of this thoroughly bad piece of legislation.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): May I first of all join with all those right hon. and hon. Members who have paid tribute to the staff in Newcastle for the work that they have done in administering the proposals of the Land Commission. They have carried out what has been a difficult job, in contact with the public, often in highly controversial circumstances, and I know that the whole House will be grateful to them for the way in which, with humanity and compassion, they have carried out their job.
  I say to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) that we are appraised of the problem particularly of his area and of the employment situation which arises from this Bill, and I assure him that we shall be looking at the matter with very great care.
  I should also like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle). I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber to hear his speech, but I have heard of my hon. Friend's well-balanced and thoughtful contribution, and I hope that I shall personally have an opportunity to listen to him in the not very distant future.
  As the House knows, it is a very recent transfer that has brought me into the area of this very complicated subject which we have been discussing today, and so, like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), I have had to look from the start at this particular problem and it has been a most interesting and complicated exercise.
  It is difficult to know quite the background against which one should set out to judge a Bill of this sort. One could take the totally extreme position of going back to its early conception, with the present Leader of the Opposition, who said in Chiswick on 17th March, 1966:
  1470
  "We would take the urban building land on which planning permission has been granted into public ownership. That is what the Land Commission will do."
  That is the extreme doctrinaire approach to this whole problem and one which hon. Members opposite will not wish to deny. Indeed, many wish it had gone even further. That is the background, against which we could judge the Bill.
  I think it would serve the purpose of the House and meet the tone of the discussion that we have had today if we were to deal with it more from the approach set out in the previous Government's White Paper that really told us what the purposes of the Land Commission were to be. It was, broadly speaking, set out in paragraph 7:
  "(1) to secure that the right land is available at the right time for the implementation of national, regional and local plans;
  (2) to secure that a substantial part of the development value created by the community returns to the community and that the burden of the cost of land for essential purposes is reduced."
  That is the fairest background against which this exercise should be judged. Those are the objectives, and it is simply against that that I want to make my contribution this evening.
  I believe there is in this analysis of the problem a real meeting of the minds on both sides of the House. I have heard many of the speeches today. When we come down to discussing the need for larger planning units, for balancing the population movements and finding homes for people in developing areas, we all accept that the institutions which have grown up in another century are not institutions which were designed for the complicated and large-scale problems in modern communities. I do not believe, therefore, that the problem is: should we do something about it? The issue is much more: how do we deal with, and improve our capability of solving, the existing problems?
  We on this side believe that it is fundamentally to misunderstand the way in which the problem can be solved if one tries to set up a conflict between local and national government. Our firm conviction is that this problem, which concerns us all, and concerns the local authorities in many ways more than us, can be dealt with only in partnership and in co-ordination with the local authorities.

  1471
  This is where the first great division comes between the two sides of the House.
  We believe that there is a real need to understand and sympathise with the democratic power in the Provinces, and it is an ill day when a Government deliberately set out to override the wishes of the democratically-elected local authorities by the creation of instruments of policy designed to carry out national policies but often in conflict with the local authorities.
  Mr. Frank Allaun rose—
  Mr. Heseltine: May I continue? I shall refer to the hon. Gentleman's speech a little later, and I could, perhaps, give way to him then.
  We have announced in a series of policy statements the way in which we consider it is correct for a Government to go about fulfilling the sort of policy which I have outlined. Our first action was to bring together the three principal Departments affected—Housing and Local Government, Public Building and Works, and Transport—into one unified Department of the Environment so that at least those people seeing the problem on a national scale could work in harmony within one central organised unit. That was a major step forward.
  We announced our intention to push ahead with encouraging the acceptance of regional strategy plans. We believe that this also must be done in partnership with the people who live in the areas involved and will have to carry out the regional strategy plans. This is going ahead in one area of the country after another.
  Our next step forward was the publication of Circular 10/70, which, as the House knows, was sent out quite recently. The essence of this Circular is to say to the local authorities that they have the backing and encouragement of the Government in implementing the proposals and plans which are necessary to solve the sort of problems which we have been discussing.
  The biggest single dilemma facing us all stems from the need to release more land. The Secretary of State, in administering national policies, is aware that local authorities must review the amount of land which they have available and
  1472
  see wherever they can make a contribution by making more land available for building. This can probably make the greatest single contribution to solve the problem of land prices.
  We believe that the balancing of land availability with housing requirements should be the subject of continued monitoring, and we wish to encourage experimental schemes, such as that in the South-East, to spread throughout the country so that local authorities will constantly keep in mind the need to maintain the right balance. We have asked local authorities, where they are holding stocks of land above their urgent requirements, to consider whether land could be released for private development so that this facet of the policy may proceed. We consider that it is necessary also for continual consultation to take place with the building industry, and we have asked the local authorities to see that this is at the essence of their land policy.
  Those are the ideas in Circular 10/70, but, of course, it is not the end of the problem. It is not the ultimate solution. It is an indication of the ways in which we believe that progress can be encouraged, and it is backed up by widespread Ministerial visits throughout the country to explain the part which both local and central Government can play.
  I come now to an aspect of the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) referred; namely, the need to bring about a reorganisation of local government itself.
  Mr. Anthony Crosland: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Heseltine: I note that the former Secretary of State gives encouragement to that now. He did not give the same encouragement when he had an opportunity to do something about it.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced that a White Paper on the subject will be published next year. We are as aware as all hon. Members are of the need to see that there are units of local government which can carry out the work on a scale sufficient to deal with the problems which confront us.
  Mr. Freeson: What the hon. Gentleman has just said links with the point which I wish to put to him. We had a

  1473
  large-scale reorganisation of local government in the London area several years ago. We have the larger unit, and units below it. Yet Greater London is suffering as much today from a shortage of land being made available in the outer boroughs to solve Inner London's problems as was the case five, six or seven years ago. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what he has in mind to do if local authorities do not take up the requests which have been sent out in the circular?
  Mr. Heseltine: This is the essence of the difference between us. Local authorities are every bit as responsible as hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench. The sort of results which we all want will never be achieved if it is believed that policies can be rammed down the throats of local authorities. This is absolutely crucial. In London the single most important step forward is the study of the South-East regional strategy, which is well under way, in order to get a feeling of partnership and harmony among the local authorities involved. If that harmony is not established, I assure the Opposition that there will be resentment and destructiveness among local authorities, and that will make it far harder to carry out the policy.
  It is the essence of our policy to base it on harmony between the centre and local authorities. In the course of the last six years, in subject after subject Labour Members have gone out of their way to break this sense of trust between these two essential forms of government first, in the establishment of passenger transport authorities, by which they deliberately took power from the democratically-elected local authorities, secondly, by the deliberate intervention with local discretion about education, by saying that local authorities could not do what they were democratically elected to do; and, thirdly, by the establishment of the Land Commission, which was designed to give power to the centre at the expense of the periphery.
  That is why when we came into office we found that relations between the Commission and the local authorities were deteriorating—[HON. MEMBERS: "How?] I will spell it out. If hon. Members were to ask local authorities like Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Hertfordshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire what
  1474
  sort of relationship they had with a national body when it came into conflict with the policies which they wanted to pursue, they would find themselves answering for the consequences of the decrease in trust between the centre and the local authorities.
  I now move to the second test against which we should judge this policy. The White Paper referred to the availability at the right time of the right land. What has happened over the three years during which the Commission has been in existence? In the total of three years the Commission has bought 2,800 acres against a total requirement for house-building of 90,000 acres. That puts the problem into its setting. Of the 2,800, only 338 have been sold for building.
  Mr. Denis Howell: The Commission started from scratch and had to build up a machine to go through all the planning procedures. In order fairly to judge the figures which the hon. Gentleman is now giving, may we be told how many acres were in the pipeline for requisition?
  Mr. Heseltine: What the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate is that the pipeline is a meaningless concept in this case. For example, would he ask me to include a 1,000-acre site about which someone from the Commission telephoned to see whether the Commission could buy it, a request which was refused? There are many possible sites which could or could not have been acquired and for which there might or might not have been planning permission and it is, therefore, impossible to say what might have happened in future. What is certain is that in three years 338 acres of land became available and that is a derisory contribution to a solution of the national housing problem.
  It might be of interest to the Opposition at least to know that, in contributing that 338 acres, there was a trading profit of £271,000. One particular site alone made a profit of £17,000 and I am sure that this is welcome to the Opposition. They might pause, however, to wonder whether it was necessary for that site on which £17,000 profit was made to have been transferred from the Ministry of Defence to the Land Commission in order to make a profit which the Ministry of Defence could well have made itself. It might be helpful if we bear in mind that

  1475
  of the 2,800 acres acquired by the Land Commission, 80 per cent. was acquired by voluntary agreement, and there is at least a prima facie case for saying that this land would have found its way on the home development market of its own accord.
  I move now from the global national availability of 338 acres and look at the situation where the pressure on house building is at its most severe. Let us understand what the Land Commission did, first, in London, the South-East and Southern England—an area of the greatest possible difficulties. In the whole of these three areas, the Land Commission acquired 286·12 acres, of which 188 were surplus Government requirements—previously an airfield. The Land Commission turned it into a gravel pit. The contribution in this area of maximum congestion was 100 acres.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath, asked what was happening in the West Midlands. I can help him. In this second area of maximum concentration, the total acquisition was 194·29 acres, and the land released was four acres—and all of that was released from a Government Department. If I am to dismiss the argument of the right amount at the right time, I do not need to call on more effective figures than these.
  The next point of great moment to the Opposition was to get back the proceeds of the profits at 40 per cent., from those whom they graphically described as having gained the benefit of the community. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), in his letter to the Guardian yesterday, and numerous of his colleagues were describing the speculators, the rich and the bloodsuckers who, they said, were latching on to the community and depriving people of homes and forcing up land prices, and all that. In their White Paper, the last Government promised that the Land Commission would keep down the price of land. I want to look at both of these propositions.
  First, I deal with the question of bloodsuckers. There have been 47,310 cases producing £74 million, of which the Land Commission collected £47 million. More than 47,000 people were assessed for betterment levy. These are people we must look at in detail to see whether
  1476
  they match the image of some bloated plutocrat which so conveniently suits the arguments of hon. Members opposite and is so inconveniently denied by the facts which emerge as soon as one studies the record of the Land Commission.
  According to the Report of the Land Commission to the end of March, 1970, 37·6 per cent. of all betterment cases were for people who were assessed at under £1,500, while 68·8 per cent. of all cases were for people whose land was assessed at under £5,000. The speculators on assessments of over £50,000 amounted to no more than 2·5 per cent. of the total number of assessments. A total of £4½ million was taken from 12,000 small land owners. I simply cannot understand how it is that hon. Members opposite are prepared to make the sort of hysterical contributions they have made to the debate in total contradiction of the evidence of the Land Commission's Report.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that in 1969 the "little boys", the owner-occupiers, were excluded from levies of this kind. Moreover, he knows very well that the £43 million net which his Government will hand back to the land owners will not go back to those "little boys", but back to the men who are dealing in millions.
  Mr. Heseltine: It is this refusal to look at the figures which makes it so difficult to argue the case. All the figures I quoted were in respect of cases after the Amendments which were made in 1969. Had I quoted from the report of the previous year, it would have been seen that the figures are even more damaging to the hon. Gentleman's argument. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to say where he gets the information to make the sort of assertion he makes in today's Guardian
  "This is the levy that large landowners and land speculators would otherwise have had to pay on fortunes made overnight when their land soared in value following the granting of permission to build on it: potato fields into goldmines."
  Mr. Allaun: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that the information came from Sir Frank Markham, a former Conservative Member of Parliament—and a very honest one—who told us that he bought 10 acres of land at £30,000 and two years later sold the land for £1 million.
  Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to have established one thing at least, and that is that the hon. Gentleman based his assertions in that letter on the hearsay of one former Member of Parliament as opposed to the evidence of 47,000 people.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: The figures given by the hon. Gentleman so far suggest that a considerable number of people with moderate means are involved, but they also suggest that a limited number of wealthy people will be affected. As for the figure of 2·5 per cent. that he mentioned, how much in total went into the pockets of the wealthy?
  Mr. Heseltine: I accept that the 2·5 per cent. took a substantial amount of the total. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] But some of those people would be represented by corporate organisations who will now pay at 42½ per cent. and the rest will pay capital gains tax. Therefore, the amount of flowback is smaller than hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to make out.
  If I may now answer the question which hon. Members opposite have asked in the course of the debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Try answering this one."]—they asked whether the situation is now acceptable and suggested that it does not matter whether we make the sort of adjustments necessary to follow from the Bill because the hardship has been eliminated. If hon. Gentlemen opposite are to be believed, the people who are now suffering have all been exempted by the 1969 adjustments. I have taken the trouble to go into some of the cases involving a large number of the sort of people who since 1969 have been suffering under the existing levels and conditions of betterment.
  There is first somebody who has been assessed at £6,000—not a great deal of money having regard to the current levels of house valuation—who is in her 77th year, a widow in poor health with a mentally retarded son. She bought another property backing on to hers so as to protect her son from the prying eyes of neighbours. Her only income is pension and supplementary benefit. Another case involves a consideration of £1,800, half an acre of land attracting levy of £456. The person who paid the levy is a 55-year-old widow with two children, whose only income is £6 15s. per week widow's pension. In the final example, the con-
  1478
  sideration involved was £1,925 and the payers of levy were a husband and wife. The man skipped home and the wife is now trying to pay the sums outstanding. The wife's income consists of what she gets from letting rooms. She is being asked to pay £2 a week.
  Hon. Members opposite in launching attacks against the Government today cannot ignore the thousands of cases of difficulty and hardship produced by this legislation.
  Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the main question about where the burden of the betterment levy was really felt. He gave figures in terms of the number of cases involved. Will he tell us what proportion of the total betterment levy was paid by the 40 per cent. of small payers and what proportion by the 2·5 per cent. of large payers?
  Mr. Heseltine: What I fail to understand—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] What I fail to understand—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Suddenly, too much enthusiasm has come into the debate.
  Mr. Heseltine: What I fail to understand is how hon. Members opposite can launch that sort of case against us without knowing the answer to a question like that.
  This attack from the Opposition—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This has been a placid debate. There is no need for hon. Members to shout.
  Mr. James Wellbeloved: He will not answer the question!
  Mr. Heseltine: Hon. Members opposite have launched this attack with absolutely no regard for the evidence contained in the Land Commission's Reports, which are freely available to all hon. Members opposite. It is apparent that none has taken the trouble to find out what is in them. Therefore, it is quite understandable that a newspaper which nobody will pretend is specially favourable to my party—The Guardian—yesterday reported that
  "In its short and unfruitful life the Commission has not won many partisans. In

  1479
  practice, neither result came near to fulfilment in the Commission's three years of life."
  It goes on in the same tone. [Interruption.] I am glad that hon. Members have read some of the evidence in this case.
  The only other point that I want to make concerns the suggestion that many hon. Members opposite have put forward to the effect that the Land Commission and the betterment levy have not pushed up the price of land. They asserted that time and again in the debate. How can they explain away the fact that in the three years preceding the introduction of the levy land prices rose by 30 per cent., whereas in the three years following its introduction land prices rose by 50 per cent., and that since the announcement that the Land Commission is to come to an end and that betterment levy is no longer to be charged, land prices have stabilised for the first time in four years?
  There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the Commission when first
  established was conceived as a weapon to empower Central Government to interfere in local matters. There is not the slightest doubt that it has created great personal hardship, that at one time was drawing no fewer than 70 letters a week in protest to Members of Parliament. It has undoubtedly forced up land prices at an escalating rate, which we deeply deplore, and it has gone a long way to exacerbate the deteriorating relations between Central Government and local government, without which the problems that we are concerned with will never be solved.
  Mr. Francis Pym (Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 263.

  Division No. 49.]

  AYES

  [9.59 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Channon, Paul

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Fortescue, Tim

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Foster, Sir John

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Fowler, Norman

  Astor, John

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Fox, Marcus

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fry, Peter

  Awdry, Daniel

  Clegg, Walter

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Gardner, Edward

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Cooke, Robert

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Balniel, Lord

  Coombs, Derek

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Cooper, A. E.

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Batsford, Brian

  Cordle, John

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Corfield, F. V.

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Bell, Ronald

  Cormack, Patrick

  Goodhart, Philip

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Costain, A. P.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Critchley, Julian

  Gorst, John

  Benyon, W.

  Crouch, David

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Berry, Hon. Anthony

  Crowder, F. P.

  Gray, Hamish

  Biffen, John

  Curran, Charles

  Green, Alan

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Grieve, Percy

  Blaker, Peter

  Dance, James

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Grylls, Michael

  Body, Richard

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Boscawen, R. T.

  Dean, Paul

  Gurden, Harold

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Dixon, Piers

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Braine, Bernard

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Bray, Ronald

  Drayson, G. B.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Dykes, Hugh

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Eden, Sir John

  Hastings, Stephen

  Bryan, Paul

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Havers, Michael

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Buck, Antony

  Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Hay, John

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Emery, Peter

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Burden, F. A.

  Fell, Anthony

  Heseltine, Michael

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Hicks, Robert

  Campbell,Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn)

  Fidler, Michael

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Carlisle, Mark

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Holland, Philip

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Sharples, Richard

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W.)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Hordern, Peter

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Simeons, Charles

  Hornby, Richard

  Moate, Roger

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Molyneaux, James

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Money, Ernie

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Soref, Harold

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Monro, Hector

  Speed, Keith

  Hunt, John

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Spence, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Sproat, Iain

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Stainton, Keith

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  James, David

  Mudd, David

  Steel, David

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Murton, Oscar

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Jessel, Toby

  Neave, Airey

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinetead)

  Nicholls. Sir Harmar

  Stokes, John

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Noble, Rt Hn Nichael

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Normanton, Tom

  Sutcliffe, John

  Jopling, Michael

  Nott, John

  Tapsell, Peter

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Onslow, Cranley

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Orr, Capt. L.P.S.

  Tebbit, Norman

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Osborn, John

  Temple, John M.

  Kilfedder, James

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Kimball, Marcus

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, North)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Kirk, Peter

  Paisley, Mr. Ian

  Tilney, John

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Knox, David

  Peel, John

  Trew, Peter

  Lambton, Antony

  Percival, Ian

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Lane, David

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Pink, R, Bonner

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Pounder, Rafton

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)

  Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Longden, Gilbert

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Wall, Patrick

  Loveridge, John

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Walters, Dennis

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Raison, Timothy

  Ward, Dame Irene

  MacArthur, Ian

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Warren, Kenneth

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Weatherill, Bernard

  McLaren, Martin

  Redmond, Robert

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, East)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Wiggin, Jerry

  McNair-wilson, Michael

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Wilkinson, John

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Maddan, Martin

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Madel, David

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Maginnis, John E.

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, North)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Marten, Neil

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Mather, Carol

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Maude, Angus

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Rost, Peter

  Mawby, Ray

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Mr. Jasper More.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Concannon, J. D.

  Albu, Austen

  Bradley, Tom

  Conlan, Bernard

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Allen, Scholefield

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)

  Cronin, John

  Ashley, Jack

  Buchan, Norman

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Ashton, Joe

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)

  Barnes, Michael

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Barnett, Joel

  Cant, R. B.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Beaney, Alan

  Carmichael, Neil

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm Northfield)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, Central)

  Booth, Albert

  Coleman, Donald

  Deakins, Eric

  1482

  1483

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Kelley, Richard

  Prescott, John

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Kerr, Russell

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Dempsey, James

  Kinnock, Neil

  Probert, Arthur

  Doig, Peter

  Lambie, David

  Rankin, John

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lamond, James

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Latham, Arthur

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lawson, George

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Driberg, Tom

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Richard, Ivor

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dunn, James A.

  Leonard, Dick

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Roderick, CaerwynE.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Roper, John

  Ellis, Tom

  Lipton, Marcus

  Rose, Paul B.

  English, Michael

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Evans, Fred

  Loughlin, Charles

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McBride, Neil

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McCann, John

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Sillars, James

  Foley, Maurice

  MacColl, James

  Silverman, Julius

  Foot, Michael

  McElhone, Frank

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ford, Ben

  McGuire, Michael

  Small, William

  Forrester, John

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, North)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mackie, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stallard, A. W.

  Garrett, W. E.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Ginsburg, David

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Strang, Gavin

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Marquand, David

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Swain, Thomas

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Taverne, Dick

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Meacher, Michael

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Hamling, William

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)

  Hardy, Peter

  Mendelson, John

  Tinn, James

  Harper, Joseph

  Mikardo, Ian

  Tomney, Frank

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Millan, Bruce

  Torney, Tom

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Tuck, Raphael

  Hattersley, Roy

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Horam, John

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Moyle, Roland

  Wallace, George

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Watkins, David

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Weitzman, David

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Wellbeloved, James

  Hunter, Adam

  O'Malley, Brian

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

  Oram, Bert

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Janner, Greville

  Orbach, Maurice

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Orme, Stanley

  Whitlock, William

  Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Padley, Walter

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  John, Brynmor

  Paget, R. T.

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Woof, Robert

  Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Pendry, Tom

  Mr. John Golding and

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Pentland, Norman

  Mr. Kenneth Marks.

  Judd, Frank

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  LAND COMMISSION (DISSOLUTION) [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to abolish betterment levy and dissolve the Land Commission, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  1486

  (i) of compensation to members of the Land Commission for loss of office;

  (ii) of sums payable by the Secretary of State in the exercise of functions transferred to him by the Act; and

  (iii) of expenses incurred in the exercise of any power conferred by the Act for facilitating the disposal of land acquired under the Land Commission Act 1967;

  (b) the payment of any sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

  JUDICIAL OFFICES (SALARIES)
  10.12 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): I beg to move,
  That the Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.
  Mr. Speaker: It has been suggested to me that we take this Motion and the next one
  That the Judges' Remuneration (No. 2) Order 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.
  together. Does the House have any objection? If not, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has moved the first one, and we shall discuss both together.
  The Attorney-General: I understand from your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that we can discuss the Judges' Remuneration (No. 2) Order, 1970, at the same time. Both Orders, as the House will appreciate, relate to the remuneration of the judiciary. As it is convenient for the House to discuss these together, I will deal first with the Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order. That relates to what is called the lower judiciary of England and Wales; that is, the Recorders of Liverpool and Manchester, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult to debate against a background of multifarious conversation.
  The Attorney-General: —the county court judges and the metropolitan magistrates.
  The Judges Remuneration (No. 2) Order relates to the higher judiciary, not merely that of England and Wales, but those of Scotland and Northern Ireland.
  The lower judiciary consists of 106 county court judges—Parliament has approved a maximum of 125–37 metropolitan magistrates, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, and the recorders of Liverpool and Manchester. The higher judiciary of England and Wales includes the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, 10 Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a group of hon. Members who wish to sustain a conversation. They might do it outside.
  The Attorney-General: —14 Lords Justices of Appeal and 68 Puisne judges—in all, 95 English judges of the higher judiciary. In Scotland, we have the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Justice Clerk and 16 ordinary judges of the Court of Session, making 18 judges in Scotland. In Northern Ireland, we have the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, two Lords Justices of Appeal of Northern Ireland and four Puisne Judges in Northern Ireland.
  In some sense, both Orders have a connection with and are a necessary corollary of recently announced increases in the salaries of the Civil Service and of the chairmen of nationalised industries. Whereas the lower judiciary has, since the end of the war in 1945, followed conventionally and more or less automatically on the increases in Civil Service pay, the higher judiciary has not. In the latter case, direct comparability with the Civil Service is not suggested, nor is it desired, although there must be some indirect comparability because of the comparability of the lower judicial salaries both with the Civil Service and with the salaries of the higher judiciary.
  In March, 1969, the National Board for Prices and Incomes published proposals for increases in the salaries of chairmen and members of nationalised industry boards. Immediately following that, the Plowden Committee, the Statutory Advisory Committee on the Pay of the Higher Civil Service, published proposals for similar increases for Permanent Secretaries and higher civil servants. These represented increases of 60 and 63 per cent. [Interruption.]
  It was then proposed in 1969 that these large increases should be made in three stages. The previous Government, hon. Members will recollect, accepted the increases as regards the first stage but reserved their position as regards the remaining two. Permanent Secretaries received the first of their increases in July, 1969, and their second in July, 1970. The third was due on 1st July, 1971. But, by a decision of the present Government announced last August, it was made effect from 1st January, 1971,

  1489
  instead of July. Under the proposals of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, the chairmen of the nationalised industries followed suit. [Interruption.]
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 8th December, the higher judiciary, following the example set by the Lord Chief Justice, decided in the national interest—[Interruption.]—to forgo an increase in their salaries for six months; that is to say, until 1st July next. They are doing this in common with higher officials in the Civil and Diplomatic Services and the chairmen and deputy chairmen of the major nationalised industries boards. [Interruption.] I should like to pay tribute and acknowledge, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did, the action taken by the judges in this respect.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that they are deferring their increases; but the increases will still be implemented officially from 1st January, 1971. Is this so that they will not lose anything on their superannuation and retirement pensions? They are not making such a great sacrifice, surely.
  The Attorney-General: The reason for this was that the progress of the third stage was to have followed and that the Lord Chief Justice and the judges and the others have postponed for a period of six months receipt of the sums which they would otherwise have expected. I should have thought that this House would be the first to pay tribute to public servants for an action of that kind.
  Since 1957 an increase in the salaries of the lower judiciary has been dependent on Orders laid by the Lord Chancellor and subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure. In the case of the lower judiciary, increases have been related to increases in the higher Civil Service. It has always been assumed that Orders to give effect to increases corresponding with the Plowden recommendations would follow the Civil Service increases and that parallel action would be taken administratively to keep other members of the lower judiciary, who do not need Parliamentary Resolution, in step.
  But for many years the higher judiciary have been less well treated than either civil servants or the lower judiciary,
  1490
  largely because until 1965 a special Act of Parliament was required to increase their salaries. Even since 1965 an Order in Council backed by affirmative Resolution has been necessary in their case, although not in the case of civil servants as they have no such procedure.
  Since no comparability has ever been established between the higher judiciary and the civil servants, the effect has been gradually to erode the position of the High Court judges, both against the Civil Service and against the lower judiciary, with the latter of whom, of course, as I have said, there must be a certain comparability.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I had a question on this point about comparability.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Reading."] I am about to read from the Statutory Instruments which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking the House to approve. He has been talking about comparability with regard to the lower judiciary. Would he explain the lack of comparability between the last Statutory Instrument of 1969, No. 1008, and the present one, in that the previous one, introduced by the Labour Government, said on each of the particular increases that the salaries should be raised to a certain amount, say £7,400, instead of the present salary of, say, £6,550? In the draft Statutory Instrument—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): The hon. Member, to be effective, should make his interventions as short as possible and not seek to make a speech. He will have plenty of opportunity to catch my eye later on.
  Mr. Kaufman: I apologise, Sir. I had only one sentence more. This is a complicated point. In the Instruments which are being introduced tonight, we just have the new salary and not the old from which it is being increased. Why has that detail been left out?
  The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman points out that the Order does not set out the differences of the increases from the previous salaries. But it is the purpose of the Minister in producing an Order to explain that, as I propose to do. But I will inquire into this point.
  I return to the question of the High Court judges' salaries. There was no increase in them for 100 years, and then

  1491
  there was no increase between 1954 and 1966. For 12 years, therefore, they were stationary. They remained from 1966 at £10,000 until this year, when they were raised to £11,500 to take account—[Interruption.] I have been speaking about the first stage in the Plowden recommendations—of the fact that the Civil Service pay of a Permanent Secretary had been 60 per cent. of that of a High Court judge in 1938, and was £400 more than that of a High Court judge at 1st July, 1970. The effect of implementing the third stage of the Plowden recommendations on 1st January, 1971, would have been to give the Permanent Secretary a £2,500 excess in salary over a puisne judge of the High Court.
  Moreover, the differential between the higher and lower judiciary was also eroded. The lower judiciary have climbed from just over one-third of the salary of a High Court judge to just over two-thirds, and it is not proposed by these Instruments to restore that differential. But it has been abundantly plain that to maintain standards in the High Court Bench, further erosion must be prevented.
  During the period under review, in spite of increases in the number of judges which have been called for and debated in this House in recent years, the volume of work transacted by the courts has increased enormously. The number of criminal appeals or applications for leave rose between 1965 and 1969 by 221 per cent. The number of appeals heard rose by 119 per cent. The number of sitting days in the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, increased by 31 per cent., and the number of criminal trials increased by 42 per cent. The number of civil and divorce proceedings, excluding undefended divorces, increased by 86 per cent.
  Nobody should underestimate the productivity which has, unfortunately, been created by the amount of crime which is occurring throughout the country—[Interruption.]—and which, I am sure, hon. Gentlemen opposite totally deplore. Nobody should underestimate the vast increase in the amount of judicial work which the judges must do. High Court judges who are on circuit are away from home for a great many months of the year and—[Interruption.]—whatever hon.
  1492
  Gentlemen opposite may think, they are considered by the people of this country to be performing a most important and responsible task.
  As I have explained, these Orders provide the third and last stage of increases based on the proposals for the higher Civil Service in 1969. One must, therefore, go back to the date of the last salary increases before 1969 in considering the annual rate of increase, and in the case of the higher judiciary it was 1st April, 1966, and in the case of the lower judiciary it was 19th May, 1966.
  Mr. Ray Carter rose—
  The Attorney-General: I will not give way.
  Mr. Carter: May I—
  The Attorney-General: No.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) must contain himself. The Attorney-General has seen him. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to give way, he will do so. If not, the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
  The Attorney-General: It is wise to finish a sentence before giving way. That is the only way to state an argument.
  I was about to deal with the annual percentage rate of increase. In the case of the High Court judge the annual rate of increase is 8·1 per cent. and that of the county court judge 7·8 per cent. This is since the last salary increase immediately preceding Stage 1. For the Master of the Rolls, the Lords of Appeal and the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division it is 7 per cent. The annual percentage increase for the puisne judge is 8·1; Lord President of the Court of Session 8·1 per cent. and Lord Justice Clerk—a Scottish judge—7·5 per cent.; judges of the Court of Session 8·2 per cent.; Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland 7·6 per cent., and puisne judges of the High Court of Justice of Northern Ireland 8·1 per cent. The annual percentage increases of the lower judiciary are slightly lower: recorders of Liverpool and Manchester 9·8; county court judges 7·8, and metropolitan magistrates 6·4.
  Mr. Carter: Will the Attorney-General inform the House to what extent the national interest has been taken into account in these proposed increases, and to what further extent productivity has played a part in them?
  The Attorney-General: Some hon. Members opposite pointed out to me how enormous had been the increase in productivity. It is no good hon. Members trying to avoid the fact that there is this vast amount of crime which has to be dealt with by the courts. In the national interest it is of the very greatest importance that we should have men of ability and integrity who are able to carry out their duties in presiding over the criminal and civil courts.
  The proposed increases for the higher judiciary of the three parts of the United Kingdom to which I have referred will cost £304,650 and £172,900 for the lower judiciary of England and Wales.
  I am conscious that the judges, unlike the chairmen of the nationalised industries, and unlike the civil servants, are compelled to submit to the affirmative Resolution procedure, and are thus put in an invidious position compared with persons of comparable employment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]
  Of the proposed review body which the Government have undertaken to set up, I would repeat, lest there should be any misunderstanding, as there may have been, the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on 2nd November:
  "The Government intend … to establish at an early date three Review Bodies with a degree of interlocking membership. One will advise on the remuneration of the boards of nationalised industries, the Judiciary, senior civil servants, senior officers of the Armed Forces and such other groups as might be appropriately considered with them. Another will advise on the pay of the Armed Forces generally. A third will advise on the remuneration of doctors and dentists in the National Health Service. These three Review Bodies will have at their disposal and working to their directions a secretariat provided by a new Office of Manpower Economics."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1970; Vol. 805, c. 668.]
  The Lord Chancellor will consult the judiciary, and, indeed, has already taken certain steps to do so, and he has found—although I emphasise that the consultations will continue—that it is, and will be, agreeable to the judiciary that the
  1494
  higher group Review Body should undertake the reviews connected with them as it will the review connected with the boards of the nationalised industries and the senior officers of the Armed Forces; that is to say, the review body which will advise on these offices and posts will advise on the salaries of the judiciary.
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman trying to convince the House that the financial need of all the groups of persons of whom he has spoken was so great and they were so impoverished that they had to be given such a rise in advance of the establishment of the review body?
  The Attorney-General: I am not so arrogant as to think that I shall ever convince the hon. Gentleman of anything. I am merely engaged in moving certain Orders which are before the House.
  There seldom is a time when it is convenient from the point of view of public opinion for a Government to propose higher salaries for the judiciary. After all, if hon. Members appear before judges some will do so in their professional capacity and others will do so in not very pleasant circumstances. It is always difficult, as the previous Government found, to move that there should be an increase in judicial salaries. I acknowledge that the previous Administration, I think twice in one Parliament, faced this difficulty, and as I recollect it they received our support as an Opposition.
  It is vital that we should be able to recruit, and, therefore to pay, the judiciary properly. We must attract the ablest men. We must not lose them—I make no apology for saying this—to other activities such as commerce. We must pay appropriate salaries for work which is of prime national importance. The standards of our higher judiciary, and indeed those of all our judiciary, are higher than those which will be found anywhere else in the world.
  I invite those who are tempted to look to other systems of organising legal professions to compare the integrity of those systems with that of our own legal system and that of our own judges. We need a judiciary which is able to deal with the complex matters of the law which the House of Commons enacts.

  1495
  We need a judiciary which is able to preside over the criminal tribunals and which receives the acknowledgement of the people as being a judiciary which is unequalled anywhere in the world. It is essential that no risk should be run of lowering standards as a result of failing to provide the judges with fair and proper remuneration.
  10.38 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am very pleased again to voice my strong objection to the Orders and my objection to almost every word that the Attorney-General has uttered.
  Hon. Members who have been here during the last few years will know that I have been one of those amongst a few on this side who have consistently and persistently opposed these various increases. I have heard the legal fraternity of one party or the other read exactly the same brief, no doubt prepared by the same people, except that tonight the Attorney-General, unlike his predecessor, did not mention for the benefit of new Members of the House the various "perks" that judges receive. He mentioned the hardship endured by these poor judges having to be away from home. I have no interest to declare, because I am a London Member. I do not have to be away from home when I attend the House, but many hon. Members do. Their hotel expenses have risen by leaps and bounds, not merely since 1966 and 1967, but since 1964.
  The same Government who propose these increases have said that it is wrong for Members of Parliament to have any increase, although they have had no increase since 1964, because it would set a bad example for industrial workers and lower-paid workers. Yet, almost in that same week—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) has an interest in this matter. He is one of the closed shop of the legal profession. I know that the legal profession are here in force. I know that they are all waiting for judgeships. The hon. and learned Member has always been loyal in his service to his closed shop. Nevertheless, I insist on saying what I believe to be the truth.
  In the past week the Government have been saying that it is wrong, immoral and indecent for the electricity workers
  1496
  to ask for more than 10 per cent. because it would affect the national economy, and in the very same week they have declined to give anything to the old-age pensioners. In an answer to a Question of mine, I learn that since the present government has been in power, from June until October, there has been a 2·2 per cent. depreciation in the value of the social benefits, with a corresponding running deficit of some 6·6 per cent. The old-age pensioners, disabled persons and those in receipt of social welfare benefits have been told that they cannot have an increase but that the matter may be reviewed towards the end of next year. I do not know what the depreciation in the value of the benefits will be by then.
  Yet the Attorney-General comes here and has the audacity to shed crocodile tears over these poor judges who, he says, have to meet hardships of travelling with their butlers, with their lodging allowances, their cars, their secretaries and so on.
  Mr. Kaufman: I go all the way with my hon. Friend except that I believe he is in error on one point. They are not crocodile tears that the Attorney-General is shedding; they are real tears. The plight of the judges really does move him.
  Mr. Lewis: The Attorney-General may know more about this from personal experience than I do, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) has aspirations. I do not know. Let me, for the sake of argument, accept that the Attorney-General is right. If they are suffering, surely the sick and disabled must be suffering much more. They do not get lodging allowances; they do not have their food supplied to them. They do not get the various incidentals which the judges get.
  I do not know why the Attorney-General did not tell us that the judges will have had a 61·7 per cent. increase since 1966. They come out with this magnificent gesture and say "We will hold a moratorium and forgo our salary increase for a period of three or four months"—not that it will affect their pension of course. They will hold their salaries to that 61·7 per cent.
  Perhaps a judge will be appointed to inquire into the electricity workers' claim.

  1497
  Perhaps that judge will bear in mind, when taking the chair of the court of inquiry into the electricity workers' claim, that whereas the judges had a 25 per cent. increase in 1966, 15 per cent. in the first part of 1970 and 21·7 per cent. in the latter part of 1970—a total of 61·7 per cent. in less than four years—the electricity workers' claim is based on 10 per cent.
  This has a bearing on the whole policy of the Government. The Government—it is irrefutable, because they have declared the figures themselves—have deliberately increased the cost of living since they have been in power. The increase is 6·6 per cent. now, and by the end of the year, no doubt, it will be more. They have deliberately increased prices, allowing food prices to rise without taking any action. The standard of living of the workers has depreciated by 6·6 per cent. under this Government, and since 1964 up to and including the latest figures for October there has been a 24·1 per cent. increase in the cost of living. To compensate for that 21·7 per cent. rise in the cost of living, the judges have had increases totalling about 78 per cent.
  Mr. F. P. Crowder: A High Court judge in 1820 or thereabouts had a salary of £5,000 a year. That salary remained unchanged, with no percentage increase whatever, until about 15 years ago.
  Mr. Lewis: We are discussing this Order. If I went back 100 years, there might be some doubt about whether the hon. Gentleman was present then—[Interruption.]—and I have no knowledge whether the Government were in power then, either. I think not.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is rather too much background conversation. I hope that hon. Members will attend carefully to the hon. Gentleman, who is anxious to get on with his speech. I think that that will meet all our requirements best.
  Mr. Lewis: I have always opposed increases of this kind, and on each occasion the legal profession, which is usually strangely absent for other business, has turned up to protect the interests of its closed shop. I have a suggestion to put to the Attorney-General. Perhaps, rather than have a review body, he could amend
  1498
  the Industrial Relations Bill so as to deal with the lawyers' closed shop. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) has pointed out, there are plenty of legal luminaries who are able, ready and available to take these jobs. They do not get the opportunity because the closed shop prevents them.
  Lawyers talk about the closed shop among electricity workers or other manual workers. They ought to look to their own closed shop, the most vicious type of closed shop in any occupation.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins rose—
  Mr. Lewis: I am not sure that I should keep giving way. I can see Mr. Deputy Speaker giving me some hard looks.
  Mr. Jenkins: I want my hon. Friend to help the House by clarifying one point. Apparently, the large increases of which we have been hearing—40 per cent. and more—are not inflationary, but a 10 per cent. increase is inflationary. Could my hon. Friend explain at what point an increase becomes small enough to be inflationary?
  Mr Lewis: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) will remember that 24 Motions appear on the Order Paper all saying that justice must not only be done but must be clearly seen to be done, and he has signed many of them. He will know that I have asked the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all other members of the Government whether, with all the administrative machinery which they have at their disposal, they can find out how it is wrong and inflationary for policemen to ask for more than 10 per cent. but not for judges.
  The Attorney-General spoke of crime; but the police have something to do with the prevention and detection of crime, and the police are underpaid, overworked and short-staffed. The Government say that the police claim of 35 per cent is inflationary. Why does not the Attorney-General think that the police should get as much as the judges, which is 61.7 per cent? The police are as important as the judges, and some of my hon. Friends might think that they were even more important.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but in his understandable enthusiasm he is straying wide of the Order. Perhaps he will direct his attention particularly to its terms.
  Mr. Lewis: I am surprised that you should have said that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I thought that you heard the Attorney-General, as I did, and he made comparisons and explained why these legal luminaries should have so large an increase. I was making a comparison with the police, as he did. I was about to explain—and I think that I am entitled to do so—why I cannot support an increase of 61.7 per cent. for a small group of people who are well paid and who do not have to meet the increases in the cost of living and the other difficulties which face other people. I was about to explain that if there is to be a claim for one section of the population, the police are entitled to come before them. I was about to say that the police should be considered in preference to the judges, but that might be ultra vires or infra dig.
  On this occasion I hope to be joined by a number of my hon. Friends, and I hope on this, as on a previous occasion, to be able to force a Division. There is a vast difference between this and the previous occasion. Last time, the then Government did not deliberately increase the cost of living, as the present Government are doing. The Minister of Agriculture has admitted it. The Ministry of Agriculture and other Ministries are refusing to accept Questions from hon. Members about the action they intend to take to control the cost of living.
  Is it not the case that, while condemning the electricity workers for asking for 10 per cent., the Government did not condemn increases of 100 per cent. and 150 per cent. in the cost of candles and batteries which became scare? Hence, the Government have deliberately increased the cost of living and depreciated the standard of living of the mass of our people.
  If the Government honestly and sincerely meant what they said during the General Election campaign—that they could reduce prices at a stroke of the pen—what is the need for this increase? The Government have pledged themselves that the cost of living will come
  1500
  down and that the purchasing power of the £ will go up; so in effect the judges will get two increases—an increase in cash and an increase through appreciation of the value of the £, although that increase has been sadly lacking in recent months. In addition to that, they have been promised a tax reduction worth £300 or £400 a year to them through a reduction in income tax from next April.
  So, although the judges may be holding part of the increase back, they are, in fact, only holding back a couple of hundred £s for a few months. When the Government set up this tribunal for the electricity workers, will they suggest that a solution to the problem could be an offer of a 61·7 per cent. increase, with 21·7 per cent. now provided that they hold back the rest until July? I think the electricity workers would accept that. I know that I would accept it, as would my hon. Friends.
  10.47 p.m.
  Mr. F. P. Crowder: I declare my interest at once. I am not a judge; I am a mere advocate.
  I have always listened to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) in these debates, which we have about every four or five years, and the same record comes out and is put over in the same way. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite will listen to me for a moment, because I speak with great sincerity, I ask them whether it is not right to say that, in England, we have the highest regard for our judicial system—[HON. MEMBERS: "And Wales."]—and Wales and Scotland and everywhere within the United Kingdom. I adhere to that view. Would hon. Members disagree that we are proud of our judicial system throughout the United Kingdom? We are not so proud of our electricity board, but never mind—we shall be very shortly.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Crowder: I shall give way the moment I have said anything controversial. If hon. Members agree with me that we have the best judicial system in the world, do not they think that we should pay for it in reasonable terms?
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Crowder: I am not giving way until I say something absolutely frightful,

  1501
  which I am very tempted to do. Is it altogether fair to take the judiciary on its own and start comparing it with people who have also perfectly good and reasonable demands upon the public purse, including ourselves as Members of Parliament? In fairness, I should have thought, taking the whole of the circumstantial evidence into account, that in the past the judiciary as a whole have been rather forbearing. If hon. Members wish, as Members of Parliament, to have the best sitting as the judiciary, then we must jolly well pay for it. We get most of the money back in taxes, anyway, so what does it matter?
  Mr. Ian Mikardo rose—
  Sir Elwyn Jones rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I find myself somewhat in a difficulty, because I had hoped that I would see the former Attorney-General rise. Then several hon. Members rose, but he did not rise. I waited a long time for him. Now I shall have to call the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Mikardo.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Mikardo: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you put me in a very great difficulty, because you have now required me to stand between the House and the voice of my right hon. and learned Friend, which is so much more authoritative and cogent than my own. Therefore, I shall confine myself to a few short minutes, and begin by saying that I am delighted to have the opportunity on this occasion of welcoming back the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) to the service of the House. We do not see him very often, and we miss him very much indeed. We are very glad to see that he has a degree of solidarity with his fellow lawyers, which impels him to leave whatever other avocations normally deprive us of his company to come here and stand shoulder to shoulder with his fellow lawyers, whose faces are being ground in the dust.
  I referred to the hon. and learned Member in the tradition of the House as "the hon. and learned Gentleman". It has always niggled me, in the 20-odd years that I have been in this House, why the only "bods" who are "learned" are lawyers—
  An Hon. Member: Only some lawyers!
  Mr. Mikardo: Only some lawyers, and I am not sure that even some lawyers are the most learned. We might have the most distinguished chemist, the most distinguished philosopher, the most distinguished physicist, the most distinguished doctor—and we have had a number of very distinguished doctors in this House—
  An Hon. Member: And trade unionists!
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but none of these doctors is in the Order. If he would confine himself to the Order, I should be most obliged.
  Mr. Mikardo: I am most obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I accept your Ruling. I appreciate that I must not talk about ignorant people, such as doctors, chemists and philosophers. We are talking about learned people.
  I desire to make only three points, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which I shall do quickly so that the House will have an opportunity of hearing my right hon. and learned Friend.
  First, I should like to say that I am sorry that my hon. Friend and neighbour from West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) so grossly understated his case. He has put all of us in his debt by doing the arithmetic and calculating the percentages. But he made one very serious omission, which trades unionists always take into account; that is, in addition to the wages, there are the fringe benefits to consider. On the back of this Order there is what is called a Schedule, but it refers only to money. It does not list the fringe benefits. What about judges' lodgings, which I am told have the best cellars in Great Britain?
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Mikardo: If hon. Gentlemen opposite dispute that, I will accept their judgment since they have had a taste and I have not, and they obviously know better than I do. However, that is what I have been told.
  What about judges' servants? What about the motor cars that are provided and all the rest of it? Electricians have

  1503
  to provide their own lodgings. They do not get any wine or bitter beer on the fringe of their employment, and they certainly do not get any servants. Therefore, if my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North, had taken the opportunity of doing a little more research, on top of the great deal he has already carried out into this subject, his percentages would have been very much higher indeed.
  Mr. Norman Miscampbell: Before the debate descends into total farce, would the hon. Gentleman accept from me that, in fact, judges' lodgings are necessary because judges cannot simply stay at ordinary hotels. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] For the very good and simple reason that they may be got at—
  Mr. John Mendelson: Disgraceful!
  Mr. Miscampbell: —not, of course, by litigants but by criminals who may be appearing before them. It is for this reasons that over the generations they have been kept separate in their lodgings.
  Mr. Mikardo: I very much resent two things in the hon. Gentleman's rather lengthy intervention. One was his observation that the debate was generating into a farce, which clearly was an implied criticism of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood. I resent that very much, he should not have done it. Secondly, I resent his suggestion that British judges can be "got at".
  Hon. Members: Shame!
  Mr. Mikardo: Many workers have to be specially and separately housed. Every tied cottage involves a worker specially housed because of his job. But when the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) can find me a tied agricultural cottage where the State, instead of the employee, pays the rent then I will listen to him. I am not against judges having lodgings if it is thought necessary, but I am saying that they do not pay for them. They are one of the "perks" and such an item should be added into the percentage.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North, then spoke about the undesirability of appointing one of these
  1504
  judges, who have been given an increase of 40, 50 even 60 per cent., as chairman of the tribunal which is to investigate the electricity dispute and telling those workers "It will be grossly inflationary if you are given more than 10 per cent." If the Industrial Relations Bill is enacted, no doubt one of these learned gentlemen will be appointed chairman of the National Industrial Relations Court. He will have a wonderful opportunity to say to workers in dispute "We will fine you lot for demanding an increase in wages a fifth of the amount I myself have just received." If hon. Members opposite think they can sell that to the country, they have another think coming.
  I am being quite serious about this. [Interruption.] I do not mind being heckled by hon. Members opposite—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member's own side will give him a good hearing.
  Mr. Mikardo: I share your hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am never worried about heckling from the benches opposite—they are never very good at it—but when my hon. Friends start I am really worried.
  I make my last point with real seriousness. Everyone involved with industrial relations knows that the psychological factors are at least as weighty as the physical factors. This is one field in which the extrinsic sometimes weighs more heavily than the intrinsic. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North is right: in this very sensitive field justice must be seen to be done. We shall not get away with a demand—reinforced by legal sanctions—for people not to use their bargaining strength if we get exaggerated increases of this sort.
  It would well be that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can make out a technical case. I happen not to accept it, but I dare say that if it were a case of arguing the matter in an article he could write a jolly good one. But it does not come over; what comes over is the feel of the thing—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have a little difficulty with old-age pensioners and lower-paid workers demanding increases if the House says, "We can justify this sort of increase at present".
  In a way, the postponement for six months does not ease that problem; it

  1505
  aggravates it, because it is an almost classical example of qui s'excuse, s'accuse—a classical example of people being defensive and saying, "We know that we should not be getting it and that is why we are laying off the situation." If an increase is justified they ought not to have to wait. The fact that they are offering to wait shows that they are sensitive about whether it is justified, and rightly sensitive about the psychological effects on the industrial relations scene.
  I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to talk to us but to talk to an old-age pensioners' meeting or to a meeting of lower-paid workers in one of the garment trades, and see how far he will get away with his argument. These Orders are offensive. They exacerbate difficulties that already exist in our society, our social climate and our industrial climate. It was a grave error of the Government to introduce them, and I hope that the House will defeat them.
  11.14 p.m.
  Mr. Martin McLaren: I shall keep the House for only a few minutes. I believe that everybody knows in his heart that for men of this ability the incomes proposed in these Orders are very moderate compared with the incomes paid to people in other professions, or in the City, or among directors of industrial companies, even of the second order. It is of the greatest importance that the very best people should be available for this work.
  The other thought which I want to express is that the life of a judge in 1970 is not by any means a bed of roses. The judges' amenities have been eroded compared with former days. The work is most exacting, and there is more of it. A lot has to be done out of court hours. For instance, the reading of criminal appeal paper work often has to be done at weekends.
  There is the circuit work, too. However much people may laugh, it really is more agreeable to live at home than to live with other judges for weeks at a time in various provincial centres such as Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool. Many of the wiser judges prefer to go to the Divorce Division because they spend more time in London.
  1506
  On all these counts, these increases are eminently reasonable and should be supported.
  11.17 p.m.
  Sir Elwyn Jones: In the light of the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) I do not know whether I ought to declare an interest, save that I think that it might be regarded as a piece of immodesty on my part were I to do so.
  We last discussed the remuneration of judges in the House in April of this year, and it fell to me to move the relevant Judges' Remuneration Order.
  The salaries of judges, since the Act of Settlement, have been determinable only by Parliament and not by the Executive. The principle behind this procedure is admirable; namely, to preserve the independence of the judiciary, which is, of course, a vital part of our constitution, our freedom, and our liberties.
  But, excellent as the principle is, to require Parliament to deal with changes in judicial salaries has produced difficulties in practice. In practice those changes can occur only if the Government of the day decide to take the initiative. It is not something which Parliament itself is normally prompted to undertake. There are, consequently, delays in the making of these changes, and the tendency, historically, has certainly been for this procedure not to benefit the judges, whose salaries, in terms of comparability, have declined as the decades have gone by.
  The parliamentary process itself—the business of debating the salaries of the judges—presents its difficulties and complications, because a conflict between Parliament and the judiciary should be avoided. To reduce that risk, and for general convenience, the Labour Government made an important change in the law and enabled judicial salaries to be dealt with by the kind of Orders we are considering tonight. But we took the view that even that did not leave the matter in a satisfactory position, and we thought that the best means of avoiding or reducing embarrassment and to get a just and acceptable result was to create machinery by which the judges' salaries

  1507
  should be inquired into by an independent body. Indeed, I think that the House has recently indicated—and the Lord President of the Council has given support to the concept—that this would be the best approach to the salaries of Ministers and of Members of Parliament as well.
  What the Labour Government had in mind was to amalgamate the Prices and Incomes Board with the Monopolies Commission, and to set up a new Commission on Industry and Manpower, part of whose duties would be to review the remuneration of the judiciary. The previous Lord Chancellor consulted the judges about that, and they found it acceptable.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given some indication tonight of what the Government have in mind, and I should like to ask him a little more about it. As I understand it, the increases proposed tonight have not been the subject of any reference to any independent review body, and I should like to ask him when the new so-called higher group review body is to begin to operate. What are its terms of reference to be? Who is to compose it? These are important matters that the House should know about, and I hope that we shall have further light thrown upon them before the end of the debate.
  As to the increases proposed in these Orders, it is, I think, the case that the higher judiciary have fallen behind in relation to salaries paid to men at the tops of other professions and in the higher Civil Service. In view of the important rôle that the higher judiciary plays in the life of our country and our society, this cannot be thought to be a satisfactory situation.
  But inevitably, as we have seen in the course of the debate in the House tonight, there was bound to be strong criticism of these proposals, coming as they do at a time when ordinary working people are, as a result of the Government's policy, having to face a decline in their standard of living and an increase in their cost of living. This will be the inevitable consequence of the mini-Budget, and the House has already been reminded that the Government's income tax proposals will benefit the rich far more than the average wage earner. The
  1508
  richer someone is, the more he will benefit.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said, the insensitivity of the Government in introducing these measures just now, when, as we have been told, the electricians, with their excellent productivity record, are being told that a 10 per cent. increase in remuneration would be so psychologically damaging that the national economy cannot stand it, is really astonishing.
  What troubles me, and what I find to be a disturbing thought, is that because of the timing of the introduction of these Orders some of the disapproval might brush off on to the judiciary itself. Indeed, I venture to think that the judges themselves may have been aware of the dangers of this, and that this is reflected in their action in voluntarily deferring the enjoyment of the proposed measures for six months.
  On the merits of the Orders, it is the case that judges have fallen behind those in somewhat comparable positions, although no positions are truly comparable in our society with that of the High Court judge. To perform the duties of a contemporary High Court judge, outstanding and, indeed, quite exceptional qualities are required; not merely abilities as an advocate but other qualities like compassion, human understanding, patience, tolerance and, I hope, a liberal and modern outlook towards the problems of the day.
  These men do not exist in abundance, whether they be barristers or solicitors. These days, much of the work of the judiciary is concerned with crime, and their judgment and their competence can affect profoundly not only the lives of those with whom they have to deal but their families and the approach of society to the serious problems involved.
  It is not the attractive plum that it used to be, by reason of the additional work and of having to be away from home and family for more than half the year. For these reasons, there is a real danger that if economic factors discourage those best qualified to perform these heavy duties from coming forward the quality of the judiciary may suffer.
  As for the lower judiciary, I understand that the proposed changes follow on the

  1509
  increases in Civil Service pay, in accordance with the more or less automatic practice since the war.
  What is deplorable is that these Orders are introduced against the background of increasing social tension which the Government's policy in the whole field of economic and social affairs is producing. As we have seen in this debate, it is inevitable that the acceptability of these Orders will suffer in consequence.
  11.27 p.m.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Normally, this is a debate which branches out a little, as it did in 1966. But there is always a serious purpose behind debates like this.
  There is a good deal of common ground between the two sides of the House. We all have respect for our judicial system and the quality of our judges. We all have respect for our engineers and electricians. We all take pride in our professional people, our electrical workers, and those who do a job which needs to be done.
  What is at stake here is quite different. The Attorney-General talked about coin-paring different positions. I do not know whether he was conscious of what he was saying, in the light of what we have heard from many of his right hon. and hon. Friends in the past. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the chairmen of nationalised industries and senior civil servants have been receiving increases and that that was an important reason why our judges should receive these enormous increases. But this is known in industry as "leapfrogging", and it is regarded as the worst possible sin by the Secretary of State for Employment. The Attorney-General has argued tonight in favour of a classic example of leapfrogging.
  We are told by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that what is wrong with the country is the claim of so many groups of working people in industry that, because someone else has received an increase, the differential has been upset and they are entitled to an increase to maintain it.
  It was interesting to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman use the word "differential". For a moment, I thought that I was present at a meeting of shop stewards of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering and Foundry Workers. The
  1510
  differential is what the argument is about in many industries.
  My second point concerns the basic agreement between the two Front Benches. We are accustomed to that in debates of this kind. We had the same basic agreement in 1966. The explanation is simple. We do not have the representatives of two different trade unions or of one union and an employer putting forward their respective cases. There is no demarcation dispute between the two Front Benches. They are all members of the same union. That is why we have had this wonderful unanimity.
  This is not only a matter of psychology. What we are debating tonight goes to the roots of our class society. It is a matter of status, not just of income, which makes the Attorney-General talk about differentials. It is of course an important matter to members of the same club in the West End of London whether a Permanent Secretary is £2,500 ahead. No judge can accept that—that is his argument. But that argument does not apply to workpeople or to 85 per cent. of my constituents who are also very much concerned with the respect given to their job in industry—[Interruption.] I do not take any notice of the hon. Gentleman: commercial radio has not been introduced in this House.
  Some of us intend to divide the House not because we are any less concerned than the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the quality of our judicial system, or because we are opposed to a review from time to time of the income of Her Majesty's judges. What we say is that the increases are meant not only to compensate the particular people involved fully, and more than fully, for an increase in the cost of living, when the increase in the cost of living is not accepted as an argument for a group of industrial workers, and, secondly, that it is clear that the Government have no intention of changing their attitude on these matters.
  They are facing a very powerfully organised group of people. In the 1966 debate, evidence was given to the House that, on a previous occasion, the judges went to see the Lord Chancellor, who is their senior shop steward and said, "You had better get on with the job or there will be trouble." With such a shop

  1511
  steward, one does not need a very powerful union of one million members. What the Government are doing tonight is underlining that their class attitude has never changed. It is because we want to tell the country about the injustice in the way that different sections of the people are approached by the Government that we will divide the House.
  11.33 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: It is clear, in the less than five years that I have been in the House, that lawyers, particularly members of the Bar, are desperately unpopular and nothing which will happen tonight will lessen that unpopularity. Having established that I am one of those unpopular people, I would say that probably the fundamental reason why High Court judges, for instance, want an increase in salary is not because of the net income they will get, but because of the effect it will have on their pensions.
  The pensions of the judiciary are related to the income they receive in their last year of office. In the arrangements for their pension there is no provision for an escalator clause. In other words, when a judge retires, he gets a fixed pension based on half the final year's salary, and if he is still alive 15 years later it has not increased.
  To rectify that, one does not need this kind of Order at all. One requires an Act of Parliament to establish the principle that pensions should have an escalator clause tied to the cost of living.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Order cannot be amended.
  Mr. Lyons: It is easier and quicker to put an Instrument of this kind through Parliament than it is to introduce a new Measure designed to establish a new principle affecting other types of Government servants.
  The Attorney-General said that judges were now working far harder. Unlike in industry, one cannot get more work out of a judge by giving him a machine. In other words, there is a limit to the work he can do. I accept that that work is hard. But the answer is not to give him a rise but to create more judges.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of an increase in crime. I agree, but the county court judges do not deal
  1512
  with crime. One cannot argue that a county court judge should have a substantial salary increase because of this factor when he is not dealing with crime. The Attorney-General is in the difficulty of there having been an Instrument in May, 1970, increasing High Court judges' salaries from £10,000 to £11,500 and now, seven months later, we have a further Order giving them an increase of £2,500. Going back to 1966, there has been a rise of 40 per cent., which makes the timing of the Order so unfortunate.
  11.36 p.m.
  The Attorney-General: I have one advantage over the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones). I do not have as a political neighbour the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), who has graced these debates over the years, certainly since I have been in the House. I also have the advantage of facing the hon. Member for West Ham, North, whereas the former Attorney-General has his hon. Friend on his flank.
  Perhaps the hon. Member for West Ham, North will allow me to say that tonight he made his Mark 1 speech. We appreciate how deeply he feels about this matter and how often he has expressed his views in the House.
  When we address ourselves to the question of increases in judges' salaries it is always a matter of difficulty, mainly because of their constitutional position. Formerly they were dealt with by Statute. More recently their salaries have been dealt with by Orders. I was, therefore, glad to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman speak of the plans of the previous Administration and welcome, if with reservations, the proposals for the new review body with regard to the making of recommendations for judges' salaries.
  I have looked into the points raised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman). I gather that these matters have always appeared in this form—that is, by judicial salaries Orders, though there has been a difference in the other Instrument in earlier years.
  As for the psychological factor mentioned by the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), I agree that there is a difficulty at this time—this applies to any time—in introducing these proposals. We must not forget that the judges and the

  1513
  Lord Chief Justice took this factor into account and postponed these increases for six months. They are entitled now to receive them and also to receive our tribute for their action in waiting for this time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) said that all men of sense would accept how essential it is that we should be able to provide, and ought to provide, a proper salary for men doing this task.
  I must tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Ham, South that the intention is to set up the new review body early in the new year, and I have the authority of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council to say that the terms of reference will be discussed with the party opposite to make sure that they are sensible and appropriate so that the new review body can do the task it will have before it.
  As the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) said, judges are not machines. We cannot give them machines to make them increase their productivity, but what I say with all sincerity—and I appreciate what the hon. Member for Poplar has said about the psychological factor—it is of the very greatest importance to us as legislators to do all we can to ensure that we have a properly recruited and properly remunerated judiciary to carry out a very important task.
  11.40 p.m.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The Attorney-General says that there is a difference between the present draft Statutory Instrument and the Statutory Instrument of 1969 but, with respect, it was I who pointed out that difference in the first place. He has not told us why there is this difference.
  The reason is important. Whereas the Labour Government introduced an increase—in my view, misguidedly—but were honest enough to tell the House the difference so that the House could judge, the present Government are so guilty about this present proposal that they are trying to hide the differentials by not stating the increase as a percentage.
  The other point that has not emerged particularly, though my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) verged on it, is this question of the differential. It is interesting to note that not only does this draft Statutory Instrument provide for differentials but it extends them. For instance, the higher the salary of the county court judges, not only the higher the increase but the higher the percentage increase. A Metropolitan magistrate earning £6,850 gets a 13 per cent. increase, a county court judge earning £7,850 gets a 20 per cent. increase, and the Recorder of Manchester, earning £9,500, gets a 28 per cent. increase—which, incidentally, would be sufficient to give a £1 increase to fifty of my pensioner constituents.
  Further, not only do they get a higher percentage increase the more they earn but the greater is the tax concession to be given to them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This increase has been postponed a little, but it comes in nicely in time for them to get a larger tax concession—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, Mr. SPEAKER, put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted business).
  The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 39.

  Division No. 50.]

  AYES

  [11.44 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Carlisle, Mark

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Astor, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Fidler, Michael

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Clegg, Walter

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Batsford, Brian

  Coombs, Derek

  Fortescue, Tim

  Benyon, W.

  Corfield, F. V.

  Fowler, Norman

  Biffen, John

  Cormack, Patrick

  Gardner, Edward

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Crouch, David

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Boscawen, R. T.

  Crowder, F. P.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Bowden, Andrew

  Curran, Charles

  Gorst, John

  Braine, Bernard

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Gray, Hamish

  Bray, Ronald

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Green, Alan

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Drayson, G. B.

  Gurden, Harold

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Buck, Antony

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Havers, Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Hicks, Robert

  Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Hiley, Joseph

  Moate, Roger

  Sharpies, Richard

  Holland, Philip

  Molyneaux, James

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Hordern, Peter

  Money, Ernie

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Monro, Hector

  Simeons, Charles

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Soref, Harold

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Speed, Keith

  Hunt, John

  Mudd, David

  Spence, John

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Neave, Airey

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Normanton, Tom

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Kilfedder, James

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Peel, John

  Tilney, John

  Kirk, Peter

  Percival, Ian

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Knox, David

  Pounder, Rafton

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Powell, Rt. Hn, J. Enoch

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Loveridge, John

  Raison, Timothy

  Weatherill, Bernard

  MacArthur, Ian

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Redmond, Robert

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  McLaren, Martin

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Roes, Peter (Dover)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Mather, Carol

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mawby, Ray

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Mr. Jasper More and

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Mr. Paul Hawkins.

  NOES

  Ashton, Joe

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Paisley, Mr. Ian

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Pendry, Tom

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Prescott, John

  Cohen, Stanley

  Kerr, Russell

  Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kinnock, Neil

  Skinner, Dennis

  Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Steel, David

  Doig, Peter

  McCann, John

  Swain, Thomas

  Dormand, J. D.

  McElhone, Frank

  Tinn, James

  Faulds, Andrew

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Torney, Tom

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mendelson, John

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mikardo, Ian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mantling, William

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Mr. Stanley Orme and

  Hardy, Peter

  Oram, Bert

  Mr. Gerald Kaufman.

  Horam, John

  Resolved,
  That the Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That the Judges' Remuneration (No. 2) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.—[The Attorney-General]:—
  The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 40.

  Division No. 51.]

  AYES

  [11.53 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Crouch, David

  Gurden, Harold

  Astor, John

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Curran, Charles

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Benyon, W.

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Biffen, John

  Drayson, G. B.

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Havers, Michael

  Boscawen, R. T.

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Bowden, Andrew

  Eyre, Reginald

  Hicks, Robert

  Braine, Bernard

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Hiley, Joseph

  Bray, Ronald

  Fidler, Michael

  Holland, Philip

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Hordern, Peter

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Buck, Antony

  Fortescue, Tim

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Fowler, Norman

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Gardner, Edward

  Hunt, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Goodhew, Victor

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Coombs, Derek

  Corst, John

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Gray, Hamish

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Cormack, Patrick

  Green, Alan

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Kilfedder, James

  Mudd, David

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Neave, Airey

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Kirk, Peter

  Normanton, Tom

  Simeons, Charles

  Knox, David

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Soref, Harold

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Speed, Keith

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Spence, John

  Longden, Gilbert

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Loveridge, John

  Peel, John

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Percival, Ian

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Pounder, Rafton

  Tebbit, Norman

  McLaren, Martin

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Tilney, John

  Mather, Carol

  Raison, Timothy

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Maude, Angus

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Redmond, Robert

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Moate, Roger

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Worsley, Marcus

  Molyneaux, James

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Money, Ernie

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Monro, Hector

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Montgomery, Fergus

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Mr. Walter Clegg and

  Mare, Jasper

  Sharples, Richard

  Mr. Hugh Rossi.

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  NOES

  Ashton, Joe

  Horam, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Prescott, John

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kerr, Russell

  Stallard, A. W.

  Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Steel, David

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Swain, Thomas

  Doig, Peter

  Loughlin, Charles

  Tinn, James

  Dorman, J. D.

  McCann, John

  Torney, Tom

  Evans, Fred

  McElhone, Frank

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Faulds, Andrew

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mendelson, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Mr. Stanley Orme and

  Hamling, William

  Dram, Bert

  Mr. Gerald Kaufman.

  Hardy, Peter

  Paisley, Mr. Ian

  CHURCH OF ENGLAND (MEASURES)
  12.3 a.m.
  Mr. Marcus Worsley: I beg to move,
  That the Church Commissioners Measure 1970, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I think that it will be for the convenience of the House if with this we discuss the second Motion,
  That the Synodical Government (Special Majorities) Measure 1970, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
  Mr. Worsley: I intend to introduce these Measures extremely briefly. If any hon. Member wishes to refer to them, I will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy
  1518
  Speaker, and, with the leave of the House, to speak again.
  The first, the Church Commissioners Measure, 1970, is needed simply because in 1964 the House of Commons approved the Church Commissioners Measure which brought about a considerable reorganisation of the administration of the Church Commissioners. In particular, it separated what had been a single committee which dealt with both matters of income and expenditure into two committees, namely, the Assets Committee and the General Purposes Committee, one dealing with assets and the other the way in which those assets were spent.
  The committees set up under that Measure are statutory and, therefore, in order to make any change in their powers or size it is necessary to come to the House. One of the recommendations of Lord Monckton's Commission under which this Measure was passed was that the administration of the Church Commissioners should be considered every five years. Such a review has taken place

  1519
  and the only change recommended is simply that both of the two committees I have mentioned should be increased in terms of statutory minimum by two members.
  In the case of the Assets Committee, the present membership consists of the Chairman, the First Church Estates Commissioner, one clergyman and three laymen. The House will appreciate that such a very small membership of a committee dealing with very great responsibilities causes difficulties if any of its members are away or abroad or ill. Simply for this reason and for no other, it is requested that the ability be written in by this Measure to have two more members of that committee. The General Purposes Committee is a larger body but it is felt that it, too, should have the ability to have two more members. That is the whole purpose of the Church Commissioners Measure and I commend it to the House.
  The Special Majorities Measure refers to the General Synod of the Church of England, which has replaced the National Assembly of the Church of England, generally known as the Church Assembly. Perhaps it is a little anomalous in the sense that this Measure, which was passed by the Church Assembly, should refer to the Synod in future. All this Measure seeks to do is to make two relatively small changes in the procedures of the General Synod.
  Both these changes would allow the General Synod to have the power in certain cases to take decisions by special majorities rather than by simple majorities. A special majority is merely something other than a simple majority. It could be a majority of three-quarters or of two-thirds. This idea originates from the proposition in Convocations, when the proposals for unity with the Methodist Church were considered, that a three-quarters majority should be necessary before a decision was taken. That idea was accepted, but a three-quarters majority was not achieved in all the Houses. It is felt that, in future, similar cases—union with other Churches—it would be useful if the Synod were able to decide that the decision should be taken by special majority. That is the first proposition in this Measure. It could
  1520
  either be a special majority of the General Synod itself or of its constituent Houses or of both.
  The second principal point in this Measure is the desirability that, if the Synod wishes to suspend its own standing orders, it should have the power to make a rule to say that those Standing Orders should be suspended only by a special majority. It is visualised that it would be only in very unusual circumstances when something more than a simple majority would be required.
  That is the purpose of the Special Majorities Measure. The House will feel, I believe—it has often shown itself to be sensitive on this point—that it provides some sort of protection of minorities in the Church and I hope, therefore, that the Measure will also find the approval of the House.
  12.10 a.m.
  Mr. Peter Mills: I welcome these simple but very important Measures. It is interesting to note—I believe that I am correct in saying this—that these are the last two Measures to come from the old Church Assembly. In future, all the Measures will come from the Synod, rather than from the Church Assembly. This is quite a historic occasion in many ways, for this is the last Measure to come from that other place, and we now start with this very exciting new synodical government.
  It is right that there should be the extra number of two to help in dealing with the assets of the Church Commissioners, which are very large and mean a tremendous amount of work. The report of the Ecclesiastical Committee stated that five years' experience had proved that two more were needed, and, while one does not want to appoint more than necessary, it is important to have the help which is required. The report went on to mention flexibility to meet future possible needs, and it is right to provide for the future.
  As most hon. Members probably know, I have been a very severe critic of some actions of the Church Commissioners, particularly those concerned with one of the major assets; that is, the farms and agricultural holdings. I have severely criticised their amalgamation policy and their rents, but I do not want to go into those matters tonight. However,

  1521
  mistake which I made. I made an accusation as regards the succession of sons, and said that the Church Commissioners did not take very much interest, or give very much opportunity for sons to continue tenancies. I have looked into this matter carefully, and have been shown figures of what has happened, and I must say that I was wrong Therefore, I should like to withdraw that accusation, and this is a very good time to do so. However, I do not withdraw my other accusations. What I said earlier was coloured very much by a very real local problem, when a near relative was not given a chance. But I thought it was important that I should make that apology and withdraw what I said.
  I should be out of order if I spoke at length on the Synodical Government (Special Majorities) Measure, but I should like to say that it is very important that the word "Synodical" should be heard in this Chamber, perhaps for the first time. There is a great future for synodical government and I believe that this very small Measure is a worthwhile one. All who are interested in this great Church of England look forward to very great things coming from synodical government in the future, and I personally look forward with great interest to Measures being brought from that assembly to this assembly here. I wish it every success.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Church Commissioners Measure 1970, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
  Resolved,
  That the Synodical Government (Special Majorities) Measure, 1970, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.—[Mr. Worsley.]

  COLEFORD MAGISTRATES (MR. BROOKES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]
  12.15 a.m.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: The case I wish to raise concerns one of my constituents, Mr. Albert Brookes. Mr. Brookes entered public life in the Forest of Dean in 1925, became a magistrate in 1941 and was vice-chairman of the bench from 1953 to 1966, on which date he became chairman of the Coleford magistrates. Therefore, he acted as a magistrate in that area for 29 years. He was due to retire in December this year because of the age limit, but he was sacked from the Commission by the Lord Chancellor in October of this year, some two and a half months before he was due to retire.
  If one was faced merely with a recital of those facts, one would feel that this was a man who had committed some heinous crime or who had suddenly began to embark on a life of immorality. But no such charge of any kind is made against Mr. Brookes. I consider that he was a victim of a nasty, mean, vindictive piece of political spite and that there are two persons primarily involved.
  One is the clerk to the magistrates' court at Coleford, and the other—much as I regret to say this—is the Lord Chancellor himself. During the time I have been dealing with this case, I have never failed to recognise that Mr. Brookes has an impairment of his hearing. I have conceded from the beginning that Mr. Brookes has had this impairment over many years. Such a condition is bound to deteriorate, but there was no suggestion that the defect from which Mr. Brookes suffered was an impediment to the exercise of his duties, until about September, 1969.
  Mr. Brookes was then approached by one of his fellow magistrates, a Mrs. Battle, who suggested that he ought not to stand for re-election as chairman of the bench. He did not accept this advice. He then received a letter from the clerk of the court from which it appears that the clerk had had a discussion with Mrs. Battle. It is my view that the initiative came from the clerk,

  1523
  even before Mrs. Battle talked to Mr. Brookes. He had had a word with Mrs. Battle and he again advised Mr. Brookes not to retire, not to come off the Bench because the letter made it clear that, provided Mr. Brookes did not stand for election as chairman, there would be no reason why he should not continue to sit.
  If his hearing was so defective that it constituted an impediment to Mr. Brookes in his hearing of cases he was no more entitled to sit as a magistrate than as chairman of the bench. But that was not the suggestion. I have the letter—and no doubt the Solicitor-General has a copy—in which it is suggested that Mr. Brookes should not stand for re-election but should continue as a magistrate.
  Mr. Brookes did not take the advice of the clerk of the court. After a short time the election for chairman of the bench took place, and Mr. Brookes was elected by his fellow-magistrates—who are as good judges as anybody else of his fitness to do his job, and his physical capacity to do so.
  It is rather significant that in the letter Mr. Russell Jessop—the clerk of the court—sent to Mr. Brookes suggesting that he might decide not to stand for re-election as chairman it was also drawn to Mr. Brookes's attention that he had become my political agent, and that his position was therefore out of accord with the wishes of the Lord Chancellor in respect of legal agents and magistrates. Mr. Brookes had not become my political agent; he had become honorary secretary of the West Gloucestershire Divisional Labour Party and was quite entitled to pursue that position and remain a magistrate; indeed, when Mr. Brookes, in a subsequent level of correspondence, told the clerk to the court that he was wrong in relation to the parliamentary situation, and said that he would have a chat with me and draw my attention to the matter, Mr. Brookes received what I consider to be an impertinent and impudent letter from the clerk. He suggested that Mr. Brookes had no right to discuss anything at all with a person such as myself. In fact, Mr. Brookes had said that he was going to discuss some other matters with me and would draw my attention to that part of the letter.
  1524
  Mr. Brookes at that time was asked by the divisional Labour Party to discuss with me the question of wage earners on the Coleford bench—of which there was, and still is, a paucity—as a result of a resolution passed by the divisional Labour Party. I subsequently discussed that matter with the then Lord Chancellor. I am afraid that the clerk to the court is slightly biased about Labour people and Labour magistrates.
  Mr. Brookes heard nothing further from September or October, 1969, until 20th July, 1970, when he received a letter from the Lord Chancellor's Office drawing his attention to his deafness and asking him to stand down. Mr. Brookes came to see me and I advised him to write to the Lord Chancellor's Office pointing out that I should be writing to the Lord Chancellor—which I did. I asked Mr. Brookes to tell the Lord Chancellor that I was dealing with the matter and to ask whether it could be left in abeyance at that time.
  I wrote to the Lord Chancellor asking to discuss the matter with him, because I felt that if the sole problem was Mr. Brooke's deafness, the advice which the clerk to the court ought to have given to Mr. Brookes was to go to somebody for an examination and possibly a deaf aid.
  As I say, I wrote to the Lord Chancellor asking whether he would see me to discuss the position, but there was a delay in those discussions. The delay was not my fault. The discussions did not take place for some weeks because the Lord Chancellor wrote to me saying that as he was going away on holiday I should write to him again in September.
  I went to see the Lord Chancellor about this case on Wednesday, 23rd September. I have met many Ministers in the course of the years I have been in this House. As a member of the last Administration I met many hon. Members from both sides of this House. But I never remember an experience like the one when I went to see the Lord Chancellor. There is a saying that one can cut the atmosphere with a knife. From the moment that I went into that room to see the Lord Chancellor I felt that there was an icy atmosphere which was certainly not conducive to any real discussion of the problem.

  1525
  I persisted with the discussion. I had to reiterate and reiterate my case. To cut a long story short, I proposed to the Lord Chancellor that Mr. Brookes should provide, either direct or through myself, a certificate that his hearing was perfect within normal tolerances by reason of having acquired a hearing aid and that, until that time, Mr. Brookes should not sit on the bench.
  I do not think that anyone could fault such a suggestion, particularly when the man concerned has spent the whole of his adult life in the service of the community in which he lives and has been a member of the bench for 29 years.
  Mr. Brookes was never told who charged him with having badly impaired hearing. Indeed, the Lord Chancellor had no medical evidence, and he rejected the only opportunity of obtaining medical evidence of any kind.
  The Lord Chancellor said that he would reflect on the matter. But within hours I received in my room in this House a copy of a letter which I suspect had been written before I saw the Lord Chancellor. There was no reflection. I was convinced—I told the Lord Chancellor so in a subsequent letter—that he had made up his mind before I saw him and was not going to budge from the decision which he had taken. I think that the Lord Chancellor was absolutely determined, although he is in charge of the judiciary, not to give fair play, nor justice, to this man. If he had wanted to give him justice, he could at least have given him the opportunity of providing medical evidence pointing one way or the other. If the impediment was that he could not hear, then, provided that he had a hearing aid which brought his hearing up to a reasonable tolerance, and provided, also, that he did not sit until he had that hearing aid, there was no possible objection to his sitting on the bench.
  There is one other aspect of the case about which I am acutely disturbed. As a result of my meeting with the Lord Chancellor, he offered Mr. Brookes one of two alternatives. He could either go on to the supplemental list, or he could remain a magistrate until the end of the year provided he did not perform any magisterial duties.
  There was correspondence between Mr. Brookes and the Lord Chancellor, and
  1526
  the Lord Chancellor agreed to allow Mr. Brookes to consult me as to what attitude he should take in this matter, provided that Mr. Brookes did not sit as a magistrate in the meantime, which he was prepared to do. On 5th October, before we were able to finalise the position, Mr. Brookes received a telephone call from the clerk's department asking him to go into court on 7th October to take some depositions, which would mean that Mr. Brookes would not sit in a judicial capacity. Mr. Brookes attended the court for the sole purpose of taking depositions, but after his arrival there the clerk switched another case into his court and he was foolish enough to adjudicate on it.
  I say that he was foolish enough to do that, because the case was heard on 7th October, and by 2 o'clock on 8th October the Lord Chancellor's office was ringing Mr. Brookes' home to try to get hold of him. I know that clerks report the presence of magistrates in court, but they do not so do on the day that they are sitting so that the Lord Chancellor can get the information the next day, and, unless there is some tangible evidence to disprove it, I am convinced that Mr. Brookes was enveigled into court to take depositions and then there was deliberately placed before him an additional case so that he had to hear it, which was against the Lord Chancellor's wishes, and by this means they got him off the bench.
  I should like an inquiry to be held into the circumstances leading up to the attendance of Mr. Brookes at court on 7th October, and how it was that the Lord Chancellor's office knew on 8th October that he had sat the previous day. If justice can be obtained by raising matters in the House, the Solicitor-General should ask the Lord Chancellor to allow Mr. Brookes to be put back on the Commission so that he can retire honourably and gracefully and not be humiliated in this way.
  12.35 a.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): It is obviously a matter of regret that a magistrate who has given such long service should have left the Commission in the circumstances that we are discussing, from whatever point of view one looks at it. But, because of the way in which the hon. Gentleman has put the case on behalf of Mr. Brookes, it is most

  1527
  important that the facts should be made known so that it is plain that, in the regrettable circumstances, my right hon. and noble Friend was left with no alternative.
  The tragedy arises possibly from the way in which the hon. Gentleman and perhaps others have chosen to see this sad story as a matter of, as the hon. Gentleman put it,
  "… nasty, mean, vindictive political spite."
  This gentleman, who has given distinguished service, appears to have been swept up in some kind of conspiracy theory of politics which the hon. Gentleman still advances. This is remote from the truth. It is because the case has been put in that way that it is difficult to make any kind of sympathetic response—
  Mr. Loughlin: I did not put it in that way until the action was taken.
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman has taken 20 of the 30 minutes available for this debate. I must insist that what the hon. Gentleman says is remote from the truth.
  It is true that Mr. Brookes was chairman, and that he was due to retire to the supplemental list on 1st January next year. But there are other matters relevant to the Lord Chancellor's action. The first is the very clear warning and enunciation in paragraph 136 of the Report of the last Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace, which reads:
  "The other physical infirmity to which we must refer is deafness. It has been made plain to us that there is too often justification for the complaint that some justices remain on the bench although they suffer from this infirmity to an extent which prevents them from fully hearing or correctly appreciating the evidence of witnesses and the submissions of advocates. The effect on the administration of justice and the prestige of the bench is deplorable. It is notorious that those who are afflicted with this infirmity are apt to shrink from confessing it even to themselves."
  It makes plain that there should be no hesitation about reporting such matters to the Lord Chancellor.
  That is the background to the duty and responsibility of my right hon. and noble Friend and his predecessor to make sure that standards are upheld and to ensure proper respect for the service given by the people whom he has to consider.
  The matters advanced by the hon. Gentleman, the conversation with Mrs.
  1528
  Battle in September, 1969, and the letter written by the clerk to the justices at or about the same time, were unknown to my right hon. and noble Friend or to his predecessor or to anyone in his Department. They might suggest to an impartial observer that one or other or both of these people were getting concerned about the progressive development of Mr. Brookes's impaired hearing. But they had nothing to do with this decision.
  The case first came to the notice of the Department in May of this year, during the time of the previous Administration, from a responsible and confidential source. It had nothing to do with those whom the hon. Gentleman has identified. As is customary, it was referred to the advisory committee for the county, which made its own confidential inquiries through more than one independent source. It became apparent, unfortunately, that the criticism of Mr. Brookes's hearing capacity was well founded and that he suffered from impaired hearing to an extent detrimental to the performance of his duties.
  Again in accordance with custom, on 20th July of this year he was sent a very courteous letter from the Department of my right hon. and noble Friend suggesting, as is usual in such cases, that he might like to consider a transfer to the supplemental list for the last four months of his service, since this incapacity was said to exist.
  The hon. Gentleman requested an interview with the Lord Chancellor at the end of July. He accepted that that should take place after the holiday of my right hon. and noble Friend. After that, my right hon. and noble Friend wrote to the hon. Gentleman saying that, in view of what had been said, Mr. Brookes would be well advised not to sit in the meanwhile. That was noted by the hon. Gentleman at the time. That was at the beginning of August. That was acknowledged by Mr. Brookes. In the middle of August he wrote again to one of those in my right hon. Friend's Department and the reply came back on 18th August, setting out again what Mr. Brookes had been told through the hon. Gentleman—that if there was any question of his hearing being less than perfect he would be well advised not to sit for the time being—
  Mr. Loughlin: For the sake of accuracy—
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman only allowed me 10 minutes—
  Mr. Loughlin: The accuracy is that it was agreed that the matter should be left in abeyance until I met the Lord Chancellor.
  The Solicitor-General: There was no matter of agreement of that kind. Mr. Brookes wrote:
  "My I take it that your letter should be kept in abeyance?"
  That was on 13th August, and on 18th August, the matter was again made clear, that he would be well advised not to sit for the time being. An interview took place on 23rd September and, as the hon. Gentleman said, it was only then, for the first time, that my right hon. and noble Friend learned of any connection politically between Mr. Brookes and the hon. Gentleman.
  It was made plain at that interview—I cannot deal with it in more detail in view of the shortness of time allowed me—that, notwithstanding the short period to go, because of Mr. Brookes's disability, the Lord Chancellor was not prepared to let him sit for the remainder of the year, that he was prepared to let him be transferred to the Supplemental List, and in a letter couched in the most courteous terms on 23rd September—
  Mr. Loughlin: That is not true.
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman has allowed me 10 of the 30 minutes in which to reply to his points on what would be an important matter—
  Mr. Loughlin: But this is the point—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself.
  The Solicitor-General: My right hon. Friend himself wrote to Mr. Brookes on 23rd September saying that he had carefully considered the matter after discussion with the hon. Gentleman:
  "I must say how sorry I am to learn that, after your lengthy service to the bench, you have been seriously handicapped in your hearing, and I quite understand what a wrench it must be for you to tear yourself away from the Chairmanship, particularly as, in any event, you
  1530
  would have to be placed on the Supplemental List from the Chairmanship very shortly. Nevertheles, I am afraid that I must tell you that it would not be consistent with my duties as Lord Chancellor to permit you to continue to sit in your present state of health."
  My right hon. and noble Friend went on to give the two alternatives—either transfer to the Supplemental List or remaining on the full list for the remainder of the year so long as he did not sit, and added:
  "The object of this is to make it plain that you have well earned the thanks of the County of Gloucester and of this Department for your services, but I cannot permit you to sit further in court and would be grateful to you if you would let me know by return which of the two options you would prefer me to take."
  That was a fair and courteous presentation of the options.
  Mr. Brookes asked whether it could wait until he discussed it with the hon. Gentleman. He received a reply that it could, but that in the meanwhile he would be well advised not to sit, and on 1st October another letter was sent to Mr. Brookes reminding him of the proposition that he should not sit and of the extent to which my right hon. and hon. Friend had to be satisfied of his capacity if he was to continue doing so. So for at least a fourth time it was made clear that he should not sit in the meantime.
  Nevertheless, sadly, Mr. Brookes did sit on 29th September and 7th October. There was no question of the clerk of the court, whom the hon. Gentleman sought to criticise, knowing any of the background of this at all, certainly no suggestion of any trap having been laid. The one person who knew that he had been advised many times against sitting on and had been given the option of either not sitting till the end of the year or going on the Supplemental List was Mr. Brookes himself. It is a matter of the utmost regret that he continued to sit, as he did, but this matter has nothing to do with political plotting or inveigling of anyone. The magistrate in question, unhappily, did not respond with the wisdom which perhaps one would have expected to the repeated advice he received.
  My right hon. and noble Friend was left with no alternative, in view of the continued situation but to take the step he did on 8th October and to remove Mr. Brookes from the Commission. I

  1531
  join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the service that Mr. Brookes has done over a number of years on this bench, but the conclusion of that career arises, I repeat, not through political plotting of any kind—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
  Adjourned at a quarter to One o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT
  Demolition (Planning Regulations)
  Demolition (Planning Regulations)
  Intensive Livestock Farm Buildings (Derating)
  Intensive Livestock Farm Buildings (Derating)
  Street Subways (Handrails)
  Street Subways (Handrails)
  M1 Motorway (Gantry Signals)
  M1 Motorway (Gantry Signals)
  Unmade and Unadopted Roads
  Unmade and Unadopted Roads
  Water
  Water
  Land (Mineral Extraction)
  Land (Mineral Extraction)
  Road-Building Programme (Clayton-le-Moors)
  Road-Building Programme (Clayton-le-Moors)
  Central Lancashire (New Town Development Corporation)
  Central Lancashire (New Town Development Corporation)
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Northern Region (New Construction)
  Northern Region (New Construction)
  Derelict Land (Clearance)
  Derelict Land (Clearance)
  Land and Buildings (Compensation Payments)
  Land and Buildings (Compensation Payments)
  Chiswick—Heathrow Road
  Chiswick—Heathrow Road
  London Transport Fares
  London Transport Fares
  Land, Northern Region (Industrial Development)
  Land, Northern Region (Industrial Development)
  London Buses (Capital Expenditure)
  London Buses (Capital Expenditure)
  Motorways (Trees and Plants)
  Motorways (Trees and Plants)
  A184 Trunk Road (Footbridge)
  A184 Trunk Road (Footbridge)
  Council House Building, Rugby (Discussions)
  Council House Building, Rugby (Discussions)
  Fixed-Price Building Contracts
  Fixed-Price Building Contracts
  House-Building Programmes
  House-Building Programmes
  House-Building Programme
  House-Building Programme
  Rent Officers
  Rent Officers
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
  Home Ownership (Legal Fees)
  Home Ownership (Legal Fees)
  Option Mortgage Scheme
  Option Mortgage Scheme
  Housing (Brent)
  Housing (Brent)
  Local Authorities (Building Costs)
  Local Authorities (Building Costs)
  Homeless People
  Homeless People
  Leasehold Reform Act
  Leasehold Reform Act
  Labour-only Sub-contracting
  Labour-only Sub-contracting
  Slum-Clearance
  Slum-Clearance
  Housing, Islington
  Housing, Islington
  Houses (Thermal Insulation)
  Houses (Thermal Insulation)
  Housing (Clearance Subsidies)
  Housing (Clearance Subsidies)
  Furnished Accommodation (Tenancies)
  Furnished Accommodation (Tenancies)
  Government Offices, Horseferry Road
  Government Offices, Horseferry Road
  Demolition Firms (Control)
  Demolition Firms (Control)
  Warm Housing Standards
  Warm Housing Standards
  Voluntary Housing Associations
  Voluntary Housing Associations
  Housing (Capital Investment)
  Housing (Capital Investment)
  Council House Waiting Lists
  Council House Waiting Lists
  Local Authority Direct Labour Organisations
  Local Authority Direct Labour Organisations
  London-Manchester Line (Electrification)
  London-Manchester Line (Electrification)
  Transport Act, 1968 (Section 19)
  Transport Act, 1968 (Section 19)
  British Rail (Subsidy)
  British Rail (Subsidy)
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board
  Rule of the Road
  Rule of the Road
  Thomas Cook and Sons, Limited
  Thomas Cook and Sons, Limited
  Swimming Pool, Aston Woodhouse
  Swimming Pool, Aston Woodhouse
  Fares (Concessionary Schemes)
  Fares (Concessionary Schemes)
  Motor Vehicles (Exhaust Fumes)
  Motor Vehicles (Exhaust Fumes)
  Motor Vehicle Lamps
  Motor Vehicle Lamps
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Goods Vehicles (Size and Weight)
  Goods Vehicles (Size and Weight)
  Road Accidents (Pedestrians)
  Road Accidents (Pedestrians)
  Optical Information Council (Publication)
  Optical Information Council (Publication)
  M25 Motorway
  M25 Motorway
  Regional Economic Planning Council
  Regional Economic Planning Council
  Birmingham Water Undertaking (Rateable Value)
  Birmingham Water Undertaking (Rateable Value)
  Motorways (Crash Barriers)
  Motorways (Crash Barriers)
    NATIONAL PROGRAMME— SAFETY BARRIERS ON MOTORWAYS
    NATIONAL PROGRAMME— SAFETY BARRIERS ON MOTORWAYS
  Bishop's Stortford (By-pass)
  Bishop's Stortford (By-pass)
  Land, Merseyside (Industrial Development)
  Land, Merseyside (Industrial Development)
  Urban Roads (Large Commercial Vehicles)
  Urban Roads (Large Commercial Vehicles)
  Sports Council
  Sports Council
  Citizens Advice Bureaux (Grant)
  Citizens Advice Bureaux (Grant)
  M2 Motorway (Extension)
  M2 Motorway (Extension)
  Waste Products (Composting)
  Waste Products (Composting)
  Beaches (Sand Removal)
  Beaches (Sand Removal)
  Heathrow (Tube Extension Project)
  Heathrow (Tube Extension Project)
  M3 Motorway (Route)
  M3 Motorway (Route)
  West Riding (International Airport)
  West Riding (International Airport)
  Flats and Maisonettes (Rating)
  Flats and Maisonettes (Rating)
  Streams and Rivers (Pollution)
  Streams and Rivers (Pollution)
  Housing Projects, Tynemouth
  Housing Projects, Tynemouth
  Rainham (Public Nuisance)
  Rainham (Public Nuisance)
  Whitehall Place (Pollution)
  Whitehall Place (Pollution)
  Land Commission
  Land Commission
  Office Employment, Northern Region
  Office Employment, Northern Region
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Industrial Development Certificates (Bolsover)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Bolsover)
SCOTLAND
  Health Centre, Glasgow
  Health Centre, Glasgow
  Stranraer-Larne Ferry
  Stranraer-Larne Ferry
  Prison-Building Programme
  Prison-Building Programme
  Teachers (Registration)
  Teachers (Registration)
  Schoolchildren (Malnutrition)
  Schoolchildren (Malnutrition)
  Tropical Diseases Unit, Edinburgh
  Tropical Diseases Unit, Edinburgh
  Dutch Vessel "Hereford Express" (Grounding)
  Dutch Vessel "Hereford Express" (Grounding)
  Housing Approvals, Glasgow
  Housing Approvals, Glasgow
  Cupar Sugar Beet Factory
  Cupar Sugar Beet Factory
  LICENSED PREMISES (LEGISLATION)
  LICENSED PREMISES (LEGISLATION)
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON ASSIZES AND QUARTER SESSIONS
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON ASSIZES AND QUARTER SESSIONS
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Central Electricity Generating Board (Purchase of Fuel)
  Central Electricity Generating Board (Purchase of Fuel)
  German Democratic Republic (Aircraft)
  German Democratic Republic (Aircraft)
  Power Cuts
  Power Cuts
  Third London Airport
  Third London Airport
  Employment, Wales
  Employment, Wales
  British Airports Authority (Public Inquiries)
  British Airports Authority (Public Inquiries)
  British Airlines (Purchase of Foreign Aircraft)
  British Airlines (Purchase of Foreign Aircraft)
  Gatwick (Night Jet Flights)
  Gatwick (Night Jet Flights)
  Industrial Liaison Centres
  Industrial Liaison Centres
  Electrical Power (Cost of Production)
  Electrical Power (Cost of Production)
  Bolton Committee on Small Firms
  Bolton Committee on Small Firms
  National Coal Board (Chairman)
  National Coal Board (Chairman)
  Horticulture (Power-Cuts)
  Horticulture (Power-Cuts)
  Electricity Power Cuts
  Electricity Power Cuts
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Vandalism
  Vandalism
  Commonwealth Immigration
  Commonwealth Immigration
  Legal Aid, Wales
  Legal Aid, Wales
  Offenders (Non-custodial Penalties)
  Offenders (Non-custodial Penalties)
  Whitehall Place (Traffic)
  Whitehall Place (Traffic)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Milk
  School Milk
  Kingsley School, Kettering
  Kingsley School, Kettering
  Computers
  Computers
  Students
  Students
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Mentally-Handicapped Children (Teachers)
  Mentally-Handicapped Children (Teachers)
  Unqualified Teachers
  Unqualified Teachers
  BANK HOLIDAYS
  BANK HOLIDAYS
  NATIONAL EMERGENCY
  NATIONAL EMERGENCY
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Newcastle Disease
  Newcastle Disease
  Rural Development Boards
  Rural Development Boards
  Small Farmers, Mid-Ulster
  Small Farmers, Mid-Ulster
  Fat Cattle, Sheep and Lambs (Prices)
  Fat Cattle, Sheep and Lambs (Prices)
AVIATION SUPPLY
  Concorde
  Concorde
  BAC311
  BAC311
CIVIL SERVICE
  Telecommunications
  Telecommunications
DEFENCE
  Mid-Ulster (Disturbances)
  Mid-Ulster (Disturbances)
EMPLOYMENT
  Merseyside (Cadbury-Schweppes Plant)
  Merseyside (Cadbury-Schweppes Plant)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Namibia
  Namibia
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Television Annunciators
  Television Annunciators
  LAW REFORM COMMITTEE FOR SCOTLAND
  LAW REFORM COMMITTEE FOR SCOTLAND
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  B.B.C. and I.T.A. Advisory Councils
  B.B.C. and I.T.A. Advisory Councils
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Nursing Home Act, 1936
  Nursing Home Act, 1936
  Welfare Orange Juice (Effects on Teeth)
  Welfare Orange Juice (Effects on Teeth)
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Welfare Services (Expenditure)
  Welfare Services (Expenditure)
  Wells and District Cottage Hospital
  Wells and District Cottage Hospital
  Supplementary Benefits (Disregards)
  Supplementary Benefits (Disregards)
  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Social Security (Fraudulent Claims)
  Social Security (Fraudulent Claims)
  Sickness Benefit (Second Medical Opinion)
  Sickness Benefit (Second Medical Opinion)
  Doctors (Training)
  Doctors (Training)
  British Epilepsy Association
  British Epilepsy Association
  National Health Service (Structure)
  National Health Service (Structure)
  Morbidity Survey
  Morbidity Survey
WALES
  Hospitals, East Flintshire
  Hospitals, East Flintshire
  Housing for the Aged and Disabled
  Housing for the Aged and Disabled
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Hearing Aids (Tax Allowances)
  Hearing Aids (Tax Allowances)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bristol):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

PSITTACOSIS AND IMPORTED PARROTS
LORD JANNER: 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, in view of the death and illness of persons caused by psittacosis in consequence of their having been in contact with recently imported parakeets, whether they will state how many cases of this disease have been diagnosed in man in Great Britain since the Parrots and Miscellaneous Birds (Prohibition of Importation) Order 1953 was rescinded by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on November 1, 1966; and how many outbreaks of psittacosis (Ornimosis) there have been in recently imported psittacine birds since Novembr 1, 1966.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, psittacosis is not a notifiable disease in man or animals, and the full information for which the noble Lord asks is not therefore available. If, however, a doctor suspected that a patient was suffering from psittacosis he would send a specimen of blood for laboratory examination. The numbers of confirmed cases in Great Britain reported by the Public Health Laboratory Services in their Communicable Diseases Reports are: 84 in 1967; 78 in 1968; 75 in 1969; and 60 in 1970, up to November. We have no comparable information about incidence in animals.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is very deep concern, particularly in the
1364
veterinary profession, about this particular disease, because since the Order was revoked there has been a large increase in the number of parrots introduced into this country? Is the noble Lord aware that something like 4,600 have been introduced in those places where the R.S.P.C.A., for example, has the opportunity of examining them; and that this is quite apart from the numbers in other places? Will the noble Lord consider reimposing the Order so that we may prevent the disease rather than cure it afterwards?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the original Order was imposed for reasons of control of Newcastle disease and not psittacosis. It was because Newcastle disease was no longer subject to slaughtering methods and there was a policy of vaccination that the Order was withdrawn. It did not apply to psittacosis. The fact is that we are keeping a very close watch on the incidence of psittacosis, and I think the noble Lord will agree that the figures I have given show a falling trend.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the fact remains that a very large number of parrots have been brought into this country since the date of the revocation of the Order? In view of the fact that there is concern about this matter, does he not think that the Order should be reimposed, irrespective of its original intention? Is it not a fact that import control over these birds would enable us to avoid the kind of diseases which they spread and which can produce pneumonia in man?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, it is not only parrots who spread psittacosis; it can come also from pigeons. To reimpose import controls would be a very expensive and involved process.

POST OFFICE: DELIVERY OF SECOND-CLASS MAIL
2.35 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: 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 proportion of second-class mail

1365
posted in London on a Friday or a Saturday will be delivered by the first post the following Monday to addresses

(a) in London;

(b) elsewhere in England.]

LORD DENHAM: My Lords, these are management matters for the Post Office.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he remembers some of the things that he said on this very subject in a debate in your Lordships' House on February 11, 1969, when he said that he did not consider them to be management subjects?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I remember speaking on that occasion.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, would the noble Lord like me on another occasion to remind him of some of those things—which were very pertinent to this Question?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the crux of the matter is that it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government—and this means any Government—to take responsibility for, or to give information on, the day-to-day management of a public authority.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, while this question refers to England, may I ask whether my noble friend is aware that some letters posted on Friday or Saturday are not delivered in Scotland until the following Tuesday, and that this compares rather unfavourably with the days when letters were carried by horse transport?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am aware that in a few unfortunate cases there are delays. But it is not usual to give information on subjects like this on a regional basis. Statistics on a national basis are of course available.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that this so-called management of the Post Office is in many respects highly unsatisfactory, inasmuch as first-class mail posted on any day of the week, either in Scotland or England, often takes from 48 hours to five days to reach its destination?
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, following the supplementary question by my noble friend Lord Dundee, is it not the fact that second-class mail posted on Friday night is not even sorted until after the weekend?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I should be surprised if that were the case.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Answer that he gave to his noble friend is the right and proper answer in accordance with the Act under which the new Corporation was set up to look after the Post Office; and that each noble Lord—or any Member of another place—could, if he so willed, find criticism against the two-tier system which was in existence in the Post Office for a very long time prior to the setting up of the new Corporation?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. That is my understanding of the matter.
VISCOUNT TENBY: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that since the time of Rowland Hill in 1859, when the penny post was delivered the next day, the service has sadly deteriorated?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I have no evidence that the Post Office is failing in the duty laid upon it under Section 9 of the Post Office Act 1969. The figures that we have on a national basis give no reason to assume that anything is going wrong.

TAXATION AND PERSONAL INCOMES
LORD HAWKE: 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 if everyone in the country increases their income by 10 per cent., how much of this can be expected to accrue to the Exchequer:—

(a) by taxes on income;

(b) by taxes on consumption.]

LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, it is estimated that if personal incomes from all sources were to increase uniformly by 10 per cent., additional liabilities to

1367
income tax and surtax would account for about 30 per cent. of the increase. Up to about one-eighth of the increase in incomes would be taken in taxes on consumption.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those figures. In view of them, and of the known huge surplus of the Treasury, would not Her Majesty's Government agree that there is ample opportunity for a substantial reduction in the level of taxation which was imposed by the last Government and which has led to so much inflation and so many inflationary wage claims?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, these figures are broad generalisations, and of course it is not true—I wish it were—that everybody's income has increased by 10 per cent. Therefore in this hypothetical situation it is difficult for me to comment. I would only say that, while it is true that higher incomes lead to more tax revenue, it is highly regrettable that this sort of inflationary situation should be the one in which we live. We are doing our utmost to prevent it.

MARYLEBONE STATION GATES
LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have power to give a direction to British Railways not to remove any more of the wrought-iron gates leading to the canopy of Marylebone Station, and, if so, whether they will exercise that power.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): No, my Lords; not such as would be applicable in this case.
LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask whether he does not think that it would be a great pity that these charming gates should go, since whoever put forward the arrangements for their removal
1368
does not expect us to agree with him and the gates are going in order to satisfy a tidy mind?
LORD SANDFORD: No my Lords, I would not agree that these gates come up to the special category of historic or architectural interest which would justify their being left and protected in this way. Nor would I agree that their retention is a matter of such great national interest that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would be entitled to interfere in the general day-to-day management of British Rail. I understand that one pair of gates has been removed in the interests of road safety. The other pair, which is still in position, has been offered to the Victorian Society, who have been invited to negotiate for them.
BARONESS PLUMMER: My Lords, the noble Lord has partly answered the question I wished to ask, because I wanted to know what was going to happen to these gates. May I ask him whether it would be not so much a matter of exercising power as of seeing if a few kind words could do something about it?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, in respect of one pair of gates it is a matter of past history. In respect of the other, I think that a very desirable outcome has been arrived at without the necessity of the Secretary of State's intervention.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, does the noble Lord feel satisfied that there are people in British Rail who are adequately sensitive to the demands of the public that we should retain items of general and industrial historic interest?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I do not believe that that is for me to say. In respect of those parts of British Rail which do match up to the historic or architectural interest that would merit their listing, the opinion of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would be relevant, but in this particular case it is not relevant.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that, while these gates are ornamental, their cost of maintenance is quite heavy, and that this cost is not in proportion to their utility value?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I would agree.

BUSINESS: BRITAIN AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, as your Lordships will have seen, there is a long list of speakers for to-day's important debate. In another place there will be a Statement on the United Kingdom participation in the European Economic Community's financial arrangements. This is an important Statement and it is one which I think ought to be repeated in this House, but if we do so to-day it will seriously interrupt the debate. The usual channels have agreed that it may be in the best interests of the House as a whole if we take the unusual step of not repeating the Statement to-day but repeating it, probably in a slightly different form, tomorrow. I am entirely in the hands of the House in this matter. If your Lordships feel that we ought to have the Statement to-day, notwithstanding the business we are discussing, then arrangements will be made for the Statement to be made by my noble friend Lord Lothian at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, speaking on behalf of my noble friends, I would support the suggestion that has been made by the Government Chief Whip. We are in this dilemma. We have this important debate. We may have a Division, and we do not wish it to be at a late hour. On the other hand, we have this important Statement on the Common Market, and it may well be that we shall need to pursue it at some length. If we were to take it to-day, I think that both matters would suffer. If we adopt the suggestion of the noble Earl, it will mean that we can look at this Statement and pursue the matter at more leisure, and we should not be putting in jeopardy important business. I certainly suggest to the House that this is a most admirable way of dealing with two difficult problems.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with those remarks. It seems to me that unless speeches are much briefer than they usually are in your Lordships' House, we are not going to get to a conclusion of to-day's debate until 11 o'clock in any case. We ought to have more time to discuss the Statement to-morrow rather than interfere with today's debate.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for what they have said. I do not think we should look on this as the beginning of a new procedure but should regard it as one to be used only in exceptional circumstances. I should also like to associate myself with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, which suggested that noble Lords might confine their remarks to as few words as possible.

MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES: PROPOSED CHARGES
2.46 p.m.
LORD ANNAN LORD ANNAN rose to move, That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to reconsider their announced intention to introduce charges for admission to the national museums and galleries. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Motion, I should declare an interest. I am a Trustee of the British Museum, but I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not speaking for the Trustees of the Museum. The reason most frequently heard in favour of imposing entry charges to museums and galleries is that in all European countries a charge is made, and if we are going into Europe all we shall be doing is to follow the European example. General de Gaulle used to describe the Americans and ourselves as "Anglo-Saxons". Without imitating Mr. Podsnap, I should like to suggest that the Anglo-Saxon tradition in this matter is much better than the European tradition. Why should the Party of tradition throw away a good British tradition?
Our national museums have never been regarded as State institutions, which the ruling Monarch or republican Government graciously permitted the public to enter. They started off often as private collections, and when they were given to the nation their donors stipulated that their gifts were made on the understanding that the public should be admitted free. The painter Turner made three wills and in each he added a codicil, which read that he was leaving his pictures to the nation on condition that they were "shown gratuitously". That may well have been one of the reasons that the great Conservative Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, believed that this policy, which our cities and the cities in America followed, was the right policy.
Why did our ancestors adopt this policy? They did so because they did not agree with the second excuse which is often offered in justification of these charges—that is, that people ought to pay for their entertainment and those who want to look at pictures or at scientific machines or at the artifacts of man are no different from those who want to go racing or to the theatre. But in Britain and America museums have usually been thought of as centres of learning in which everyone, from children to scholars, could learn about man's heritage and gain some new experience of the meaning of life.
Before the war, there were charges at the Tate on two days a week. On those days, some 200 to 300 people went into the Gallery and on the days when there were no charges some 2,000 to 3,000 people went, according to the season. Our ancestors knew that museums and gallaries are not there just to provide entertainment. They knew that people had to be enticed to come in and that is why they made entrance free.
They made it free for another reason—and to me it is the most important of all the reasons I shall mention to-day. They thought of the poor—yes, the poor. The poor still exist. I am not thinking only of the destitute, the homeless, who are often very glad to creep into museums for warmth; I am thinking of the vast number of ordinary people who live to-day on the edge of their small incomes—teachers, clergymen, shopgirls, widows, local government officials—those who have some education and who want to use it, but who do not get large enough wages because they work in the least remunerative jobs. I am thinking of Mum and the kids, the youngest usually perched on Dad's shoulder; of young poor parents who have to take their infants wherever they go. Those are the people who are going to suffer from these charges. Are we really so proud of this as an achievement? Are we so proud of imposing yet another regressive, divisive indirect tax?
Those who support the Government defend these charges on the grounds that only twelve museums in England and six in Scotland and Wales are affected. That is an illusion. These charges are only the beginning. What municipality, seeing
1372
the Exchequer grasping its £1 million, is going to resist the opportunity to save the ratepayers' money by clapping on charges on municipal museums? The next in line will be the universities. Can you not see the Public Accounts Committee solemnly taking Oxford and Cambridge or Glasgow to task for not charging for admission to the Ashmolean, the Fitzwilliam or the Hunterian? Can you not see the U.G.C. in acute embarrassment asking universities, since they are in receipt of public funds, to comply with the national policy? And can you not hear the explosions of rage from dons and students when they refuse to do so, and realise that their block grant will be debited by the notional amount that they would have received had they complied with the U.G.C.'s request? Is there a hope that the Paymaster General will prevail with the Secretary of State and ask her not to press this charge upon university museums?
One of the comforts held out to those troubled by this decision is that it will not affect attendance. After all, have not figures gone up at almost every place where charges for admission have been imposed? I do not think that anyone knows or can even hazard a guess at what the effect will be. There is all the difference between a special exhibition, or an excursion to a country house, or a pilgrimage to pay towards the cost of the Leonardo cartoon, and the daily entry to a great collection. I believe that people will no longer drop in for half an hour in the lunch break, look at a masterpiece, and go back to work feeling that so long as man can make such a work of art, life still has meaning. Then we are told that we must exploit our great tourist industry. Must we? Must we follow Italy, where on scarcely sees an Italian citizen in the gallery of his own home town?
There is another reason why I should like the Government to reconsider this matter. Almost exactly three years ago a great debate took place in your Lordships' House on the announcement that the Labour Government were going to sell the site opposite the British Museum which for years has been designated as a site for the new Library. I believe that that decision was taken as a result of an agreement made by some quite junior officials at an inter-departmental meeting,

1373
to which Ministers at a time of economic crisis found themselves mysteriously committed. These things happen in Government. But it was a blunder. What did the Government do? Well, after the debate they set up the Dainton Committee, and that Committee reported with most commendable speed. The Report almost audibly refrained from mentioning the Government's decision, but made it perfectly clear that the site opposite the Museum was really the only practicable place for the new Library. Meanwhile, Miss Jennie Lee (as the noble Baroness then was) was at work behind the scenes. She, and I dare say others, persuaded her colleagues in the Cabinet to think again, and the site was saved.
My Lords, I mention this incident to show that it is possible for Governments to think again. It was made all the harder for the Labour Government to do so because they had to sustain a philippic by the noble Viscount, Lord Radcliffe, against those whom he clearly regarded as his political opponents; and so much so that his speech came to be known as "government by contempt". He declared that there had been totally inadequate consultation, and that the views of the British Museum had been swept aside by arrogant Ministers. In that case consultation may have been inadequate. I thought so myself, and I said so. But there was some consultation; and, if I may say so, the inadequacy was not only on the side of the Government. Yet in the matter before us today there was no consultation at all—none at ail. I am certainly not going to try to emulate the noble Viscount, Lord Radcliffe. Of course it will at once be said that in this case the position is quite different: that here there could have been no consultation, any more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer consults wine merchants and shippers and distillers when he raises the duties on wines and spirits.
Well, my Lords, museums and galleries differ from the wines and spirits trade. There is a body called the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries. There are the trustees, boards and directors of all these institutions themselves. Is it not possible for the Government to say to them: "The Exchequer cannot afford to pay for all the improvements that we have in mind to make in our
1374
national museums and galleries. We should like you to devise means of raising additional funds by some means or other. You should not shrink from imposing entrance charges, if necessary. And we must warn you that if you cannot come forward with a scheme within three months we shall have to take such steps as we see fit."? Dr. Johnson once said that
"when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight it concentrates his mind wonderfully".
Why not do as I have suggested? Why again snub the Standing Commission? If the Government really despise the Commission, why not dissolve it? However, I believe that the museums and galleries would respond to such an appeal.
Perhaps I may tell the Paymaster General something that happened at King's College, Cambridge. When I was Provost there the costs of maintaining the Chapel, with its great Choir, in all its glory began to soar with such appalling speed that I became very alarmed. I could not get the Fellows to take this seriously. So I said one day: "The time has come when clearly we shall have to charge for admission to the Chapel. The public can come in tree a quarter of an hour before services, but the rest will have to pay." Well, my Lords, you can imagine the uproar that followed. The Deans and the Librarian swung into action at once. They commissioned Sir Hugh Casson to design a stall for the sale of books, photographs and gramophone records of the choir. They dragged out from a side chapel the trunk in which, in the fifteenth century, Henry VII sent the last consignment of silver and gold with which to complete the Chapel, and converted it into an alms chest; and they revised all the contracts for the recordings and broadcasts of the choir. Today, the maintenance of the Chapel services and running expenses (I am excluding, of course, capital costs, such as the preservation of the fabric) cost £21,000 a year. Two-thirds of that sum are recovered by the enterprises that I have just described, and only one-third falls on endowment. Of course there was no need to introduce charges: the mere mention of the idea was sufficient to get action taken.
That is what I hope the Paymaster General will this evening agree to do. I am asking him to retain his threat of charging for museums and galleries, but to give them the opportunity of putting forward alternative ways of increasing their revenue. To prove that I am in earnest, let me mention a few things that some museums and galleries might do. They might, as does the Metropolitan Museum in New York, ask for a voluntary entrance fee, which brings that Museum a great deal of money. They might go back to the pre-war practice of charging on one or two days a week, or some of them might take a cut in their purchase grant. The Tate must have a purchase grant, but does the National Gallery need one when masterpieces now fetch £2 million? Why is a monetary bequest to a gallery subject to death duties when a picture bequeathed to a gallery is not?
I hope that other noble Lords who know much more about these matters than I do will put forward ways in which the taxation laws could be revised to save demands from being made on the Exchequer to purchase pictures doomed to export. But, above all, will the Paymaster General not introduce legislation which would permit museums and galleries to keep the proceeds which they make from their publications and from the sale of objects and postcards, instead of the present inhibiting procedure which stifles all initiatives whereby the Treasury takes any profits that are made through the ingenuity of the directors and their staff? The National Gallery is able to do this. Why not all? The Imperial War Museum recently returned to the Exchequer sums from the sales of publications and entry to exhibitions amounting to ten times its annual purchase grant of £1,500.
Let each museum and gallery use its imagination to help itself. Here, indeed, would be an example of the Government's self-proclaimed policy to encourage institutions to stand on their own feet and reward initiative in display. We all remember the Paymaster General's moving speech on the humble Address in which he pleaded that we should try to improve the quality of life. What has occurred since? The Government have announced entry charges to museums and
1376
galleries and the advent of commercial broadcasting. Are these going to improve the quality of life?
Instead, museums are being asked to do something they find deeply depressing. Some years ago we got rid of national identity cards. They are now returning. Students will have to have a card. Children will have to prove that they are under 16 or 18, or whatever age one is still presumed to be a child. Old age pensioners will have to produce a card. Scholars will have to produce credentials. Visitors to the staff of the museum will have to produce written correspondence that they are invited to discuss some problem, whereas formerly they fixed an interview by telephone. Will a member of the National Art Collections Fund, or the Friends of the British Museum qualify for remission?
The Paymaster General must know that the Tate calculate that two-thirds of every pound they collect for entry to their special exhibitions goes in administrative overheads. Here is a Government, dedicated to the proposition that the number of bureaucrats has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished, solemnly setting up a scheme which will vastly increase the numbers of bureaucrats in museums which already, for the most part, are desperate for space for their existing staff. I wonder whether the Ministry of Works was consulted about the turnstiles in the entrances to museums. Most of our museums are not styled or built for such procedures. The sole excuse really is to get a pound of flesh.
And, my Lords, it is not a pound of flesh for the museums. The £1 million is, of course, to go, as all indirect taxation must go, to the Exchequer. In another place, Mr. van Straubenzee confirmed that this was so. What an odd way of going about the matter financially! Why a million? Why not two million?—for very soon, I predict, it will be two million. At this moment the directors of the museums are huddled together trying to calculate what entrance fee is needed, minus exemptions, to produce a million, when none of them really knows how many people come annually to the museums.
My Lords, the last thing I want to do in this debate is to pillory the Paymaster General. I want to praise him. When the history of education in this century is

1377
written the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, will appear not just as one of the best Ministers of Education since the war but as one of the greatest in this century. It was he who revolutionised the training of technicians and recognised that the old system was the greatest obstacle to British industry becoming more efficient. It was he who foresaw that if you make secondary education universal you are going to face a massive demand for higher education. He found an antiquated Ministry incapable even of deducing how many school children it would have to build schools for. He left it with most able men at the top and with a research team built into the administrative structure which could identify the problems of the future and analyse the facts of the present.
He is a connoisseur, an expert collector who loves the Arts and, indeed, as the last chairman of the British Museum Trustees, brought the British Museum out of its troubles. We, all of us, can guess what happened this autumn. Every Minister was told to produce cuts in expenditure, and the Paymaster General, unwilling, very rightly, to be cast in the role of the Philistine Goliath after Lady Lee's notable reign of sweetness and light, did the best he could and said that instead of cutting expenditure he would raise revenue. But I hope to-day that he will give us some hope that the matter will be looked at again. After all, my Lords, Mr. Baldwin did it. In 1923, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he proposed to introduce charges upon museums. He dropped the proposal in Committee stage on the Budget. No one thought the worse of him for that.
Since I have referred to a debate in another place, let me refer to one which took place in another place some years earlier—to be exact in November, 1601—the Monopolies Debate. I quote from the transcript of those times, imperfect though it was:
"Dr. Bennet said … in respect of a grievance out of the City for which I come, I think myself hound to speak that now which I had not intended to speak before—I mean, a monopoly of salt. It is an old proverb, sal sapit omnia; fire and water are not more necessary. But for other monopolies, of cards (at which word Sir Walter Raleigh blushed) they are (because monopolies), I must confess very hurtful, though not all alike hurtful.
1378
Mr. Martin said, I do speak for a town that grieves and pines … under the burden of monstrous and unconscionable substitutes to the monopolitans of starch, tin, fish, cloth, oil, vinegar, salt and I know not what, nay, what not?
Upon the reading of the patents aforesaid, Mr. Hakewill, of Lincoln's Inn, stood up and asked thus: Is not bread there? Bread, quoth one. Bread, quoth another. … This voice seems strange, quoth a third. No, quoth Mr. Hakewill, if order he not taken for these, bread will be there before the next Parliament."
My Lords, if order he not taken for museums and galleries, libraries and parks will be there before the next Parliament.
I well realise that there are very few votes in this issue. But it depresses me when Ministers tell people such as myself, "You don't count. You're just a minority. It's only the old gang of protesters who have written to their M.P.s". That is what I have heard said. Well, I am not going to pretend that all over the country people are agitated by this issue. It is an issue which raises a flutter in only a handful of the population.
All I ask in debate is that my frankness is reciprocated. Let us have no talk that to charge for admission to the National Gallery makes each of us value more Titian's "Bacchus and Ariadne" or the Piero della Francesca "Baptism". We do not value it more. People who say that to charge admission makes us value pictures more are talking cant. If you buy a picture, your enjoyment may be hound up with that knowledge that you got it cheap, or it may be bound up with the knowledge that you got it at a record price. That is a collector's privilege. But when you are looking at pictures in a gallery it is quite different. Are we really going to be told that whereas now we can enjoy the sensuous pleasure of gazing at the Rokeby "Venus" free, we are going to feel all the more moved when we pay 4s. to see her? If that were true, we ought to have a law to encourage prostitution. Well, my Lords, the heavens will not fall if the Government persist in putting on these charges: but to my mind one of the most civilised of British traditions will vanish and if that happens it will be a shame. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to reconsider their announced intention to introduce

1379
charges for admission to the national museums and galleries.—(Lord Annan.)
3.11 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for putting down this Motion on the Order Paper. I should like, if I may, to congratulate him on his most eloquent and moving speech, a great deal of which I agree with. It is a tribute to the importance of the subject that so many noble Lords have put down their name to speak to-day. I should like to say how much I am looking forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Clark, and my noble friend Lady White. I will try not to cover in any detail the ground so well covered by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, but to deal I hope mainly with some new points.
First of all, I should like to turn to the White Paper itself. There is a very short paragraph about the Arts—paragraph 17—which says that an additional £1 million has been made available for this programme for the one year 1971–72. There we all sit back and cheer. Then it goes on to say—and here is the snag:
"It has been decided that charges should be levied for admission to national museums and galleries. The arrangement for these charges will be discussed with the institutions concerned and these charges are expected to yield about £1 million in a full year."
What I should like to ask the Minister is this. Is this the same £1 million that is referred to at the beginning of the paragraph, or is it not? And what is to be the destination of the additional £1 million? Is it to be regarded as an increased grant to the Arts Council, which will then distribute it, or is it to be committed by the Minister to specific objects? It seems from replies given by the Government in another place that it is not intended that the revenue from these charges should go directly to the institutions concerned; and indeed it would be very strange if it did do so, because it is our normal Treasury financing practice for such finance to go into a common pool.
The Government are being rather optimistic if they think that the charges will raise this amount, unless of course these are to be on the high side. Has account been taken of declining attendances? What proportion has been
1380
allowed for exemptions? Perhaps the Minister will tell us. Will he also tell us what the administrative costs are likely to be, including of course the cost of extra civil servants? But, even if the money could be diverted direct to the institutions concerned, I still think it would be wrong in principle and dangerous in practice. It would be an encouragement for the Exchequer, especially in a particularly cost-conscious period, to opt out of its responsibilities, and the tendency would be to gear the annual grant-in-aid to the revenue raised from the charges, as it seems the Welsh Folk Museum has found to its cost. I will not explore that point any further as my noble friend Lady White is going to deal particularly with the national museums of Wales and the national galleries of Scotland.
It has been rumoured—and I have seen it in the Press—that the charges are to be 4s. for adults and 2s. for children. The Government have denied this. But I am bound to ask: What sums do the Government have in mind? I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House. If he is not able to, perhaps he will tell us why it is necessary to be so secretive about it. In my view, it would have been better to have explored the question of charges first with the various institutions concerned before making any public announcement. I should like to suggest to the Government that, even now, it would be better to publish a Green Paper setting out their case, such as it is, in detail, with proposals, so that this can be considered by the public and debated in Parliament before any definite decision is made.
I have another suggestion to make, which I hope the Government will think is a constructive one. This is, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, to consider the question of straightening out the anomalies over the earnings at the catalogue and postal card stalls at the various institutions. As Lord Annan said, these can be very large. The earnings from the sales of postcards and plaster casts at the British Museum go straight to the Treasury. I believe the figure is in the nature of £150,000 a year. Lord Annan also mentioned the large sums that the Imperial War Museum have to return. On the other hand, the publication departments at the National Gallery and the Tate are independent

1381
and are able to retain their money. I believe that last year the gross profit of the Tate's publications department—and a very enterprising department it is, too!—was in the nature of £65,000. The British Museum publications department is such a large one that it belongs to the Publishers' Association, and it is continually expanding. I am told that the sky is the limit here. The Government would be helping enormously if they would straighten out these anomalies and make a consistent policy that a publications department can retain its earnings and be run on a commercial basis.
The decision of the Government to introduce these charges runs not only contrary to post-war practice but contrary to the whole tendency towards free entry to the museums during this century. The Victoria and Albert Museum ceased to charge as long ago as 1914, and they did so because charging on three days a week was having a disastrous effect on attendances. Fees have never been charged at the British Museum in the whole of its history. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, an attempt was made in 1923 by the then Government to allow admission charges at both the British Museum and the Natural History Museum. This was following a recommendation of the Geddes Committee.
I have read all the debates at the Committee stage and the Report stage of the Bill concerned, and I am sure my noble friend Lord Shinwell, who was a Member of the other place at the time, will remember that this aroused stiff opposition not only from the Labour and Liberal Parties but also from the Conservative Party; and Clause 9 had to be dropped on Report. It is interesting and quite amusing to see that the excuse given was the question of turnstiles. As Lord Annan mentioned, it was thought that the cost of turnstiles and administering them would be rather too high. Of course, history always repeats itself, and it seems that the ghost of Geddes rides again.
Between the wars, in spite of strong recommendations by the Royal Commission on Museums and Galleries in their Report in 1929, and by the Standing Commission in 1938, most of the other national institutions were obliged to charge on two days of the week. These days were called "student days"—rather euphemistically
1382
I always thought because they were used mainly by that now almost extinct species, the professional copyist. I well remember them, and woe betide anybody who tried to approach anywhere near to a painting that was being copied in this way! One would be in dead trouble, as I found to my cost as a young man.
By the 1930s, the entrance charges were having such a damaging effect on the National Gallery that the attendance on paying days was about a quarter of the average on a free day, the figures being about 500 on a paying day and about 2,000 on a tree day. By 1948, all the admission charges had been abolished in the institutions in question. Therefore I think it must be agreed that the Government are now trying to put back the clock, and they seem to be showing a patrician unawareness of the problems of ordinary people, or even of the functions of a museum.
I am particularly concerned about the effect of these charges on family parties, on scholars, particularly poor scholars, and on those many members of the public who use a museum in one of the ways it should be used; that is to say, popping in for a short visit, perhaps during the lunch hour, to commune with one or two works of art and going away spiritually refreshed. I am sad to think that many people who might otherwise have become art lovers will be put off by these charges.
I must ask the Government what is to be the position of those who have readers' tickets for the British Museum Library, or who use the excellent art reference library at the Victoria and Albert Museum. Is it intended that readers' tickets shall be free? If so, will these tickets give access to other parts of the museum while one is waiting for a book—and waiting for them, my Lords, at the British Museum, sometimes for up to two hours? What will happen at the Victoria and Albert Museum, where the gallery is approached through several galleries—through the new acquisitions, through the Byzantine Galleries, through the Gothic Galleries? Will one be able to look at anything on the way?
There are also bound to be difficulties if the authorities decide to waive or to reduce the entrance charges in certain cases. What, for example, is a "bone fide student"? Is he to be an art student only, or will this category include a

1383
student of art history, or a student of some other subject who needs to study the arts in relation to it? In any case, are we not all students; or do we not all try to be students for the rest of our lives? Then what is to be the position of children? Perhaps they are going to be allowed free entrance. But what happens if they are accompanied by their parents? Will their parents have to pay, or will they have to wait outside while the children go in? And what happens at a museum like the Victoria and Albert where there are two exits?
I am particularly concerned about family parties visiting the museums in South Kensington. Many of these, between visits, use the large excellent cafeteria at the Victoria and Albert. Will they have to add the entrance charges to the cost of a meal? Much of the value of the V. and A. lies in the short visits which can do so much to stimulate interest. Indeed, in my opinion the V. and A. is almost everything that a museum should be: it contains a wonderful collection, beautifully arranged, has a charming garden, good refreshment facilities, a first-class library and print room, and an enterprising bookstall. This museum has always had a particularly good rapport with the public. It is tragic to think that this may now be placed in jeopardy if people have to pay for the first time since 1914.
My Lords, the success of temporary exhibitions is often cited as a reason for charging to see our permanent collections but I do not think this comparison is at all valid. People will pay to see an exhibition that has been specially assembled—an exhibition of a particular artist's work, or round a particular theme, or of many of the paintings which have been lent by private collectors and which they may never see again. Also, I think that our attitude when we visit galleries abroad is different. We are there on a short visit; we know that we may never have another chance, and I think we would be prepared to pay, but we usually stay in the gallery for quite a long time. This is, and should be, quite different from the attitude to our own galleries.
I do not know whether the Government feel that they can afford to let us have a free day, but if they can allow us this that day is going to be very crowded.
1384
I feel particularly strongly about this matter because I lived in Paris for a time as a young man. I could never afford to go to the Louvre except on the free day, and when I went there it was so full of people that one could never see any of the paintings. That is going to be the position in this country as well; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has said, why should we copy Continental examples? Why do we not copy the United States of America, for instance, where the National Gallery of Washington is free, and also the Art Institute of Chicago. Above all, my Lords, why should the public pay to see their own property when they have already contributed once through taxation? I believe the Government are taking a retrograde step in deciding that the Arts should be considered mainly as entertainment, and entertainment to be rationed by the purse. For, my Lords, where does education end and entertainment begin?
Here I should like to quote in conclusion the words of the former Director and Principal Librarian of the British Museum, Sir Frederick Kenyon, when he gave evidence to the Royal Commission in 1929 on behalf of the Trustees. These words are still relevant to-day. Sir Frederick said:
"Is it desired to encourage the use of the museum or is it not? … The nation has a very large capital invested in the museum, and it is better to look for the return on it from the educational advantages offered to the public, than from a trivial taking of cash at the turnstiles."
The present Government, I am sorry to say, have aroused the hostility and fears of many people who care about these things. These charges are opposed by the present Trustees of the Tate Gallery and the Director of the Tate; by three past Chairmen of Tate Trustees; by a former Director of the Victoria and Albert Museum; by the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, by the Head of the Slade School, by the Head of the Royal College of Art and also by several of our most distinguished artists. My Lords, I am sorry if this question of the Arts is becoming a Party matter, because the Arts should be outside Party politics. I think the Government have made a mistake. We should think none the worse of them if they faced up to it and admitted it. After all, the Arts have a very humbling effect, which I think is one of

1385
their great advantages. I hope the Government will have a change of heart and admit their mistake. I beg them to think again.
3.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT NORWICH: My Lords, your Lordships' House, I am sure, owes a very great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for bringing to our attention this afternoon a situation which seems to me to be a good deal more serious, more damaging, more deceptive and dangerous than many of your Lordships may think. Before I speak specifically about national museums, the ones which are immediately threatened— "threatened" is the only word to use—I should like to say a word or two about museums in general in this country and the very serious plight in which they find themselves.
A new organisation has recently been set up called National Heritage, which has started work by instituting a survey of the galleries and museums in this country. This survey has come up with some rather frightening statistics. It has discovered, for example, that at least half the museums and galleries are, on their own admission, watching their collections steadily deteriorating for want of staff, space and funds. It has discovered that 75 per cent. of the museums and galleries have no refreshment or rest facilities of any kind for their visitors. It has discovered that between 40 and 60 per cent. of the total collections of this country are consigned permanently to storage.
The Birmingham City Art Gallery, one of the most important provincial galleries in the country, with pictures by Gainsborough, Degas and Botticelli—absolutely first-class pictures by any standards—have recently been told by a distinguished art historian that he cannot recommend any private owner to lend them a picture for fear of the damage which it may sustain while there. In this same museum a junior assistant keeper earns less per year than a municipal dustman earned even before settlement of the recent strike. Birmingham is not one of the national museums or galleries. The National Portrait Gallery is. Dr. Roy Strong of the National Portrait Gallery, who I am delighted to
1386
know is with us this afternoon, has recently explained in public that the lift in the National Portrait Gallery cannot be working all the time, because only one man operates it and when he goes off for a cup of tea the lift service is suspended. To take the other extreme of the scale,. the tiny museum of which I am Chairman, the British Theatre Museum, which runs on a budget of about £2,000 a year and needs only about another £2,000 to keep it going until such time as it can form the nucleus of a national theatre collection, has on repeated occasions been refused any contribution at all by successive Governments.
Your Lordships may say that I have been arguing the need for more money for museums, which supports the Government's proposals, but it does nothing of the kind. You may think, alternatively, that the Government's proposals would be acceptable if the money to be raised could immediately be returned to the museums for their own benefit. But that is not acceptable either, because such a proposal would be a denial, and at the same time a betrayal. It would be a denial, first of all, of the basic principles that have governed the museums and galleries of this country since their inception, the basic ideal that these museums are part and parcel, an integral and essential part, of civilised community life in this country, that they should be on a level with libraries, colleges, schools, universities, hospitals, national parks.
It is a betrayal, because it is a betrayal of the conditions under which a great many of the pictures in our museums and galleries were given to us. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, has already mentioned the Turner Bequest, given on the specific understanding that these pictures should be made free to the people of this country for all time. I should be very surprised if potential donors in the future would be quite so keen to give their pictures if they thought that the public was only going to be allowed to see them if indirectly taxed to do so. I am not in the slightest degree surprised to learn that already one picture has been removed from one of the national galleries by the person who had given it on loan, in order to put it somewhere else where he can be sure that it will be seen by the public without such indirect taxation being levied.

1387
There can be no question at all that there will be an immediate drop in attendances if these proposals are put through. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, we are deceiving ourselves if we think that people will appreciate a picture more if they have to pay to see it. In fact, thirty or forty years ago, when charges were levied on certain days of the week, this was done specifically in order to deter too many from coming in, so that there should be more room for students. And it did deter; it worked extremely well. Anybody who has ever gone in on the free day at the Louvre knows how impossible it is to see anything on such a day.
There will be a drop in attendances, not necessarily because people cannot afford to pay. Even people who can afford the new charge, 4s. or whatever it is, will instinctively think twice before dropping into a museum for ten minutes—and dropping in for ten minutes is exactly what you should do with a museum. One should go in for ten minutes and look at one or two things carefully and leave. It is no good going in for two hours. Once you have paid to go in you will feel that you have to get your money's worth and stay all afternoon, looking at many things superficially. Is this really the form of museum-going that the Government wish to encourage? I most desperately hope that it is not. Also for a great many people 4s., 2s., or even 1s., is a great deal of money, particularly for a family who like to go frequently. It will make a difference to them; they will go less often, and they will think twice before going.
All this comes at a moment when we have had in the past 10 years an enormous new cultural breakthrough in this country, when museum attendances have gone up by about 80 per cent. That trend is continuing and will continue still more in the future. With new institutions like the University of the Air, the Open University, there will be still more interest. Surely this is the one moment when it is the Government's duty to encourage this new trend, to try to attract more people into museums and make them glad that they came, rather than turning a national heritage into yet another form of indirect taxation, on a par
1388
with cigarettes or whisky, or betting or beer.
On the economic question, I wonder whether these new proposals are really going to have the effect that we think. I believe that one of our big national museums has four entrances. It has been calculated that to operate these new admission charges it will be necessary to employ an additional staff of 10 people, two men on each gate, plus two girls doing accounting. That is over and above the cost of turnstiles, ticket-issuing equipment and the rest. The National Portrait Gallery, I believe, has calculated that on a per capita basis, taking into account the substantial decrease in visitors they can expect, they will be paying about 30 per cent. more per visitor than before. As the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has already pointed out, what happens about the people who want to go into the museum for the library, or in order to see a member of the staff, or to buy postcards or pictures or slides or catalogues? Will the publications stand have to be on the outside of the turnstiles? There are more problems there.
Would it not have been infinitely better if, before making these proposals, the Government had discussed the matter carefully with the museum directors, curators and trustees to see what other means could be found—because there are other means, and there are very remarkable other means, particularly in the sphere of museum publications. The National Gallery and the Tate Gallery are in a special position, because by some extraordinary fluke they have managed to have separate, independent publication departments, with the most astounding results. The result is that in the Tate Gallery alone the net profit last year was £160,000—a net profit of 17 per cent. All of that 17 per cent. has been ploughed back into the Tate Gallery publications department, for the very good reason that clearly it has not yet expanded to the maximum. There is more room to go; there is more money to be made from this source.
The British Museum, the National Portrait Gallery and others suffer from the dead hand of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. They are not allowed to expand as they should. The British Museum, even with this serious handicap, as a member of the Publishers' Association,

1389
as we have heard, are managing to make £155,000 on their plaster casts and postcards alone. But a senior official of the museum has given it as her opinion that this figure could in fact be multiplied by about five, and that it is perfectly within the bounds of possibility that the Museum should make, from these two items only, something like £750,000 a year. The National Portrait Gallery, too, could easily put up its charges for colour transparencies of its pictures, which are in greater and greater demand from the television companies who need them for practically every documentary film they make. There are all sorts of ways by which the museums themselves could produce a greatly increased revenue if they had been allowed to do so; but they have not been allowed to do so.
This brings me, finally, to one of the most distasteful aspects of the whole exercise, the fact that the trustees, the directors and the curators were not consulted. They have a trust which has been ridden over roughshod. It is their duty to see that the conditions on which their museums were founded, on which their collections were gathered together, should be maintained, observed and fulfilled. They have not been allowed to do so. They have been ignored; their trust has been ignored. They are extremely angry, and with very good reason. I hope they will realise that, at least in certain cases, they cannot be compelled to charge admission fees without legislation; and I hope that in these cases where such legislation will be necessary, they will insist that it is passed before they capitulate. I wish them luck.
3.44 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, very kindly converted his Unstarred Question into the Motion before us to-day. That, as all your Lordships will realise, has given us a most valuable opportunity to discuss the whole background to charging for entrance to museums and galleries. It has also been a slight embarrassment to me, because out of respect to your Lordships' House I felt that once the Motion was on the Paper I was precluded from advancing the Government's case in any other place but in this House. I welcome the fact that I can do it on December 16; I wish I could have done
1390
it earlier, but I feel that we must observe the proprieties of Parliament.
I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I am given leave to rise again later to do my best to answer the questions that have been put to me in the debate. I should like to answer one question right away, because the noble Lord, Lord Annan, the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, and I think also the noble Lord, Lord Stragboli, have raised it. It concerns the problem of the publications at the British Museum. At any rate those Trustees of the British Museum who are present this afternoon in your Lordships' House will know that for two years I belaboured the last Government to give us freedom to keep the profits from our publications. Unfortunately, sympathy was not changed into an actual instruction. But I can tell your Lordships that I am now considering ways and means of releasing the publications department at the British Museum (which, by the way, makes less than one-tenth of what the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, says, but could make a good deal more) from having to return their profits to the Government. I hope that when a full statement can be made about increasing the freedom of the Trustees to exercise authority without reference, this matter may be cleared up for good.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount? He was good enough to approach me on some of these matters. I am bound to say that he argued his case with great eloquence, and we were in process of considering it. I hope that he will be able to speed up the process.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. That means that, when finally settled, it will be an uncontroversial issue. Your Lordships must be enjoying, as I am myself, the irony of this situation. Having exchanged the chair of the Trustees of the British Museum for a seat on the Front Bench behind me, I find that my first public argument—of course it will not be my last—has to be conducted with my friends in the museum world. I wish we could come to an agreement, but I have read the Press and I have heard the admirable speeches of the three noble Lords who have already spoken, and I

1391
am not hopeful. I proposed to the Cabinet the introduction of charges to enter museums. Nobody forced it on me. I thought it was right and I asked my colleagues to endorse it. I am still as firmly convinced now as I was then that charges are right, for two reasons which I will advance to your Lordships as briefly as I can.
The Government cannot expect every noble Lord on the Benches opposite to agree with the first reason, because it is central to the policy on which we fought and won the election. But the second reason is a very different matter; it is strictly a museum argument, the force of which will, I hope, appeal in all quarters of the House. The first reason then is political: for too long the British economy has been sluggish. As individuals and in industry we have been unwilling or unable to do ourselves justice, accepting too many subsidies, too often relying on someone else to carry the burden. At the Election the largest number of voters agreed that excessive public expenditure requiring sharply rising taxation was one cause of our poor performance. This extravagance has contributed to the demands for inflationary rises in incomes. It has now to be reversed, but that cannot be done without pain and distress. The Government know this; but we are determined to reduce subsidies, to lower the taxes and to make room for new expenditure in areas which have been neglected. In education, in housing and in the Health Service charges are being raised to those who are in a position to pay more, and at the same time new money is being provided for primary schools, slum clearance, mental hospitals and the poorest families. We must therefore ask ourselves whether the Arts are a special case, all by themselves, which would justify us in leaving them out of this general strategy.
If your Lordships answered "Yes" to this crucial question, you would have to take one of two positions: you could say that you are against anyone paying more for anything—medical prescriptions, school meals, further education fees, council rents, tickets for the theatre and the ballet, entrance to museums, and so on—with the result that every subsidy would have to be not only continued but
1392
increased, because costs are rising all round.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lords opposite and their honourable friends won the Election on promises to lower prices, and all the things which the noble Viscount has just said now mean increased prices for everything. So there is some little confusion there.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, there is no confusion whatever. We intend to lower prices, but until we have the inflation in hand which was left us by the bad financial policy of the Government that preceded us, there is obviously no hope of lowering prices. All this that I am describing is part of our strategy to that end.
I was saying that all subsidies would in that case have to be increased. That is an arguable position; I understand that. It makes sense to those who think that it is an offence against humanity to add up the nation's bills. However, there would be no escaping the consequences. It would mean an increasing share of the national income syphoned off by even higher rates and taxes than we have now. We on these Benches think that such a policy would effectively rule out a return to a satisfactory rate of economic growth. It would still further depress the vigour and spirit of the people and therefore destroy any hope for the expansion, on a sound basis, of both the social services and the Arts, of which the museums and galleries are an important part.
If, on the other hand, your Lordships thought we are right to reduce subsidies and to spend more on the neglected services, then you would have to say why a visitor to a museum is an exceptional person who deserves to be put in the privileged position of making no contribution to this policy. When the sick pay more for their prescriptions, the children for their dinners, the tenants for their council houses, is the museum visitor to escape because he is in a class by himself? It seems to me—I may be wrong—that many of the distinguished gentlemen who have written to the Press have failed to ask themselves that question.
Now I turn to the charges. To require the visitor to pay for each visit to a

1393
subsidised institution is nothing new in the field of the Arts. We do not expect to be given free tickets for Sadler's Wells, the Welsh National Opera or the Edinburgh Festival, all three of which are very heavily subsidised. If it is said that visits to the theatre, the ballet, and concerts are only occasional outings, whereas many more people go much oftener to a museum, I can tell your Lordships that I inquired about that and there are no figures or surveys to support that contention. But I doubt if statistics really matter, because however many regular visitors there may be to museums, they can be catered for by an annual season ticket, which is unlikely to cost more than the price of one orchestra stall for one performance at a theatre like the Coliseum.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount this question? I have always looked upon the noble Viscount as being very broadminded and one who was interested in society, from whatever particular part of society one came. What consideration has he given, in his present office, to people who come, for example, from the North and elsewhere with their families on a visit to London—probably a once-in-a-lifetime visit—who pay their taxes, and who are responsible for keeping the British Museum and the National Gallery—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Speech!
LORD SLATER: —and who have Imposed upon them this charge for going in? Surely they are members of society. But the people in the Metropolis have an advantage over them.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. Of course I am interested in visitors from outside. The cost of making a visit to London runs into a good many pounds now, and the question is whether a shilling or two added on to that is really going to stop them from going to a museum. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will come to that part of the problem in a few minutes.
Before I leave the close connection between museum charges and the changes we are making in the social services, I must mention two further points: first, the social service principle of assessing categories of persons who might be hurt
1394
by increased charges will be applied to museum charges, and careful consideration given to what those categories should be asked to pay.
The second point introduces the other major argument for charging. We are not increasing charges in the social services simply to cut the taxes. Neglected areas—and, heaven knows! there are quite a lot of them—are going to get more money. In the field of the Arts such areas stare one in the face; for example, popular or regional arts. There are some people who ask for help for brass bands, or choral societies, and such activities. Then there is the whole range of the crafts; the problem of marketing the arts, and forging a better system of communication between the artist and his audience. But, most important of all, is the museum service itself, so well described by the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, both in London and perhaps still more in the Provinces. Those are examples of activities in the field of the Arts which have been left behind.
I turn now to the eighteen museums and galleries with which we are directly concerned: twelve are in London, five in Scotland, and one in Wales. All the other museums in the country will remain free to charge, or not to charge, as they like. I shall not give the local authorities any advice on this matter. However, it is interesting to note that fifty of their museums charge now. I give the House a few examples: the Royal Pavilion at Brighton; the Bowes Museum; the Castle Museum at York; and the museums at Bath, Kidderminster, Norwich and St. Albans. Royal palaces, private museums, historic houses and the historic monuments under the control of the Department of the Environment have charged for a very long time. Particularly interesting is the case of the Tower of London. In April of this year the charge for adults was doubled from 2s. to 4s.; children are admitted half price. What has happened? In the first nine months of 1970, as compared with last year, 100,000 more visitors have come and the takings have increased from £267,000 to £423,000. The Clapham Transport Museum charges and is about to raise its charge. I will not weary the House, but I could go through a long further list.
In short, there is no sacred tradition of free entry here which is now being

1395
broken. It simply depends on where you go to see the works of art you want to see. It may well be that some of your Lordships are at this moment interested in the work of the Spanish artist, Velasquez. Very well, my Lords. You go to the National Gallery and you see some of his paintings free. You then take a 'bus down Piccadilly and get to Apsley House, which is run by the Victoria and Albert, and you pay to see a much better picture—at least, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Clark, will agree—the picture of Innocent III. It simply depends where you want to go to see the works of art you want to see.
I now come to the manner in which the system of charges is being drawn up. I am very sorry about the feeling of the directors in regard to consultation, but anyone who has had anything to do with financial legislation will realise that this is a case where consultation was not possible. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making up his package of financial changes, we never air particular ones until that has been composed and then opened to Parliament in another place. This is a matter of principle which we have observed in our Parliament for I do not know how long.
Of course, on the question of how you administer a particular change, once the principle has been decided and effect has been given to it, you consult—and I am consulting. Directly the statement of October 27 was made, I wrote to all the institutions concerned. I regretted that, owing to our constitutional practice, I could not tell them earlier of the change, but I said, "I want your advice before I make up my mind on any of the details of the system of charging." I asked them, for instance, to give me advice on the level of charges, the exemptions or reductions in respect of certain categories of visitors, and the desirability of free days or free periods of the year. I have to keep an open mind until I have had all their replies and have collated them. This is rather unfortunate for the debate, because it means that if I am to keep faith with the museums, which I intend to do, I cannot tell the House any of the specific details.
We are looking for £1 million a year. That is not really a very extravagant figure, because the estimate for visits
1396
this year is 14 million. Of course, charging means extra work and I know very well that the directors and their staffs are hard pressed. I know that in certain instances they will have to take on some more people. But they have all—or very nearly all—had experience of charging for special exhibitions. The National Portrait Gallery has been mentioned by one noble Lord. At this very moment Dr. Strong is charging 5s. for adults and 3s. for children to see the Samuel Pepys exhibition. Is it really a fact that the permanent exhibitions in his Gallery are not worth some portion of that 3s. paid for each child? I really do not think there is any principle at all here.
The next question is: what should be done with the money collected? I have the greatest sympathy with those who ask for the proceeds of charging to be added to the grants received from the Goverment. This demand springs from the fact, of which I have had hard personal experience, that in the past the grants have always fallen far short of what every trustee knew could be spent with advantage to the public. Therefore, any prospect of getting more is welcomed without a second thought. But taking a realistic view of their financial requirements, I must say that to earmark the proceeds of the charges for some purpose to be agreed upon with each museum would swiftly prove to be either unwise or unnecessary. What is collected may be more or less than what is required, either for a specific purpose or for the general needs of the museum. There could be no guarantee that the money was used for the highest priorities, which might well change from time to time.
But I think the point which the House will most appreciate is this. Even if the Government were prepared to abandon the sound financial practice of not earmarking the proceeds of a charge, it would in this case make very little or no difference. This is because museum grants are not static. If they were, then, conceivably, there might be a firm prospect of increasing the total by adding the proceeds of the charges. But the fact is that museum grants are already rising and must go on rising, and if the economy recovers—and this is part of our policy for seeing that the economy does recover—the rate of increase could

1397
and should be sharply improved. That being the situation, there is no means of binding any Government to take account of the charges, when, anyway, they will have to increase the Vote by more than the sum collected.
I know there are some people close to the museums who think that we could get round this dilemma if the £1 million collected in charges were earmarked for acquisitions, and acquisitions only. I should be very much against this, because I do not consider that acquisitions are now the first priority. The museums stand in much greater need of resources to make the best use of the collections which they already possess. Consider, my Lords, the situation at the National Gallery. For the price of Velasquez's portrait of Juan de Pareja, the National Gallery could air-condition all its galleries which are not now air-conditioned—that would cost about £350,000—and it could build its new wing, the plans of which your Lordships may recently have seen. That would give it an increase of 25 per cent. in gallery space for its permanent collection with 10 large, new air-conditioned galleries. It would also give it almost exactly the same amount of space for its reserve collection, which could then be shown to the public. After all that, it would still have £750,000 in hand. That is the measure of the priorities of our national museums.
Of course, not everyone agrees with that. Those who live and work in museums want passionately to acquire more objects. They comb the salerooms and they curse their rivals. I myself am a shameless magpie. My heart contracts in pain when I see knocked down to someone else something which I want. But in Parliament we must control our passions, do our homework and accurately distinguish between wants and needs. Your Lordships may remember the fat man who said that what he wanted was more and more food and drink, only to be told that what he needed was more exercise and no potatoes. We have to deal with some people of that nature.
Your Lordships will have noticed that in the Health Service and in education the proceeds of the charges which are being increased are not specifically allocated to hospitals or primary schools.
1398
This is good financial practice, and it has aroused comparatively little attention. I think this is because these two Social Services have an advantage over museums and galleries. My two right honourable friends who are concerned with health and education had plans worked out for the improvements they wished to make in areas that have been neglected. No such comprehensive plan yet exists for the museum service. Therefore, I can give the House only a tentative description of what is now required.
I notice that many of those who object to charging are people who have grown to love the museums as they are. When they get inside the doors they know what they want to see, they know a good deal about it, and if they do not the keeper or someone is always there to look after them. I think that these distinguished gentlemen may well be underestimating the demands of the general public, who are already visiting museums during the summer in numbers which obstruct their enjoyment and education. Now no one expects these crowds and their demands on the museum service to stand still. As the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, said, they go on growing. We must expect them to, because millions of children are being introduced to art in the schools, because travel within this country and from abroad to this country is easy now, and because incomes are higher. Incidentally, they are nowhere higher, nowhere has the rise been greater, than in the pocket-money given to children and in the earnings of teenagers. One has only to stand, as I have quite often done, in the cafeteria of one of the national museums and watch what the children spend on the food, chocolate, et cetera, that they buy. I am delighted; but it is not true to say that they have not got a shilling in their pockets, or much more.
Individuals, groups, schools, families, all plan expeditions to museums; and, when they get there, what should they find? First of all, adequate space in which to see all the finest objects in the collection well displayed; then, information about the exhibits and someone on hand to answer their questions; then, postcards, photographs, books and reproductions; and, finally, amenities such as restaurants, a cafeteria, cloakrooms, rest-rooms and parking places. These are services additional to those which the scholar

1399
and the connoisseur asked for in the past. With their existing space and staff, our national museums have carried on extraordinarily well, but not one of them can provide the full range of services which the scholars and the general public will demand more insistently every year that passes.
Your Lordships may be interested to know that the major building works already in hand for the national museums and galleries will cost about £4¾ million, and that, in addition, there are several large schemes well advanced in planning but not authorised to start. The cost of these schemes is likely to exceed £10 million, and once the buildings are completed the recurrent grants will have to be increased to meet the extra running costs. Quite apart from the major buildings, the museums and galleries have a long waiting list of minor works which would enable them to make much better use of their existing buildings. If the British Museum is any example, many of these minor works ought to have been done years and years ago. In the current financial year over £200,000 is being spent on minor works.
But all these plans, large and small, authorised and unauthorised, are not yet welded into a programme within which the long-term priorities can be firmly established. We must embark on this study, and when we do it we are very likely to find that a great deal more wants doing than the Department or some of the museums at present appreciate. The money required, if the programme is to make reasonable progress—I am not talking about their current grants; I am talking now about the capital programme for these museums—will very substantially exceed the £1 million a year to be collected in charges.
But that is only part of the story. There is another aspect of the museum service which at first sight may not appear to have anything to do with charging for the national museums. The 18 national museums are in good shape if one is content with the service they offer now, but this cannot be said of many of the museums in the Provinces. Here, I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich: he did not overstate the position. Drama and music in the Provinces have been helped, very generously
1400
helped, with grants from the Arts Council, but not the museums. From central funds they have only a very modest grant—£150,000 a year, I think—for acquisitions. We must examine this problem in depth, and, clearly, the relations between the national museums and the provincial museums ought to be a factor in promoting the welfare of the latter.
So, with the help of the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries, the Museums Association, the local authorities in the whole of the country and the other bodies principally concerned, I am about to set on foot the necessary surveys and studies. I imagine that this examination will take us at least a year, but until it is completed we cannot know the magnitude of the work to be done; nor how much it will cost; nor what kind of timetable to propose. But I can say that the Government will be prepared to look sympathetically at this programme, taking full account on the credit side of the sums collected in charges.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will forgive me for interrupting him, will he say what he means by that last sentence? He has just explained (absolutely accurately, with respect) that the one has nothing to do with the other, that the receipts have nothing to do with the payments, and that the charges cannot be earmarked. What, then, did the noble Viscount intend us to understand by his last sentence?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I am glad to have a chance to clarify that. What I intended to tell the House is this. We do not know how much, but we know that it will be a very large sum that one day will have to be spent on the modernisation of the national galleries and, particularly, of the provincial ones as well. When that programme is laid out, the fact that income is coming in from the charges will make a difference to the speed (I should think it is to the speed that it will really make a difference) with which the programme can be carried through; and I must say that I find that very satisfactory.
My Lords, I must try to come to an end; I have talked rather a long time. But charging for entrance does not destroy any principle. It takes its place in our general strategy for strengthening the economy. It will do something else:

1401
it will create an interest in museums much more lively and critical than at present. I was rather surprised to see my friend Sir Trenchard Cox writing to The Times to say that paying for a service does not increase the interest of the consumer in the service concerned. My Lords, that is a view contrary to the experience of the rough world, from which Sir Trenchard has happily been sheltered. Your Lordships will agree, I think, that the mere proposal to introduce charges has uncorked a concern for the national museums far greater than all the propaganda that the directors and the trustees ever made in the past. That is all to the good. The Minister responsible, whoever he may be, when this large programme gets under way, is going to find it much easier to get the money when there is wider support from the general public.
It could be that your Lordships feel that there is nothing substantial in what I have said about getting more money for museums in the future. You may believe that circumstances and Ministers are now so tough that the Arts will have to mark time indefinitely. If so, I think I can offer a proof to the contrary. Last week I told the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, what the Arts Council grant would be for 1971–72. The House will remember that in the period from 1967 to 1971 the Arts Council grant rose from £7·2 million to £9·3 million; that is, about £2·1 million over the four years. Against the £9·3 million for this year, the grant next year will be £11·9 million—a rise of £2·6 million in one year. There can be no reason why museums and galleries should not do equally well once we have this comprehensive programme and once we have charges bringing in £1 million towards the much larger sums that I am determined to secure if I can. This is a very sensible reform for which there is no case for reconsideration. My Lords, a vote for charges is a vote for the best interests of the museums—if I did not believe that, I should not be standing here. So I ask your Lordships to endorse this policy.
4.22 p.m.
LORD CLARK: My Lords, it is now over a year since I had the honour of being introduced into your Lordships' House. In the course of that year hardly a single topic has been debated on which
1402
I could have felt myself qualified to open my mouth. However, I cannot plead inexperience of the subject under debate this evening. My only fear is that I shall not be able to conform to what I believe is the unwritten law when anyone makes a maiden speech; because, in addition to numerous ineptitudes, I am afraid that I shall have to say some things which the noble Viscount the Paymaster General may consider controversial.
The subject of admission charges has been debated ever since I first entered the world of museums and galleries about forty years ago, and in the many debates that I have heard among my colleagues and friends in the Arts world I have never heard agreement. For that reason, unlike the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, I am rather inclined to sympathise with the desire of the noble Viscount the Paymaster General to bring this matter forward without consulting the museums and galleries concerned—because it would have taken an eternity and would have led to no agreement.
I myself have had to take a direct part in this matter because when I was at the National Gallery we had two paying days. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, reminded the House, those paying days were not intended to raise money; in fact, the sum raised was derisory. They were intended to keep people out. And although the entrance fee was only sixpence, it did keep them out. The attendance on those days was often less than a third, or even a quarter, of that on free days. I should add that, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, the object was that copyists should be able on those days to work in the Gallery. That seemed to me to be a very inadequate excuse. The number of copyists in the Gallery declined, and in 1937 I was able to persuade the Trustees that those paying days should be abolished. They were: in 1938.
My Lords, times have changed. Artists no longer learn to paint by copying old masters—they did so in diminishing numbers forty years ago. To-day, far more people go to galleries. They wander in and out of them, in very much the same spirit as men and women of an earlier age used to wander in and out of churches and cathedrals—and still do in Latin countries and in Poland—and unquestionably derive from this some of

1403
the same feelings. They leave behind their material cares; they feel themselves in the presence of something greater than themselves, and they learn about the history and development of the human spirit. Young people, who, as we know, are in the habit of making demonstrations, have never, so far as I know, made a demonstration in an art gallery. Indeed, the only demonstration that I can remember was made by old people led by the daughter of Holman Hunt, who just after the war made a violent protest in an exhibition of Matisse and Picasso in the Victoria and Albert Museum.
I do not think that anyone to-day would wish to make a policy of excluding people, young or old, from these life-giving experiences. So the first question we must ask ourselves is whether an entrance fee will be a serious deterrent. This, too, is a subject on which we are not likely to get agreement, or indeed proof: because even if the numbers go up after the entrance fee has been introduced in the rapidly increasing number of museums and galleries it will be no proof.
Members of Her Majesty's Government believe that people enjoy paying for things—or, rather, that they enjoy things more if they have paid for them. Unlike Sir Trenchard Cox, I have not led a sheltered life. No one who has been the first Chairman of the Independent Television Authority could claim that. I am still unconvinced that people enjoy paying for things. It is true, of course, that people will pay quite large sums to see special exhibitions; but I do not think they will enjoy paying to go into the national museums and galleries. Of course a majority will pay, somewhat resentfully, but a very considerable minority will simply not be able to afford it.
I am delighted to think that the noble Viscount the Paymaster General has found children so extravagant in the purchase of choc-bars and other agreeable things at canteens. I must say that I am not now thinking of children with pocket money, or of students, but of young people, often young married people, setting out in life. They live on a very narrow margin. As almost every speaker this evening has pointed out, they are usually people who can go to galleries
1404
for only a short time, perhaps during the luncheon interval. Many form the habit of running in and out of the galleries several times a week. For such people the expenditure of, say, 12s. a week would be a real hardship. I am speaking of the ordinary man, of men and women who love art but do not practise it.
I might venture to speak—although I know it is not fashionable—of extraordinary men and women; that is to say, artists and poets who (although artists no longer copy old masters) draw their inspiration from visiting galleries and to whom a visit to the National Gallery or the Tate is the breath of life. Many of your Lordships will have seen a letter this morning from two of the certainly most distinguished English painters. They are men who could undoubtedly afford 4s. But there are a great many other young painters, in the position of having left college and trying to make their way in the world, to whom an admission charge would be a real hardship. And I may add that there are many middle-aged painters who have gone out of fashion but who still do excellent work and are rather hard up.
Your Lordships will see that I am assuming that the entrance ice will be 4s. I do so partly because of various statements that have been made, and also because I cannot imagine that a smaller entrance fee would be worth collecting. The noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, has already spoken about the extremely cumbersome and expensive methods by which this tax—because that is all it is—will be collected, with turnstiles, passport photographs, a complicated system of exemptions and all the rest. All this seems to me to make it very doubtful how far an admission charge can be a worthwhile source of revenue.
The noble Viscount the Paymaster General has already made it perfectly clear that with an expenditure of over £14 million, and with the capital charges which will come later, the most that can be expected from the charges is £1 million. But it is not the sum raised that is important: it is the attitude of mind of the visitors to museums. I must say that this approach does not altogether appeal to me. Look at it in reverse. It says, in effect, that if you do not pay admission charges to prove that you are

1405
a good citizen, you will not get extra grants. This is not a financial proposition at all. It is a moral-social proposition: people must pay for their enjoyments. But in that case, as has already been said, why not charge for admission to parks, which are also kept up by public money? The answer is that too many people enjoy them to make this a politically acceptable proposal.
I confess that the principles involved in this debate are not at all clear cut and are far more dependent on emotion and tradition than on logic. No-one, I trust, will ever suggest that we pay to go into libraries—that is to say, that when we try to educate ourselves and achieve enlightenment through the printed page, we get in free. On the other hand, no-one suggests that all concerts should be free. When we try to enlarge and deepen our experience by listening to great music, we expect to pay for it, although in fact orchestras, and still more operas are provided with large Government funds. There is no logic in this.
I do not know if anything worth calling a principle can be based purely on emotion. But I must say that my feelings where museums and galleries are concerned are strongly opposed to admission charges. I say this regretfully, because I am sorry to find myself on the opposite side of an argument to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who did such wonderful work as Chairman of the British Museum. He worked harder, more imaginatively and more effectively than any Chairman we have ever had. My Lords, I believe that free admission to museums and galleries is something of which this country should be proud. It is part of our great effort to provide higher education for as many as care to take advantage of it, and to abandon it would be a retrograde step. It would be particularly unwelcome after the really splendid help and encouragement given to the Arts during the last five years by the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge.
I should not like to think that in a time of financial crisis (and, though we do not always like to admit it, we are in a time of financial crisis) museums and galleries, and art lovers in general, should not act with a sense of responsibility and should not in any way try to help them
1406
selves. I will not say any more about publication, because the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, has already told us at some length about that, except that I would add that the extraordinary situation at the Tate and the National Gallery was due to the fact that we founded our publications department by borrowing from a trust fund. It therefore escaped the notice or the vigilance of the Exchequer, and we had developed the department so well that they had not the heart to take it away from us. Nevertheless, I think that other means which have been suggested by one or two speakers this afternoon, including the noble Viscount the Paymaster General, are worth considering.
In the past twenty years the prices of works of art have reached proportions which the average man regards as ridiculous, or even repulsive. They reflect a form of financial activity similar to that of gambling on the Stock Exchange. Can ordinary people read about these prices without thinking how the money could have been used in social or human terms: the founding of a college, the improvement of housing, the amelioration of prison conditions, and all the other things of which we stand so sorely in need. I believe that these inflated prices must be seen in relation to the enormous riches of our national collections. Perhaps no-one who has not worked in our public gallery national collections realises how colossally rich they are; and how many of the contents are out of sight. In what are popularly called the cellars of out galleries—professionally known as reference sections or study collections—there are large numbers of works of art which, if they were to appear in the auction rooms, would cause an outcry that they should be bought for the nation. This is no exaggeration. Out of sight, out of mind!
The wonderful Greek marbles in the British Museum, the Neriad monument and the frieze of the Temple of Pan were in the 'Tube for thirty years, and no-one uttered a word of protest. Had they been in the Townley Collection, or some private collection in England, and been put up for sale, it would have been a national scandal if they had not been bought. There they were sitting all the time. Now, I am thankful to say, with the help of the noble Viscount, the Paymaster

1407
General, they are most splendidly displayed.
When it was recently suggested that the nation should buy the Radnor Velasquez I suppose all of us thought, as has already been said, of the magnificent Velasquez in the Wellington Museum at Apsley House, which is a peaceful place to spend half an hour but also, to a lover of art, a somewhat melancholy one because it is attended by only a handful of people. Of course gallery directors like to maintain that galleries live by their acquisitions; that acquisitions show that a gallery is alive. But there are other ways. The recent cleaning of Raphael's portrait of Julius II, which had been down in the reference section, I may say, ever since I left the Gallery, is in effect a new acquisition, and an acquisition beyond all price. In any case, the people I am thinking of—the ordinary people who go to the gallery several times a week, for peace, enlightenment and refreshment of spirit—are not particularly in need of new acquisitions. It will take them many years before they become familiar with the pictures already on exhibition.
So, if the Government wish those of us who are lovers of art to make some sacrifice in order to show our sense of social responsibility at a time of crisis, I would far rather they urged us to deny ourselves new acquisitions than to penalise or alienate those very people who would most wish to be enjoying the inexhaustible riches of our national collections. I thank your Lordships for your kindness and indulgence in listening to my first speech in your Lordships' House.
4.39 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I cannot imagine a greater privilege than being able to thank the noble Lord, Lord Clark, for his magnificent maiden speech. On such an occasion one always says this, but I say to-day with absolute sincerity that I hope very much that we shall hear him many times again. I am also grateful to the noble Lord because he has said a great deal of what I was going to say, so saving the time of the House and helping us to get a Division at a reasonable hour.
This is not supposed to be a Party issue. The debate has been introduced from the Cross Benches, and I think that
1408
all of us would have liked to treat it as anything but a Party issue. But it does become a Party issue when we find that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, says he does not think there is any principle involved. The only reason why I am on my feet is because there is an enormous principle involved. I think it is a great matter of principle, not only in the traditional sense of throwing away something for which we have admired ourselves, and other people have admired us for having, but also because I think it is a basic principle that in this (as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Clark, has said), people do get, through the free access to museums and galleries, opportunities of being exposed, as I was, and I think many of us were, to experiences which may have coloured and changed our lives.
I can assure your Lordships, without playing the barefoot boy or anything else, that I should not have been exposed to art galleries if I had had to pay to go into them. Therefore we are talking about something which has the elements of an absolutely basic principle—namely, the right of people to participate in our national cultural wealth and to have the opportunity of expanding their outlook. I may say, before I sit down, that I have had a foreboding of this day even since noble Lords discovered that they could make a lot of money out of converting their stately homes into menageries.
4.42 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I should like first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clark, on his admirable maiden speech and to say that I should always be happy to listen to him speaking on the television and to pay a surcharge for the privilege and pleasure of doing so. It would be very good value. Then I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Eccles for his admirable exposition of Government policy on this difficult subject, which has been so well debated from the other side. I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for giving us the chance to discuss this matter, and I would congratulate him on his extremely able speech in which he put the arguments for his side most persuasively.
I want to say a few words in support of my noble friend Lord Eccles—not that he needs my support. I shall follow precisely the same line that he did, but

1409
quite briefly, first on the economic and then on the artistic aspect. It is quite impossible to judge the merits of this argument without looking at the Government's economic policy. I should not expect noble Lords opposite to agree with the Government's economic policy, but it was indeed, as my noble friend has said, a large part of the argument on which we won the recent General Election. We believe that the policy that my right honourable friends are now introducing is one which will be for the benefit of the country and will achieve the growth that has been denied to us, despite the best efforts of noble Lords opposite and their right honourable friends. We believe that these policies will achieve this end, but in order to do so it is essential to reduce the present level of public expenditure so that we can get the elbow room to reduce personal taxation. This, as my noble friend Lord Eccles rightly said, initially means that inevitably there will be sacrifices almost right across the board. With a good deal of ingenuity my noble friend and my right honourable friends in another place have been able to find ways and means of helping those most in need: and very glad I am that they have been able to do so. But it still means that right across the rest of the board, in almost every sector of public expenditure, sacrifices are having to be faced.
My noble friend rightly posed the question: Is Art a special case? However devoted we may be to the Arts—and nobody is more devoted to them than my noble friend Lord Eccles—we simply cannot say that it is. Having accepted, as I do accept, that context, the arguments then begin to run from there that we must look at this subject objectively in the context of a radical change in the economic and financial policy of this country, where we believe that we are moving to a state where more money will be left in the pockets of the people out of their earnings and less will be taken by the State.
The noble Lord, Lord Clark, cunningly posed the question: Will people really enjoy the Arts more if they have to pay for them? Do people really enjoy something more if they have paid for it? But that is really only half the question. The other half is that with the success of our economic policy the man in the street
1410
and indeed the woman in the street, will have more money in their pocket and be able to decide themselves how they want to spend it. So they will have more with which to go to an art gallery or anything which takes their fancy. That is the real issue that we have before us in this economic context.
There are just three short points that I wish to make about the revenue. I should have thought that the £1 million a year net that my noble friend is aiming to collect will make a significant and useful contribution—although, of course, in the total context of £14 million a year which is being spent on these institutions it is only a small one, and especially in the context of the large capital programme which my noble friend indicated we face and which, as our fortunes improve over the coming years, I trust he will undertake: and nobody is better equipped than he is to do so. But how right he is to say that the patrons of art galleries to-day are quite different from what they were thirty or forty years ago, before the war, and are changing all the time. Family parties, mothers, fathers and children, are coming for a day's outing: they want somewhere to leave the car, to go to a restaurant for a meal, and so on. Hardly any of these things exist, and we want to see them added as valuable and expensive ancillaries to our museums and galleries.
There is another point I want to make—it is a small one, but I think a good one—on the economic aspect. It is the normal practice for patrons of other art forms, of the theatre, the opera and concerts (this point has already been made, but it is a good point to make again) to pay an entrance fee, although a large part of the cost of staging them is met out of public funds.
A further point which has been touched on, and largely written off by noble Lords opposite, is that art galleries and museums in almost every Western European country, and a good many in America, charge entrance fees. I visit a large number of them fairly often, and much I enjoy them. It seems to me quite crazy that when we go into our galleries in the summer, the National Gallery and the Art Gallery, at least half of the people there are visitors from overseas. We pay their fees when we go into their galleries. Why should they

1411
not pay our fees when they go into our galleries here? It really rubs salt in the wound when we see the prospect of this beautiful Velasquez, to which reference has already been made and which was sold for over £2 million, leaving this country because we have not the money to keep it here. We are not in a position to act as a Mycenæus to all the art lovers in the world. It is an important small point in the economic context: that if we visit other countries and pay their fees, visitors coming here should also pay. They are perfectly willing to do so.
Turning briefly to the artistic argument, I am in great sympathy with those who say that they do not wish to see people deterred from visiting art galleries and museums. One of the most satisfactory things in the post-war years has been to see the young, middle-aged and old crowding into our art galleries in a way that they never used to do before. Certainly we should not do anything which would deter them. I do not believe there is any evidence that we are going to deter them. The 6d. entrance fee before the war, to which the noble Lord, Lord Clark, referred, was a great deal more money than 2s. would be today. I agree that 4s. is getting up a bit, but the spending money is there, and we hope and believe that there will be more when it is possible to reduce the rate of direct taxation.
The figures that my noble friend gave of the effect of the increased charge for the Tower of London surely must make some impression on your Lordships. Far from decreasing the number of visitors, the number has significantly increased. One has only to look around at the hundreds of thousands of visitors to the historic houses all over the country, where they have to pay an entrance fee, and to the various institutions in London and elsewhere where entrance fees are charged. Take the zoo, for instance. The number of people visiting the zoo annually is about two million, and they pay an entrance fee of 8s. It is true that it is a family outing, but I am very much with my noble friend in hoping that the art galleries will be better equipped so that they can offer more of a family outing, too. There is a good deal of evidence to show that people will not be
1412
deterred by being asked to pay an entrance fee.
I hope that the casual visitor that has been referred to, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Clark, the man or woman who likes to drop in occasionally for half-an-hour, can be catered for by a season ticket at a reasonable rate. I agree that if they have to pay 4s. every time it would undoubtedly deter them. I hope they will be able to get a season ticket at a reasonable rate, and that it will also be possible to cater for the student population, to which my noble friend has already referred.
I am bound to say that I shed a metaphorical tear as I heard my noble friend's lucid exposition of why it was impossible to earmark any of the revenue that might come from entrance fees, but, having had some small experience of Ministerial life in the past, I have to accept that his arguments are completely convincing. It is impossible to earmark any of the revenue. Let us give the galleries such latitude as can be given in the sale of publications, post-cards, and so on, so that they may have some encouragement for their enterprise. That appeals to me particularly in regard to the special exhibitions. I hope it will be possible to allow the galleries to run their special exhibitions and keep the revenue from them. These special exhibitions have made a tremendous contribution—the Tate Gallery has been quite outstanding in this way—and the galleries should get some reward for the extra enterprise that they have put in.
I agree that one cannot judge the willingness of people to pay entirely by what they are willing to pay for special exhibitions—I accept Lord Strabolgi's point there—but galleries should be encouraged in these enterprises because these single artist exhibitions have a tremendous impact. One thinks of the Picasso exhibition and the Toulouse Lautrec exhibition. I suppose the Goya exhibition in the Royal Academy is something that no one will ever forget. I agree that that comes outside my noble friend's field, but I hope he will put his expert knowledge of these matters into action so as to give the galleries the maximum incentive, if charges are to be made, and some additional scope for their ingenuity and enterprise in running their

1413
galleries. Perhaps we could get the National Gallery—who knows?—to put on an exhibition of paintings by Constable.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for what he has said, but perhaps he does not know that, because insurance and transport costs are now so great, there really is no profit at all in the special exhibitions. I am considering now how to help the very gallery which he mentioned in order to meet the costs of one of these special exhibitions. I can assure him that it would be a disaster if the money was not forthcoming for such special exhibitions to continue.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I realise that insurance costs are enormously heavy, and I appreciate the difficulties. On the last point I mentioned, the National Gallery does not have to go further than the V. and A. to borrow its Constables. With its own collection, it could put on a great exhibition of Constable paintings without going anywhere else—but it has never done so.
I must not take up further time of the House, for there is a very long list of speakers yet to come. I believe that there are quite good and respectable arguments on the artistic side, as well as the economic side, to justify what my noble friend is proposing. I hope that noble Lords will have taken note that my noble friend has this year, despite the financial stringency, increased the total grant for the Arts Council by £2·6 million—he only claimed £1·6 million—which is a very substantial increase over what it was before. That indicates that my noble friend's heart is in the right place where the Arts are concerned.
This is not a display of meanness by the Government towards the Arts; this is a display of common sense, and it is sheer logic that the Arts cannot be singled out as the one sector which does not bear sacrifice when every other sector of public expenditure is having to bear sacrifices. I hope that noble Lords, despite persuasive arguments from the other side of the House, will not agree to the Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has moved.
4.57 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I rise to address your Lordships' House on the
1414
first occasion on a subject which is peculiarly appropriate to this Assembly. As my noble friend Lady Lee said in liar own quite sparkling maiden speech some little while back, there are many Members of this House who are not merely patrons of the Arts, but have also had considerable experience in the administration of our national institutions, and we have had the pleasure and privilege of hearing some of them this afternoon. I can claim no such distinction, but I have for many years been in close touch with our Welsh national institutions, our National Library and our National Museum of Wales. If I may be permitted I would with filial piety refer to my father who, for many years, was Secretary and then Chairman of the Pilgrims Trust, and who did a great deal both to encourage living artists and to preserve the glories of the past. He was as much responsible as anyone in the last war for establishing the Council for the Encouragement of Music and the Arts which we know has become the Arts Council that we have today.
My Lords, it will already have become plain that the proposition of Her Majesty's Government leaves many of us in much disquiet. I have listened with the greatest attention to the speech of the noble Viscount, the Paymaster General, and was delighted to learn of some of his proposals for the future. I must say, however, that I find his arguments on the particular proposition of charging for museums and galleries singularly unconvincing. I am very sorry that the Government have seen fit to put this forward not as an economic measure, but as a political one. This is one of the matters which has caused considerable disquiet among the trustees and directors of our national institutions. It has been made very clear to them that while their opinions on matters of detail are now being sought, their opinion on the matter of principle is not required and is of no interest at all. They have been told that this is a political decision, and it is not for them to reason why.
I regard this as regrettable because, as my noble friend Lady Lee said, we have tried to keep the Arts on a consensus basis. We have tried not to make this a Party matter. It will be unfortunate if policy relating to the Arts should become a political football, as, for example, the

1415
steel industry has become. It is a great pity that the Government have seen fit to put this forward, I repeat, not merely as an economic measure, misguided as some of us may think that to be, but also as some perverted version of the philosophy of Samuel Smiles. And to what end? For a matter of, at most, £1 million. We agree that this is not an inconsiderable sum, but I find it hard to believe that this should be of overriding importance, when one takes it in the context of the total expenditure on the Arts. To put it, if I may, in perspective, the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, will recognise that this sum is considerably less than one-third of what is required for current expenditure for the British Museum alone, let alone the other national institutions in London, Scotland and Wales. It seems to me that to establish all the cumbersome machinery which will be required, and which is not welcomed by those who are, after all, in the best position to judge—those who are responsible for the national institutions—is an irrelevancy in the total situation.
I was also sorry to find that some of the reasons that have been put forward in support of this policy seemed to be based on either shallow thinking or misconceptions. If I might refer to the letter which was sent by the Prime Minister to the Trustees of the Tate Gallery, in reply to their expression of dismay (that was their word) at the Government's proposals, I was really saddened by it. This letter was published, but I think it was not given in full in most of the Press. Among the reasons given for making charges are some which have already been mentioned in the debate, such as that
"a charge would make the public more, rather than less, appreciative of the artistic or historic value of the contents of a collection."
Surely that is entirely contrary to our own personal experience. I just do not believe that it is true that one's appreciation is enhanced, or diminished, by whether one has paid 10s., 4s., 1s., or nothing, in order to see one of the great masterpieces; that it would make any difference to one's appreciation of Titian or Tintoretto, Corot or Cezanne, or the excitement which one feels at seeing for the first time, maybe, the Egyptian Sculptures or Greek Sculptures, the original scores of the great composers, or the manuscripts of the poets, in the British Museum. It just does not tally with
1416
one's experience, and I find it completely unconvincing. Yet this is put forward as one of the three principal arguments in the Prime Minister's letter to the Trustees of the Tate Gallery.
Another argument produced in this letter is,
"that charges will make no serious difference to attendance figures".
But this again is contrary to all experience. It is not a question of the total increase of attendances, because we have more tourists, for example, coming to this country. The absolute figures indeed are increasing, and may be expected to increase. But when this matter was fully examined, as it has not been on this occasion, by the Royal Commission, and by the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries in the past, they had no doubt at all that attendance charges did make a difference. In fact they were imposed, as the noble Lord, Lord Clark, has said, precisely so that people should be deterred, and they succeeded in that effect. But if we want to come to the present time, your Lordships may be aware that charges have within the last few months been imposed in London, at Marble Hill at Twickenham, and at Ken-wood. The result has been that at Marble Hill the rate of admissions has dropped from 30,000 to 6,000 and at Kenwood from 214,000 to 146,000. I see the noble Viscount. Lord Eccles, is shaking his head. No doubt, if by leave he speaks again, he will deal with this point. I can only say that these are the figures that have been given to me.
Kenwood comes particularly close to my heart. I used to live very near to it and my husband and I used to go there. We went there in his last illness. We used to go for just a short time—a quarter of an hour. We would look at one or two beautiful things, and it brought us great comfort. Had we had to pay on every occasion, I am quite sure that there would have been times when he would have said to me, "No, not to-day." We of course would have been in a position to buy a season ticket. But there would have been others who would not have been in a position to do that. Their tribulation might have been as great, and their means might have been less. These are some of the factors we should consider.

1417
The third argument put forward (again I quote from the Prime Minister's letter) is:
"The Government believe it to be right in principle that those who use museums and galleries and value their contents should be asked to contribute to their upkeep and improvement as people are expected to pay for other forms of higher educational activity"—
I am not quite sure what that means—
"and subsidised drama and music."
But if that is a principle which we should accept, then, as other noble Lords have already said, why stop? Why stop at art galleries? On that principle, public libraries should certainly become paying institutions. And I have it on fairly good authority that that matter was in fact considered by the Government, but the proposition was discarded because it was felt that there would be such an outcry that they could not sustain it politically. But there is no logic in that decision, because if truth is to remain free, why should beauty be taxed? Some persons have mentioned public parks. The same principle applies again there, surely. We have been told that we should emulate the Continent. In that case, why should we not impose charges for bathing beaches as they do in France and Italy, to the great irritation of many of us? Why should we preserve the ancient freedom of the foreshore if money is to be made by charging for access?
No, my Lords. I fear that the reasons given for the policy make one even more sad than if it were based simply on economic necessity. That one could perhaps understand, but the reasons put forward I find depressing in the extreme. I entirely agree with what the noble Viscount said about the difficulty of hypothecation. One of the principles of our public finance is that we do not hypothecate. On the other hand, I was delighted to learn that he had in mind for certain peripheral or extra-curricular activities (if one may call them that) some incentive to greater enterprise, so that the institutions concerned may—I repeat, on peripheral matters; not the major, basic services—have some inducement, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, suggested in his speech.
If I may give a case in point, the Welsh Folk Museum, as my noble friend
1418
Lord Strabolgi mentioned, has made charges from its inception. Incidentally, it was not founded at all by Government money but by contributions from the Welsh local authorities and private benefactions. Charges have been made there from the outset, but of course the proceeds do not go to the institution. When I asked the very distinguished Director, Dr. Iorwerth Peate, whether he might not undertake certain other activities and charge for them, his reply to me was, "What is the point? We have no return." This was from a most enterprising person, without whose vision and enthusiasm this unique museum would never have come into being—and I am glad on this occasion to be able to pay tribute to someone who is close to his retirement. So I am very glad if this is to be considered, but this seems to me to be quite another matter from the enforced charging for admision, which may be suitable for some institutions—I am not disputing charges at the Tower of London—but is quite inappropriate for others.
If I may mention the main Welsh national institution, the National Museum of Wales, it is in Cardiff in a similar kind of position to that of the National Gallery in London. It is right in the centre; it is somewhere where people can go casually and for brief periods, and I know that the staff of the National Museum of Wales are deeply distressed at the thought that much of their informal educative work may be jeopardised if compulsory charges have to be made.
I have not had direct contact with those in charge of the great institutions in Scotland, but at second-hand I am told that they share these apprehensions. They are also gravely concerned that if it should be suggested to them that they should have certain free days, it would create the gravest problems because of the possible danger to the safety of their collection. No doubt this apprehension is enhanced in Scotland because if there were to be free days as opposed to pay days, then the great proportion of visitors would come on the free days and the numbers would naturally be very large indeed!
This notion of compulsory charging in all circumstances, regardless of the particular situation or the nature or ethos of the institution concerned, seem to me

1419
to be misguided. It seems to me—if I may use the term in your Lordships' House—to be ignoble and I hope very much, in spite of what the noble Viscount has said, that history might repeat itself and that as his political predecessors did on a similar occasion when they were faced with comparable economic difficulties at that time, he might yet think again.
My Lords, the day has no doubt long since passed when one could quote Greek in your Lordships' House, and I will not attempt it.
A NOBLE LORD: What a pity!
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, my noble friend says "What a pity", but it is better to be understood. I recently re-read Pericles' great oration to the Atheneans and how he praised the beauty of Athens and said:
"We are lovers of beauty and our city is the school of Hellas".
He reminded his hearers of the provision made by the State for relaxation and spiritual refreshment, and said:
"The daily enjoyment of this drives away our sorrow and despondency."
My Lords, we are no longer a great imperial nation as we once were, but may not our capital cities with their great collections be the schools of the world?
5.12 p.m.
LORD TREVELYAN: My Lords, it is my very happy duty to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady White, on her maiden speech this afternon. I should like to say how much I admire the manner of her speaking—simple, clear and down to earth but making the points very clearly. I very much hope that she will be often heard in your Lordships' House, and I shall take great pains to listen to her on every possible occasion.
Also, as a new and ignorant colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Clark, at the British Museum, I should like to congratulate him. His speech had all the quality to which we are accustomed in listening to his wonderful series on television, and which I have grown to value very greatly in the meetings at the Museum.
I must declare my interest as Chairman of the Trustees of the British Museum and, like the noble Lord, Lord
1420
Annan, must say that my remarks are purely my personal opinion and that they in no way necessarily represent the views of the trustees. I am going to speak briefly and on the practical points. I do not think we can judge this question purely on general grounds, however reluctant one may be—and it is a natural reluctance which I share—to change an old tradition, the value of which cannot be denied. My general impression from listening to a number of people talking about this matter, and from reading the letters in the newspapers, is that a great many people feel passionately about it, some in favour of charges and others against charges, in about equal proportions. I believe that we can only rationally judge the question after we have considered the practical effects of charging and the estimated financial results. The question is: Is it worth it? We also have to examine in what conditions it would be tolerable.
I would certainly have preferred it it the Government had not made their proposal—I hope I can call it a proposal—before making the detailed examination which I think is required to arrive at a rational decision. Let me then suggest the principles which I think should be followed if charges are to be made. Museums are both attractions for the general public and tourists and educational and research institutions. I consider that the visits for educational purposes should be exempt from charges. In that case, I believe we should exempt school parties with their teachers, students of recognised educational institutions at home and abroad, and people studying in the departments of a museum. I believe we should encourage children's interests by exempting them, too. We should certainly exempt readers in the British Museum Library, particularly since we maintain a free library system. I think this will mean that the readers in the Library will inevitably get free entry into the Museum, for topographical reasons.
We should encourage those who come for a short time—that is a point that has been made a number of times, and I think quite correctly—by giving season tickets at favourable rates; and I believe we should exempt members of societies which exist to promote the interests of a museum or gallery, or museums in

1421
general, and which look to their members to finance special projects or purchases. Also, as I am now 65, I naturally think we should exempt old-age pensioners! We have to see whether we can prevent the front halls from looking like Victoria Underground Station and we have to try to prevent unacceptable delays and difficulties to visitors and students. This will not be easy.
To estimate the financial results is really a matter of guesswork, particularly because, although we can work out how much the administration will cost, I do not think anybody knows what effect the charges will have upon attendance at a museum. I believe we must seriously consider, when we have made this estimate as best we can, whether in view of the inevitable disadvantages involved in making charges, it is worth while to pursue a proposal which may turn out, after detailed examination, to be an inefficient way of collecting revenue and just not worth while.
Then there is the financial question. Should the amounts go back to the museums? That is certainly a reasonable principle, but we must remember that the Government, if I may say so without disrespect, is the goose that lays the golden eggs, and we want the Government to lay larger golden eggs regularly for us, for our maintenance and for capital purposes. So I think the only right thing to do is to treat the financial question as a whole.
What we want in museums is an assurance that the Government intend to make increasing grants to improve the services of the museums and to modernise them. I think this afternoon the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has gone some way to giving this assurance, which I hope he will confirm on every possible occasion. We want also to know that the Government will adjust the administrative arrangements so that we can speed up improvements, and I believe that the Paymaster General has this in mind. Also we want to be allowed to develop our revenue earning capacity for our own purposes. This point has been made on both sides of the House. We want to be able to show the public, and particularly intending private benefactors, that the revenue which we earn, from whatever source, will directly or indirectly benefit a museum or gallery
1422
and will not merely have the effect of lightening the burden on the Treasury. We want also to see tax concessions on bequests and gifts in a way which will encourage private benefactions.
A subsidiary point concerns the legal question. I have not yet seen an authoritative legal opinion on this, but it appears to me that in the light of Section 3(3) of the British Museum Act legislation will be required before the Trustees are authorised to levy charges. The British Museum Trustees have examined the question of charges and their views will be put to Government in a few days time. Other trustees will do the same, and the Government will also have the benefit of the advice of the Standing Commission. All I ask now is that the Government should examine the views of the various trustees objectively and make their final decision in the light of them.
Finally, I should like to stress the importance of complete confidence and co-operation between the Government and the trustees of the museums, a confidence that both will work together for the improvement of museum services and modernisation. I feel sure that my distinguished predecessor, who has done so much for the Museum, in his new position as Minister responsible for our museums will wish to make this consultation with the various trustees, which he has promised, a real consultation, and that the Government will take most seriously the views of the trustees and those responsible for our museums and galleries before they make a final decision. I feel that for the moment I must reserve my own judgment on the Government's position until the picture has all the details filled in.
5.23 p.m.
LORD COTTESLOE: My Lords, I should like to join in saying what a pleasure it has been to listen to two notable maiden speeches, the one from the noble Lord, Lord Clark, with his wisdom, learning and eloquence, and the other from the noble Baroness, with her energy and charm. I must, before I say anything else, apologise for the fact that I have a longstanding engagement that may prevent me from being here for the latter end of this debate to hear my noble friend the Paymaster General reply to the particular points brought against

1423
his proposals for admission charges, and Lord Annan's final winding up. If I cannot be here, I hope they will forgive me. I need not say that I shall read every word with extreme interest.
I find myself, so to speak, betwixt and between. I do not, on the one hand, regard free admission as any matter of sacred principle, and I found myself quite unable to join with my former colleagues in a letter of protest that appeared last week over the signatures of a number of former chairmen of the Tate Gallery Trustees. I certainly could not vote for Lord Annan's Motion on the ground of being unequivocally and eternally opposed to admission charges. But, on the other hand, I am deeply opposed to the idea that if admission charges are imposed they should be applied for the purpose of effecting an economy in the Treasury subvention, for that is what it really amounts to. It may be logical that they should be so applied, but it does not seem to me to be inevitable or desirable, or even very sensible. I have myself, for many years, enjoyed being able to wander in and out of the national museums and galleries without having to pay at the turnstile, and I have taken full advantage of the privilege. But I am bound to say that I do not see any good reason why I should not be asked to pay, as I am when I go to see Rievaulx Abbey or Kew Gardens or the Louvre or the Uffizi, or to those highly subsidised enterprises, the National Theatre and Covent Garden. I do not at all believe in the idea that I have seen seriously propounded that art should always be provided free for all.
As to the argument that has been widely publicised, that as the pictures on the walls of the National Gallery have been paid for by the public it is therefore iniquitous that those members of the public who wish to see them hanging there should have to pay a small sum to do so, that seems to me to be absolute nonsense. Quite apart from the fact that many of them were not in fact paid for with public money but were the gifts of generous donors, it is no more unreasonable to make a charge than to ask for payment to see historic buildings or ancient monuments, and no-one takes exception to that. Of course, there must be
1424
remissions for students and research workers, for the young and for the old, and I hope particularly, as has been mentioned by a number of speakers, for those who make a habit of looking in for a few minutes at lunch-time to see one treasure or another. Such arrangements are made elsewhere, and of course they will have to be made here. But, subject to that, I see no good ground for the storm of protest against the introduction or reintroduction of admission charges, on a reasonable scale. It seems to me to have been very much overdone.
Having said that, I must also say that I take strong exception to the Government's proposal to treat the proceeds of these admission charges as Exchequer monies, to set them off against the gross total of the Exchequer grant before arriving at the net figure of Exchequer assistance provided for each institution. I believe that these proceeds should be in the hands of the trustees as additional funds, additional to the Exchequer grant, to be used at their discretion for improving the amenities for the public or adding to their collection. I know that it is said that it is a time-honoured practice for the Treasury to "pinch" admission charges in this way, and that anyway it is as broad as it is long; that even if they did not, they would take them into account when fixing the level of the Exchequer grant; that it would make a difference only if the grant was at a fixed figure, unchanging from year to year. I think my noble friend the Paymaster General said that. I cannot accept that argument as an argument that is valid in practice, even though it may be valid in theory. Purchase grants are not fixed year by year but quinquennially, and I cannot believe that the Treasury are incapable of fixing them, or of fixing the Exchequer grants, as a whole, without regard to chance accretions of revenue.
We all know that, however they may be fixed, they will never be enough to meet the full requirement; that bodies of trustees will have to seek additional monies from generous donors or bodies of friends and from trust funds. In the same way, in my view, the proceeds of admission charges should be available to the trustees. All collections would benefit greatly from having in their trustees' hands some funds that could be

1425
used at their discretion to make them in one way or another more attractive to the public. The proceeds of the publication departments have sometimes been said to serve as a precedent, and it may be that they are now in some cases so treated—treated by the Treasury as appropriations in aid and set off against the gross Exchequer subvention. We know that it is not so in all cases, and certainly when I was a Trustee of the Tate Gallery the publications department was an enterprise for which the Trustees were wholly responsible and the proceeds were available to them to apply for the benefit of the Gallery in any way, in their absolute discretion—and very useful they were. I was delighted to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, say that he hopes the proceeds of the British Museum publications department may be made available in much the same way.
The argument that the proceeds of admission charges must inevitably be taken by the Treasury into credit unless the Exchequer grant runs at a fixed level may be logical (although I am not quite sure about that), but in human affairs what is most logical is not always most sensible, and I think that this is one of those occasions. So my conclusion must be that, although I strongly disagree with Lord Annan's view that admission charges are wrong in principle and mistaken in practice, I dislike almost equally the Government's intention to take the proceeds in order, in effect, to economise on the Exchequer grant.
5.32 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, even the most harsh critic of your Lordships' House could hardly complain about the quality of this debate. Included in a succession of illuminating and eloquent speeches was the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady White. I venture, without any condescension, to offer my cordial congratulations to her, and I am sure that your Lordships' House will wish to hear her frequently in future debates.
But after the eloquent speeches and the appeals for reconsideration, I find the noble Viscount the Paymaster General, if I may say so with respect, and meaning no offence whatever, obstinate, reluctant to agree to any reconsideration, obdurate, and even perverse. His mind is made up. Indeed, with characteristic candour, he informed your Lordships' House during
1426
his speech that he had been responsible for making the proposition to the Cabinet about admission charges to museums and galleries and the like. In other words, he is the villain of the piece.
In the course of his observations the noble Viscount used arguments which, I am hound to say, appeared to me to be unconvincing, and even meretricious. Let us take an example. He argued that during the last Election the electors of the country had been fully informed about the intentions of the Conservative Party; that the electors understood quite clearly during the Election that because of the financial situation it was necessary, if the Conservative Party were elected and returned as a Government, to reduce public expenditure and to make an end to subsidies. But there was no reference whatever, certainly no precise reference, to charges for admission to museums and galleries. Indeed, I venture to say that if Conservative Party candidates had during the last Election spoken with the candour we have heard this afternoon from the Paymaster General, and if the public had been informed that it was the intention of a future Conservative Government to impose such charges, they would never have been returned. There was then nothing specific about the proposition that we are debating this afternoon.
But if public expenditure is to be reduced and subsidisation is to be terminated, why end with charges for museums and galleries? This debate has been most illuminating; there has been much exposition of expertise and an abundance of eloquence, and it has been entertaining. But why is there no suggestion of a charge for admission to this Assembly. After all, there is a considerable volume of public expenditure devoted to the administration and maintenace of your Lordships' House. Why pick on museums and galleries? What about the catering department in the other place, with which I am familiar, although not so familiar with the catering expenditure of your Lordships' House—that will come in due course. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, remarked in that most eloquent speech in opening the debate, what about Hyde Park or St. James's Park? Why not charge for admission to the open spaces? If the Government believe that the inflationary situation is to continue, that we are facing

1427
a financial crisis, if indeed it does not exist already—whatever may be their opinion—if public expenditure is to be reduced and an end to be made to subsidies, let it apply all round.
I turn to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. What did he say?—that everyone has to make sacrifices; why not those who wish to enter museums and galleries? Was that in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when in his mini-Budget he proposed a reduction of 6d. in income tax? Is that what is meant by sacrifices by everybody? Or are we to understand that there are to be sacrifices by those who wish to enter galleries and museums, but, on the other hand, no sacrifice is to be made by those who (I am not quite sure whether this is a right assessment of the position) themselves have priceless treasures, or at any rate fine paintings and remarkable pieces of sculpture, and do not require to attend museums and galleries for the purpose of indulging in that quality of life which seems to be slipping away in this country day by day?
I venture to relate an experience of my own. I have an interest in this matter. My noble friend Lord Strabolgi mentioned that I had taken part in a debate in a Standing Committee in another place as far back as 47 years ago, in 1923. I recall the experience solely because I remember that Mr. Stanley Baldwin, who had become Prime Minister after the demise of Bonar Law, intervened and as a result the proposal for admission charges was removed. If, in place of the unconvincing arguments that have been adduced by the Paymaster General and some of his noble friends, I may advance an argument on the side of those who wish to impose charges, it would be this, because of my own experience. I had to leave school at a very early age, which for many years afterwards filled me with melancholy reflections, and still does, even now. As a result, I visited the art galleries available in the City of Glasgow, particularly the Kelvingrove Art Gallery, where I looked through the glass cases and saw skeletons, dinosaurs and ichthyosauria, and all the rest of the zoological specimens.
When I went to the art gallery I saw that remarkable painting by Whistler of
1428
Cunningham Grahame, one of the descendants of the Scottish kings, who himself embarked on a political career. I became interested in Cunningham Grahame and read some of his books. If I had been charged admission to the Kelvingrove Art Gallery at that time, I should never have been in this Assembly. From the point of view of noble Lords opposite, that may be a good argument why admission charges should be made; but I have not heard one other single convincing argument. So far as I can understand, this controversy was initiated because the Government have made up their mind that everybody has to pay, regardless of whether we are to retain the quality, the high standard, of the artistic illumination which is provided for us free of charge in art galleries and museums.
I can recall, when I was very young, the terrible poverty and unemployment that existed in the years before there was unemployment benefit or the dole. Since then, in succeeding years, there has been an abundance of material improvement. Things are not as good as we should like them to be, but people are better fed, better clothed, better housed; and they have more of the material assets of life than we had when I was a boy. What is just as important as material improvement is to have the moral quality, or, if noble Lords care to use another term, the artistic quality: the desire to listen to music, to look at a fine painting or a fine piece of sculpture, to go into the National Art Gallery, if only for five or ten minutes, for the purpose of looking at some exceptional piece of artistic work. Surely that ought to be left to us. Much of the quality of life is slipping away from us, and we have to do everything we can to retain it.
As for the argument that other countries impose charges for admission, all I would say is that it would be wrong of us to follow the lead of other countries. I do not want to embark on a discussion about economic or fiscal matters, but there is too much of a tendency and trend in this direction—and I regard it as objectionable—to wish to associate ourselves more closely, and to be integrated with the life of the people on the Continent. We have our own life to live; we have our own quality of life, of which we can be proud.

1429
As for the appeal for reconsideration, with great respect I say to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and those who have supported him in asking for reconsideration of the Government's decision, that they are wasting their time. The Government have made up their mind, and admission charges will be imposed. Attendances may go up or go down, but that is not the issue at all; the issue is the removal of that freedom about which Mr. Heath talked and elaborated during the Election: freedom for the individual. What does that mean? Not to pay for every amenity that is provided, but to have those amenities, those qualities of life, accessible to everybody.
In the past, and even now, there is too much of the power of the purse. Wealthy people—and I do not complain about it: they are entitled to use their money as they care—send their children to high scholastic institutions and can enjoy life to a greater degree than those who are not so well off. But the power of the purse should not be used in connection with the artistic features that are available in our museums and art galleries. That I would consider objectionable.
One final word. I have availed myself of the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House. Among those Standing Orders I read that, in order to avoid misunderstanding offensive observations are regarded as objectionable and should never be used. I just want to say—and I fortify myself in the observation I am now about to make before I resume my seat with the knowledge that it has been used on more than one previous occasion by no less a dignitary than the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack and whose absence I regret, but who may read what I am now about to say—that I think the Government have been in a panic. The Government are adopting a defeatist attitude; the Government are wrong ! The Government, to use the expression used, as I have said, and frequently, by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, have "gone bonkers". Since that expression was used by the Lord Chancellor and was not regarded as offensive in the other place, I hope that my using of that expression will not lead to my expulsion from this Assembly.
5.47 p.m.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, I hope it is not presumptuous of one who is an even newer Member of your Lordships' House than the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, by one week, to say that I think this is, without exception, the best debate I have heard in a mere twenty years of political life. I follow the noble Lord with some diffidence. I can say that if ever—and I should be reluctant to see the day this happened—there were charges for admittance to your Lordships' House, there would be no falling off in attendance if the noble Lord would guarantee to speak on every occasion. There were moments in the noble Lord's speech when I thought that the imposition of museum charges was somehow going to be mixed up with the question of our entrance into the European Economic Community, but I am glad that subject was not raised.
I find myself in the position of a convert who has been reluctantly moved to support the decision to impose charges. When I first read of the proposal I was surprised. To use my exact words in the family circle, I said, "I think David has really done it this time". To bring forward a proposal which arouses the ire of most of the art establishment is a very courageous one, and the only one more courageous would have been to make a proposal which involves the animal welfare lobby. But I now believe that my noble friend is quite right, and I have come to that conclusion after studying the arguments on both sides, particularly the correspondence in the columns of The Times, where the arguments have not always been as reasonable as those advanced in your Lordships' House.
Many of those who complained about charges referred to the fact that they take pleasure, as I do, in visiting galleries very frequently, perhaps going in for a few minutes. But we must remember that the bulk of the national collections are in London or in Edinburgh, and the privilege of frequent visiting is enjoyed mainly by those who live in the centre of London. That privilege is being subsidised by the community as a whole, for many of whom a visit to our national collections is, as it were, the event of a lifetime. So we ought to bear in mind that those who have the more access should make a larger contribution towards

1431
the cost of maintenance of the collections. Frankly, I am shocked by some of those who have written in The Times, who clearly grudge the extra money which it will cost to buy, let us say, the season ticket to which my noble friend referred.
The other argument which has induced me to change my mind is the slight inconsistency which is inherent in the opposition, since charges are already imposed at a surprising number of galleries without, so far as I know, any opposition, or, indeed, any proposal by the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, when she was responsible for these matters, to abolish them. I looked through the admirable Handbook of Museums and Galleries in Great Britain, which is published by the Tourist Office, and through the Guide to London Galleries and Museums, which is published by the Stationery Office, and I found that about 25 per cent. of our museums make a charge. In his intervention, the noble Lord, Lord Slater, who is not here at the moment, put very sympathetically the point of view of the visitor from the North who will have to pay to go to one of our national collections when he comes to London. But what about the Southerner who goes to the noble Lord's own County of Durham and visits that neglected and little-known museum—I do not mean neglected in the sense of not being well kept up, because it is well maintained—the Bowes Museum? The Southerner has to pay when he goes to the North. The Durham County Council, which maintains that museum so beautifully, is not, as I understand it, a citadel of reactionary Toryism, and yet it makes a charge. Is it so very wrong that the man from Durham should pay when he comes to London?
As my noble friend said, there are charges for Hampton Court and for the Tower. Of course, some might say that the Tower is a tourist attraction rather than a museum. Incidentally, it is the site of the national collection of armour and, although armour is something which leaves me as a sightseer absolutely cold, one could say that is a typical national collection for visiting which we have to pay. I discovered something even more surprising in the Handbook—that we make a charge for the Royal Botanical
1432
Gardens at Kew, which, as I have not visited it for some time, I found very odd. If there is one national collection which, if the National Gallery is free, should also be free, it is Kew Gardens, because there are many more botanists and gardeners in this country than there are picture lovers. Furthermore, the charge is the derisory sum of threepence. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, postulated that the horrible day might ensue when we should have to pay for our parks. I hope he is not too shocked by the fact that we have to pay threepence to go to Kew. But there are no cries of protest from outraged botanists, and at no time have I heard any proposal to abolish that charge.
I was equally astonished to read in The Times of yesterday that at a meeting of protest.
"Lady Longford, a trustee of the Victoria and Albert Museum and the National Portrait Gallery … abhorred the proposed charges as an unprecedented change in our national life."
I think there must be a mistake there, because the Victoria and Albert do not have trustees. I take that to mean that she is a member of the advisory council. But I can hardly say that the charge is unprecedented. Many of us know Lady Longford as the author of a very remarkable and attractive life of the Duke of Wellington. When I read it, I was so fired with enthusiasm that I immediately hied me to the Wellington Museum. I was charged one shilling. Yesterday I went again and I was still charged one shilling. Furthermore, as my noble friend said, Apsley House is a branch of the Victoria and Albert, of which Lady Longford is on the advisory Council, and it seems to me a little surprising that Lady Longford has not seen fit to protest about that in her dual capacity.
The same argument applies to other branches of the Victoria and Albert. It is just not true that the Victoria and Albert abolished all charges in 1914, because in 1947 it brought them back for the Wellington Museum, and it has since brought them back for both Ham House and Osterley Park, without any protest at all. Why, therefore, is it wrong to pay at the National Gallery to see the works of Velasquez but, as my noble friend said, all right to pay at Apsley House? The only point on which I would disagree with my noble friend was

1433
in his reference to the pictures by Velasquez at Apsley House. I think that the "Water Carrier of Seville" is a better painting than the one he mentioned.
Then we have had the argument—again, I quote from a letter in The Times—that:
"Our free national galleries are a constant source of wonder and admiration to foreign visitors."
However, it is very conspicuous that none of them follows suit. It is quite easy to admire the generosity of others but at the same time to think that it is folly. One noble Lord referred to the fact that there are no charges for museums in the United States of America. I think that is true at the present time, but I noted in the last annual report of the Metropolitan Museum that, having tried the voluntary contribution—and they suggested a dollar as a contribution—they are now, despite Federal, State and City support, thinking of imposing a charge. So we are in good company.
I believe the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said that, because the Italians charge, one never sees Italians in their galleries. That is not true. If you go to the tourist centres of Italy out of season, you will find that the Italians are there then, but they rather wisely keep away when the places are thronged with tourists. I was in Venice this summer, and I think that there they have discovered the most ingenious ways of persuading the tourist to contribute to the support of their museums and treasures. If you go into San Marco there are three separate charges for three separate items. You pay to see the Pala D'Oro, you pay to see the frescoes and you pay to see the Treasury. If you go into some of the churches where, to put it mildly, the pictures are not very well lit, you find that you now have to pay to put the light on. But if you can afford to go to Venice, even from London, then I think you ought to expect to make that kind of contribution to the maintenance of their treasures. Therefore I myself am not objecting. I see no reason why the same principle should not apply to those who come here. I do not find the proposal at all shocking.
1434
I hope that my noble friend will resist the blandishments of the arguments for earmarking the taxes for particular museums or galleries. I sympathise with what my noble friend Lord Cottesloe said, but at the same time I think it is wrong that all the proceeds of what I might call the popular museums should go to them and that there should not be rather more equality as between the different museums. In particular, I should like to see some of the extra revenue which accrues, and which I hope will continue to accrue under my noble friend's enlightened leadership, go to the Provinces. I speak as a Londoner who represented a constituency near London, but I am still rather shocked at the disparity in the standards between the London museums and the provincial museums; and I sympathise with what the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, said in this matter. We ought to make a far larger contribution to the Provinces and not just become London-orientated and London-centred in this matter. I end, my Lords, as I began. No one relishes a tax or a levy or an impost that they are likely to pay themselves. I think charges will be levied, and I believe it is extremely unlikely that they will ever be abolished.
6.2 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I share with the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, who has just sat down, a certain feeling of impertinence in addressing your Lordships' House after the most eloquent speeches which we have heard from such great experts as the noble Lords, Lord Annan and Lord Clark. Your Lordships may be glad to know that during the course of the debate so far—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Reigate; it is one of the best debates I have ever heard—I have crossed out almost everything I was going to say. Nevertheless. I have written down a few things I was not going to say, so I still feel that there is perhaps little excuse for me to get up and make a few remarks. I should like to congratulate, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Clark, on his maiden speech; and also the noble Baroness, Lady White. I should like to agree with her in the strongest possible terms that it is the greatest pity that this has been made into

1435
a political debate, because I do not think it should be on that level at all.
I should like to remind noble Lords of the wording which Lord Annan has chosen:
"That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to reconsider their announced intention to introduce charges for admission to the national museums and galleries."
The noble Lord has not asked the Government immediately to renounce any such intention at all: he has asked them to reconsider it. I therefore take it that noble Lords like Lord Cottesloe will be found in the Lobby supporting the Motion, since he obviously wishes the Government's intentions to be reconsidered.
As several noble Lords have already said, it is very difficult to present any kind of logical argument as to why this particular kind of education should be free when other kinds of education are not free; and this is not a subject which really lends itself very well to logic. Therefore, I do not share with the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, any particular surprise that there are inconsistencies in the arguments on both sides. The economic arguments clearly break down if we carry them to extremes. Parks and libraries have already been mentioned. Nobody is suggesting that we charge for them. The whole field of education, social service, arts and esthetics needs a special treatment which is not necessarily amenable to the cruder economic arguments, although we all know that lines have to be drawn somewhere, however difficult it may be in certain situations to do so.
I was not impressed in the slightest degree, although I am afraid I am no politician, with the argument that consultations with the trustees of these museums and galleries could not have taken place. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Annan, answered that in his opening speech. When the question of the preservation of King's College Chapel was raised during the time that he was Provost at Kings, he did not say, "We will now charge for admission". He put it to the people concerned that if they could not find ways to increase the revenue and raise money to preserve this wonderful Chapel then there might have to be a charge for admission. I wish the Government had shown the same wisdom
1436
and had put it to the trustees and government of the galleries and museums that the situation is serious—desperate, if you like—that more money must be obtained, and would they let the Minister know in three months' time what suggestions they had because otherwise the imposition of charges would become essential. That would seem to me to have been a wiser course.
Some point has been made of the comparison, or if you like the contrast, between the pictorial arts and museums, and music. As I have had many years of experience in the promotion of concerts, I should like to say just a word or two about that. I think it would be fine if a lot of concerts were free, but they are in a different category. Musicians have to be found, they have to appear in person, they have to be paid, and rehearsals have to be paid for. Musicians have often to travel from great distances; and music, unlike pictorial art, is a temporal art and you cannot drop in for a few minutes at any time of the day to hear a Beethoven symphony, as everyone knows. I want to say also about music that of course nowadays, with radio and modern gramophones, there is much more chance of the ordinary person hearing great music, even at second-hand, than there was when I was a youngster.
Talking about dropping in for a few minutes, this is an argument which I find very important, and it is a fact that several months ago, before this question was raised at all, I was in the vicinity of Trafalgar Square with two ladies and two children. We had about half an hour or 20 minutes to spare, and we went to see the new Rubens. We said that we would see nothing else; we would just have a look at this one picture and come out. That, I suppose, would have cost me £1—no; there would have been a reduced charge for the children. At any rate, it might have altered our decision—which brings me to the question of season tickets. They do not cover this sort of thing. I am one of those people who loves to drop into the National Gallery or the Portrait Gallery just occasionally, when I find time to go there, but I am not such a regular attender that I imagine a season ticket would be an economic proposition for me.
I should again like to endorse the argument of the middle classes, because I

1437
think that in this House we on the Cross-Benches are in the fortunate position of not having to vote one way or another but of being able to do as our consciences dictate to us. I think that we should ask ourselves, "Do we not, perhaps more than any other section of this House, represent the middle classes—and particularly the professional classes? "That is not to say that they are not excellently represented by the two major Parties and by the Liberal Party as well; but I think that perhaps we have a special duty to consider them. I think that so far they are not getting the best deal from the economic policy of the new Government.
On the question of school meals, I have already pointed out that you must have an income of £2,000 a year or more just to break even on the reduction of income tax. This is another issue on which this particular class of people—especially those who are bringing up families—will be the most affected. It seems to have been made a political issue. I have no doubt that in spite of the fact that three-quarters of the speeches so far have been in favour of the Motion, I shall be in the minority if the noble Lord forces it to a Division—as I rather hope he will. But this will not be the first time that I have been in a minority, and I hope that it will not be the last.
6.12 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, after the extremely eloquent speeches we have heard this evening, starting with that quite outstanding speech by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and including the remarkable maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Clark, it is difficult for anyone to say anything more. But I promise that I shall not detain the House for too long. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and, just recently, the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, have made it very clear that however much their interest in the Arts—and no one for a moment would try to compete with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, in his affection and work for the Arts—however excellent their attitude towards the Arts, this issue is to them a perfectly clear case of straightforward political philosophy, and nothing else. This is ideology run mad, nothing else at all. It has nothing to do with the question as to whether we are going to get better museums or better art galleries; on
1438
the contrary, the money is not to be allocated in that way—the money is to go straight to the Treasury. There is not the slightest question that any museum or art gallery will benefit from the fees that are raised.
The whole thing is done as a matter of straight political philosophy. The idea is a very simple one: that it is important that you make people pay for everything they get. It is important that they should be charged for museums and art galleries. At the moment the libraries are left out; but as Lord Annan indicated at the start, "bread will be included—the libraries will be included as well without any doubt. It is said that this applies only to certain national galleries; but the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, made it quite clear that he does not like the idea of only 25 per cent. of the museums and galleries charging; that that is a gross anomaly and therefore 100 per cent. should charge; that we must extend the charges.
Does anyone suppose that a local authority (if it is a Tory-dominated one), finding itself with a Government grant which is inadequate to allow it to reduce the rates, will not turn towards museums, art galleries and libraries and make charges for their use? At the present time they are allowed to raise up to a sixpenny rate; but very few authorities do raise a sixpenny rate. What they will do is to cut down on this. I know a little about this because my wife was for some years chairman, first of the Libraries Committee and then of the Laing Art Gallery Committee, at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. She succeeded in getting a magnificent new library built—with every single Conservative member of the Council voting against it on a named vote in order to show their attitude. When this library was opened in the spring of this year by Lord Boyle—who, as one would expect, made a magnificent speech—the Leader of the Conservative majority said to me that it was time that they started charging for use of the library.
My Lords, there is no use in imagining that this principle will not be extended. This is the beginning. The noble Lord, Lord Reigate, and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, both indicated this; because the noble Viscount referred specifically to rates as well as to taxes, to the relief of rates. In other words, by

1439
this action, by this appallingly retrograde action, he is encouraging the local authorities to charge for all these amenities. Why do I feel strongly about it? I can afford to pay; it does not worry me very much if I am asked to pay for these things. But when I was a boy living in Wales my main source of education, apart from going to school, was the use of the Carnegie Library. Your Lordships may recollect that the Carnegie Libraries were set up by the benefaction of Andrew Carnegie who gave money in order that free libraries should be set up. These free libraries gave mental sustenance to thousands, even millions, of poor children throughout the country. As my noble friend Lord Shinwell said earlier, his education depended upon this and my education depended upon it.
My Lords, one can say that any action that is taken by this Government to restrict—and it will be a restriction—access to the museums, to the art galleries and the libraries is striking at the very root of popular education in the Arts and of popular education in every way. It is a scandal. I cannot imagine how the noble Viscount can come before this House to defend such an outrageous action.
6.18 p.m.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I rise with great diffidence, particularly following such an eloquent speech as that made by the noble Lord who has just sat down. I should like to tend my support to the Government proposals on three grounds. First, financial. It is clearly impossible for the Treasury to allocate as a special part of its funds and of its revenue money coming from the nationally owned galleries. If this money went into a special fund, every other financial body would say that revenue from them must be allocated to their particular field. This is clearly impossible.
So far as the charges for admission to the galleries are concerned, I think I might say, at the risk of being regarded as blasphemous, "God helps him who helps himself". The Treasury have to be a very hard-headed body of men. If I were in the position of my noble friend Lord Eccles and wanted to get money for the Arts from the Treasury—as I am sure he does—then I should feel happier
1440
if I were able to go to the Treasury and say, "I am doing all I can to help by means of an admission charge for our nationally owned galleries. Will you help me further?" By doing this he is in a stronger position than by saying that entrance to our nationally owned galleries is to be free of charge. I repeat, God helps those who help themselves; and unless the museum and gallery world can be seen to be helping itself, I think there is little hope of more help from the Treasury. That is the main basis of my intervention. It must be right, if we are going to get more money for the Arts, as the noble Earl wants; and in that we all support him.
Secondly—and I am even more diffident in making this second point—I am puzzled by noble Lords who argue that aesthetic pleasure should be free; that it is morally wrong to charge people to go into a gallery for a few moments of acute pleasure in looking at a picture. If this were taken to its logical conclusion, surely anyone who was fortunate to be able to go and see Dame Margot Fonteyn dance or Dame Joan Sutherland sing should also be admitted free. These are aesthetic experiences of great emotion, but we have to pay for them.
Finally, and much more mundanely, I should like to talk about attendances. Here I have an uneasy feeling that I may be out of order, but it has been said this afternoon that charging for galleries will have a disastrous effect on attendances. I do not think that this is the case. I have the good fortune to own a house which is open to the public. It is, I like to think, open virtually entirely on aesthetic grounds. It is not, like others, a menagerie. I do not say that it can compare to the great national galleries, but it has in it fine works of art. Unfortunately, as with everything else, admission charges have gone up. This year we put up our charges, yet we had our second record year in the time the house has been open since the war. I do not think that a modest charge will have any effect whatever on attendances. It has been argued that people do not think they are getting their money's worth, if they do not have to pay. I do not myself subscribe to that view, but I feel sure that having to pay a modest sum will not be a deterrent. I apologise to your Lordships for intervening in the debate,

1441
but I warmly support my noble friend, Lord Eccles. I think he is right to make a charge for galleries.
6.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, I should like to begin, in view of the way the debate is going, by making three apologies. I apologise for not being here when the noble Baroness, Lady White, made her maiden speech. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Clark, for not regarding his as a maiden speech, because I am one of those who, casually switching on the wireless for a different purpose, heard one of the noble Lord's talks and became a convert. Finally, I should like to make a belated apology to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, with his permission, as he is not here, for the maiden speech he made a long time ago: a non-controversial speech which he emphasised with great effect with blows on the head of the Peer in front of him. As this is not a more controversial speech, I felt justified in ducking to one side, particularly as the Liberal Benches have been reduced to two, like the liberal Arts.
I mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, because he raised the question of the ichthyosauria and cavemen, which is almost the only point I want to make in this debate. I think the best thing I can do is to give my own answer to a question put by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford: is art a special case? My answer would be that I agree with him: it is not a special case. But I do not think that this is the question. The question is: is visual a a special case? Secondly, are museums a special case? My answers to both reluctantly would be, yes. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, I cannot regard the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, as the villain of the piece. I think that visual art is in a different position, for the reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Platt. It is the only one that is a practical matter. We should all be immensely interested to see a first production even of a bad play by Shakespeare, like Henry VIII, at the Globe Theatre with the additional excitement at the end, but even with our technological improvements we cannot do that. We can see a contemporary portrait of Henry VIII, if we are lucky enough to go to the College of Surgeons, or if we are sensible enough
1442
to go to a public gallery. The noble Lord made the point clearly that we cannot compare permanent and visual art with live art.
The second thing I want to say is that there is a case to be made for charges, and one that I support is that it is the Conservative case. That is why I want to go back to cave-men days. We know little about pre-history. There is the conception that art is a luxury which we can afford, or ought to afford, if we already have proper hygiene and public conveniences. I do not know what the hygiene was in cave-men days, but what I do know is that even then there were public art galleries, which seems to me to suggest that art is a much more essential part of the historic human being, separated from the animal, than most people suppose. That is, I feel, worth taking into account.
But in crises, and in uncomfortable situations, the casual visitor who goes into a gallery to get out of the rain, as the animals went into the Ark, may in the long run be getting out of it something he was not expecting. It is only in defence of the casual visitor, not of the expert, that I say that I am not one of those who would follow the idea of buying a season ticket, even in the rainiest or coldest season. I might well go into a gallery when I had not intended to do so, simply to get out of the cold or the rain, or to avoid an awkward encounter with somebody. I entirely appreciate and agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, that that was the spirit in which a great many people went to the churches in the Middle Ages—as a sanctuary. That applies to art galleries.
I will not say much about museums, except that I am not an expert on museums. I belong to a generation to which a museum and a mausoleum were thought to be the same thing. We never thought of associating museums with music or amusement. The first museum was set up in 300 B.C. It was a temple of memory, a temple for the Muses. I do believe that only two of the Muses go into this—the Muse of history and the Muse of the space traveller, the other seven being different forms.
Art is a vital necessity in our present age for people—not for people who have studied history or science, but for casual

1443
people—to be able to pick up almost by accident. They will get from television all the fashionable ideas of the age or the fashionable ideas of art—certainly a picture by Rembrandt may sell for £2 million, perhaps £4 million or perhaps even £24 million; and if it was not by Rembrandt of course it would be thrown away. That is the economic fashion. What museums find harder, I think, is to provide a spectacle of the past, and the prospects of the future: and I believe that our prospects for the future will be much less than they are now if these charges are put on. So I would join with almost every other speaker in the debate in begging the Government to think again.
The last thing I have to say is that, rather than having season tickets, I think the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, of voluntary subscriptions from people who, perhaps for bad reasons, have gone into one of these places, is an admirable one. I have often myself felt for a small coin in my pocket when I have gone into a church or some place like that for no very good reason. I do not suggest, as perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, would, that people should actually be paid, but one might perhaps be paid for coming out of museums instead of going into them. However, I think it is time that I stopped this speech before I begin to get boring.
6.32 p.m.
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, first I should like to say a word about our two maiden speakers. My noble friend Lady White and I were colleagues on the Manchester Evening News, and I witnessed her maiden efforts in journalism. All I can say is that they were as assured and as fluent as her maiden speech was to-day. As for the noble Lord, Lord Clark, we got the colour television set just in time for the beginning of the "Civilisation" series, and it gave us great pleasure, which has been extended by his speech to-day.
I hope that as a result of to-day's debate the Government will realise that they have made a mistake and that all they have to do is to forget their unhappy proposition. If they quietly retreat, as has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, nobody will reproach them. There are no pressure groups demanding
1444
that charges should be made in our museums and galleries. There is nobody, even among the most ideological members of the Monday Club, who wants to de-nationalise the National Gallery. I can assure the noble Viscount that there will be no mass lobbies at Westminster from an outraged bourgeoisie if he drops his idea; there will be no student protests and no dockers' marches. Even The Times, I feel, might quietly swallow the prejudices with which it offended so many of its readers on Monday.
We do not have a philistine Prime Minister, and we do not have a philistine Government, but they are in danger of making themselves look like Philistines. No matter how generous or enlightened their policies for the Arts may be, they will be remembered as the Government which brought the box office into our national museums. And the "Free-the-museums movement will be a small, perhaps, but a permanent thorn in their side. Every time that a citizen pays his toll he will remember who imposed it, and the opposition to it will not be inactive.
Other Governments have made this kind of mistake, but have seen the light in time. I am not thinking only of museums. There was a desperately pressed Government in 1940 which had the idea of putting a purchase tax on books. Sir Kingsley Wood, the Chancellor, could not understand what the objectors were worried about. He said: "There are plenty of books in the country. Why are they worried?". But deeply and publicly committed as he was, he was persuaded to think again, and he dropped the idea. The arguments he advanced were exactly the arguments that the noble Viscount advanced this afternoon. He was putting a purchase tax on clothes, as well as putting an identical amount of purchase tax on books. He said: "How can we tax the clothes of poor people and not tax books at the same time?". Well, there was a great outcry, and though he was much more publicly committed than the noble Viscount is, in the end he learned his lesson and withdrew.
It is easy to see how this new Government, in the excitement of their unexpected victory, rushed into their current error. They have a general theory that

1445
the generosity of the provident State cannot be unlimited, and so the principle of exacting a contribution from the citizen at the moment when he uses a service must be extended. This is not in itself a bad principle. Even noble Lords on this side of the House must accept the need for some extensions of it. Not every noble Lord on this side, I feel, would oppose a proposition to, say, charge a toll on new motor roads or to have a pricing system for motorists who want to drive into over-congested areas. But no Government, having accepted the need to extend the principle, can extend it into every sphere automatically. Yet that is what this Government are doing, and have done in this particular case.
One can, of course, see the superficial attractions of the argument. People who love music and the higher theatrical Arts have to pay for their pleasures. Why should those whose pleasure is in the visual Arts and the antiquities not make a contribution, too? After all, this is the practice in such cultured, enlightened and wealthy countries as France and Germany. But we are not concerned about equality of treatment between concert-goers and gallery-goers. They are not distinct groups competing for Government subsidy. Almost all concertgoers—at least, all those that I know—have some interest in the visual Arts, too. They have eyes as well as ears, and are interested in the galleries; and they have minds which are stimulated by museums. But not all gallery-goers are concertgoers, and if you go into the galleries at week-ends you will find people who, even in these days of dress equality, are conspicuously poorer than those you will see in the cheaper seats at the Old Vic and the Festival Hall.
It is argued that we do not have free concerts and free theatres, so why have free galleries? There is one overriding reason why we do not have free concerts and theatres: it would be impossible There would be no way of selecting the audience to whom a privilege of that kind should be given. These performances are by their nature scarce commodities which have to be rationed by the purse. All we can do is to subsidise them so that the people with shorter purses should not be deprived. But any argument whether they should be free or whether a charge should be imposed is
1446
irrelevant, because it would be impossible to have a system of free entrance. But, equally, there is one overriding reason why we do have free galleries, museums and public libraries. It is possible; there is no need to ration them. There are no queues waiting to get into the British Museum and the Tate, and these services can be provided without imposing an intolerable burden on either State or local funds.
The question that we have to ask ourselves, however, is why for several generations we have thought they should be free? It is surely because we as a nation have not simply regarded them as a bit of fun, as dilettantism, a mere circus provided by the State in order to indulge its citizens. They have, as several noble Lords have pointed out, a deeper purpose. Why? Here I am in a difficulty. We have no modern vocabulary to discuss what we used to call the soul. To-day we can talk about homosexuality and prostitution with less embarrassment than we can talk about the spiritual side of Man. We are afraid of seeming pious and platitudinous.
The reasons for the free public provision of galleries and museums have been so implicit in our thinking for generations and so seldom made explicit, that we are in danger of forgetting them—as this Government have forgotten them. And so when we repress our shame and embarrassment, when we try to talk about the soul, we have to fall back on the concepts of another age, on the vocabulary of Arnold, Ruskin and William Morris. People in the nineteenth century were afraid of democracy. They were afraid of the mob, deprived, ignorant, ugly and dangerous. And they saw, too, that democracy could only be tolerable and sustainable if they civilised the urban masses. There was a vast attempt to do this over a wide front: popular education, evangelical christianity, free libraries, temperance movements, intellectual missionaries going out from universities to the settlements in darker London and Manchester. And the masses themselves throwing up their own great co-operative, trade union and Labour movements which had their cultural pursuits, too, simple though they were.
And so we come to our free museums and galleries, and the idea that Art, particularly in an era of religious decline,

1447
has its part to play in refining our society, in revealing to us and developing in us the non-material side of Man, in giving us insights into the nature of Man and showing us aspects of our world we cannot see without the help of the artist. And the museum, too, liberates us from our provincialism, our obsession with the place and time we live in. In fact—I think the phrase is Whiteheads—though we gain a necessary private experience it is a public utility, too. It is part of the civilising process.
The point was most economically made by Simon, one of the pioneers of the Socialist movement, early in the nineteenth century, that:
"Without the fine arts, there would be a lacuna in the life of the individual, as well as in the life of society. It is the fine arts that condition men towards social acts, that lead them to see their private interest in the general interest: they are the sources of devotion, of lively and tender affections."
Again where I think this Government have gone wrong is in thinking that the galleries are there simply to cater for the cultured minority who can afford to pay, or are willing to cut out something else to do so to make some sacrifice in order to gratify their interests in the Arts.
This is to neglect the mission of the galleries. Their task is not to cater for the existing demand. It is to create a wider demand, to attract those who stay without the gates or seldom venture in. Quite simply, the box office will keep them out. Everybody knows it. And everybody should regret it. The net result of the Government's decision is that people who might use the galleries will not use them. The shillings that are charged will disappear into the vast coffers of the Treasury. That will have an infinitesimal impact on the economy. It is as if a multi-millionaire began to collect free gift stamps. I do not care if other countries charge. In this respect we are ahead of them; we are the enlightened ones and let us stay in the lead.
My Lords, if the sensibilities of this side of the House are more acute than on the other, it is not because this is a Party political matter, because we care more about the Arts than the other side do, or because we have greater moral feelings. It is simply that we have deeper roots in
1448
those movements which were dedicated to the spiritual awakening of the masses. We have come a long way, even since my boyhood. But we have still some distance to go. And now the Government are proposing to take a short step backwards, or at least are proposing to halt. I hope that they think again.
6.47 p.m.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, I am glad to be following my friend the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick; I am only sorry to inform him that I shall not quite be following his particular line. It is generally agreed that most people are conservative (with a small "c"), and dislike change of any kind. If they happen to live in a country where motorists can travel free on motorways then, in their view, motorists must always travel free on motorways, even if a motorway costs £1 million a mile to build. In the same way if, in their country, entrance to museums and galleries has always been free, then it always must be free, however much the circumstances of 1970 may differ from those of 1870.
May I digress for a moment to say that I have for long been a visitor to the National Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery and, to a lesser extent, the Tate? On an even more personal note, I should like to add that I played a fairly large hand in turning the Municipal Museum and Art Gallery in Belfast into a national institution, and that a considerable extension there is now nearing completion. With all this in mind, I do not welcome the idea of having to pay when I visit museums and galleries in the future, any more than I personally should want to pay tolls when I go on a motorway. But it may well be that in both cases the day has come when we can no longer have this kind of thing "for free".
In 1870 there were virtually no tourists. In 1970 there are hoards of them. I feel sure that they will visit our museums and galleries in much the same numbers, even if they have to pay a few shillings in order to gain their access. I visited the Louvre just the other day and had to pay 3 francs—about 5s. I thought this a little excessive, and wondered whether 3s. might not be a more appropriate fee here. On the other hand, it must be remembered—and reference has already been made to

1449
this—that people pay more than this to visit properties either under the care of the National Trust or in private ownership. While, therefore, I have not asked for an entry charge, I accept it in all the circumstances which exist to-day.
I should, however, like to make two suggestions. First, would it be possible to introduce charges for a trial period of, say, three years? This was done when British Standard Time was introduced—and, thank heavens! it has now been abolished. Second (and I am now treading on well-worn ground, as is inevitable when one speaks late in a debate; but I will still make the point), I think the Paymaster General has indicated this already), I suggest that, in addition to any proposed exemptions, season tickets costing perhaps £2 a year should be issued to those who are regular visitors.
As I am not against change or innovation, and as it is obvious that revenue must be raised to expand and maintain our museums and galleries, I shall support the Minister and the Government, in the belief that their attitude will be humane and, perhaps even more important, flexible. For, my Lords, it is doctrinaire rigidity of administration and unwillingness to change with the times that have brought our country to its present plight.
6.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I feel that I may be bringing in perhaps rather a discordant note this afternoon, because all of your Lordships who have spoken hitherto have been concerned with the Arts. I am a Trustee of the Natural History Museum. I represent on the Commission on Museums and Galleries the three scientific museums, and it is with the outlook of a Trustee of that nature that I speak this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Clark, in his admirable maiden speech (which I think makes us all hope that we shall discuss the Arts rather more frequently than we have done in the past, so that we may hear him again), said that, by and large, opposition to charging for admission to museums was an instinctive and subjective emotion, and it was a subject emotion of that kind which first hit me when I heard that charges were to be made.
I then recollected that most of us—and I am surprised that some noble Lords
1450
who are connected with museums have not remembered this point—who have been connected with museums have been discussing charges ever since the passing of the 1964 Public Libraries and Museums Act, which gave local authorities the power to make charges which they had not had before. In my part of the world we have been watching what has been happening in the City of Norwich, where in the following year they started making charges for admission to their museums which had never previously been made; and we have seen that year by year, in spite of the charges, the attendances have gone up.
Having got that far, I thought that quite clearly one ought to try to approach the problem objectively and see what evidence one could find that the charges were likely to be a disincentive to visit a museum. I thought, too, that it was worth seeing how far one could find changes of this kind being made. An interesting example comes from America. I may say that I am not only a Trustee at the Natural History Museum but also on the Council of the London Zoo, which, although of course not a museum, is very comparable to the Natural History Museum. In America a very large number of zoos are run by municipalities, and hitherto they have made no charges for admission. Latterly they, like some of our municipalities, have been starting to make charges, and they too are finding, so I am told, that the making of charges is not a disincentive and that people still tend to visit—a point made by the noble Lord in front of me, when he referred to the Tower of London, and by the noble Duke in referring to his menagerie of pictures in his house. There is, then, some considerable prima facie evidence that charges are not a disincentive. If that is so, my Lords, I can see no harm in making charges.
There is further evidence when one looks at the areas from where our clients at the various museums come. Here again I can speak only for the museum with which I am connected, and I do not know how far the art museums have made an analysis of the same kind. We have been able to make a very careful analysis of the districts from which the children come to the museum in parties. The extra-ordinary fact is that, although everybody has been talking about drifting in and out

1451
of museums for recreation and to look at pictures, as if the vast majority of people who visit them are Londoners, we find that no less than just under 60 per cent. of the children who come to the Natural History Museum come from outside Greater London—not only from the Home Counties but from all over the country. Just over 60 per cent. come by buses, which is pretty expensive, and it is fairly clear that the additional charge of 1s. or so for a child would make little or no difference to the numbers who come.
By and large, the proportion of children going to the scientific museums is more or less the same throughout—somewhere about 8 per cent. When I look at the London Zoo I find that almost exactly the same proportion of children go there; and, curiously enough, it is almost exactly the same proportion of children, coming from a wide area, right outside London, who go there as go to the museums. It is true that this position mainly concerns school parties, but it is a fairly good indication of the fact that the people who come to our museums in London come from a very much wider area than we may suppose. I myself do not believe, therefore, that there is any real proof that charges are a disincentive—in spite of what the noble Lord opposite said just now, that it was abundantly clear to everybody. I do not think it is abundantly clear to everybody, because nobody, save the noble Duke and the noble Lord in front of me, has produced any facts at all in this connection. It does not seem to me that there is any real proof that the imposition of charges is going to be a major disincentive and lead to a large fall, if any fall, in the number of people visiting these institutions.
I should like to say just one thing more on a subject on which the noble Viscount the Paymaster General touched, and that is the museum service in general—not only our national museums where the charges are to be imposed. He was hoping that this proposal would give him more money to enable him to improve the museum service throughout the whole country. The first thing we have to realise—and this has nothing to do with charges, I agree—is that the whole future of the provincial museum service in this country depends on local government reform. We
1452
had Maud; we have Maud no longer—and we have seen a number of other solutions for local government reform. In every one I have looked at, the museums and galleries, and the Arts side of local government work, are thrown as a sort of sop to one of the smaller authorities to make up for what they are going to lose, without any consideration of the benefit of the service itself. If we are to have a good museum service throughout the country, it is absolutely essential that it should be the largest possible authorities that are responsible for it and that it should not be thrown to the smaller ones.
I think, too, that the Government ought to help with a point which was made by one noble Lord (I cannot recollect who), and that is with the expenditure on insurance and security for travelling exhibits. The noble Lord, Lord Clark, referred to the immense amount of material which is available and which could go round, but provincial museums say that they cannot afford it because of the cost of insurance and of security. In the national museums the Government carry that insurance. I can see no reason why the Government should not continue to carry the insurance of these pictures when they are going out to provincial museums. It would save an immense amount of money and would encourage the provincial museums to take these collections. Indeed, I think the Government ought to be prepared to make some capital grant to the provincial museums to provide galleries which are utterly and completely secure, when their only cost would be to hire a Securicor team, or something of that nature.
There is one last point about the museums which I think is important and which again has nothing to do with admission charges. I believe that our national museums, by and large, have been far too inward-looking for many generations, concerned more with the curatorial and educational side of their activities than with looking outside. A typical example is the library of the British Museum in Bloomsbury. I suppose it is the best library in the world, but for generations it has contented itself with being and maintaining itself as the best library in the world, in marked contrast to the library of Congress which has done an immense amount of bibliographical work and has carried out similar library functions that we have

1453
neglected to do. If we are to have a proper museum service, such as the noble Lord referred to just now, I believe that our other museums have to go far outside the purely curatorial and exhibitional educational side of their work. Some of them have tried, though others have not, to run classes in conservation and the like; but usually the money has not been available from the Government. The Natural History Museum ought to have been setting up classes for taxidermists, and getting in touch with all the Commonwealth museums from which it draws much of the material on which its scientists work.
My Lords, those are the lines on which I should like to see the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, developing museums. I do not feel that we should do any harm to them by imposing this charge, but I hope that the stimulation of that £1 million gift to the Treasury will, like bread cast on the waters, come back sevenfold (if that is the right quotation), and that he will do some of the things that all of us would like to see done.
7.4 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, this has been a long debate and one of considerable interest to us all. I think we all feel a sense of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for having made this debate possible. But we must not exaggerate or overstate what the Government are supposed to do. As I understand the position, all that is proposed is that the Government should do what cities with big museums all over the Continent do as a regular thing, and what indeed our own museums did until a short time ago. I understand this new proposal to be that there will be two or three days which are "pay" days, for which payment is made for entrance to the museum, but that the remaining days will remain "free" days, exactly as now, so that persons who find it difficult to raise the necessary fee for a "payment" day could very easily go on a day when no payment is expected, and they could then go as freely as they do now. I think that is the way in which these proposals will be carried out. The Paymaster General is to have interviews with local authorities and other bodies representing the museums and galleries, and no doubt some arrangement of that sort will be proposed. This is in fact the way in
1454
which payment has been effected in all museums that I know.
If I may tarn now to another point in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, it seems to me that he underrated the importance of what has been done on the Continent. It is all very well to say, "We are British people; this is a British interest and we ought not to put too much emphasis on what happens elsewhere". That is not a reasonable way of approaching this problem. If in fact payments to certain museums on certain days is a regular practice in other places abroad that, surely, should affect our position here. I have found surprising, on the limited survey that I have made, the extent to which that has been carried out on the Continent. In France there are 17 major museums, all making a charge for admission; in West Germany there are 18 major galleries and museums, and 9 of them make a charge; in Holland there are 10 major museums, of which 7 make a charge and in Switzerland there are 27 museums of which 17 make a charge. So all that the Government are proposing to do is what is done generally among cities on the Continent which have large and important galleries and museums. Belgium is the only country I can find where the galleries are free. There are 11 major galleries in Belgium and all are free.
May I now turn to another point. It is not the case that admission to national museums has always been free in this country. Indeed, I think the noble Lord, Lord Clark, mentioned the charge which was formerly made at the Tate Gallery. The National Gallery, the Tate Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery and the Wallace Collection all made a charge of 6d. on two special days during the week. The London Museum charged Is. According to my information those charges were given up at the beginning of the war. They were not reimposed after the war because at that time gallery space was limited and it was felt that it would not be fair to charge the public for admission until the galleries had been restored to their former size. It is the case that all these galleries in fact made a charge, and I do not think there was any great complaint about it from any section of the population. All that the Government are seeking to do is to redress the balance which was destroyed

1455
on the re-assessment of the charges at the end of the war.
May I now turn to a point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, whether in fact the making of a charge is a disincentive and discourages persons who would otherwise like to visit the museums. The experience of the management of galleries has not confirmed that point of view. Indeed, most of the galleries who increased their charges have increased the number of visitors as well. The Tower is the outstanding example. It raised charges from 2s. to 4s. at Easter, 1970, and the result was a very substantial increase in visitors during the whole period of nine months from the beginning of January to September.
The noble Lord mentioned the Norwich Castle Museum. The Norwich Castle Museum first established its gallery in 1965, when the local authorities were given power to organise galleries and museums. They made a charge then of 2s., which was later increased to 2s. 6d. In 1965 they started with 210,000 visitors; in 1968 the number had risen to 272,000; in 1969 there was a small fall back to 250,000, but still a figure well above the opening figure when the gallery was established. Other similar figures are available, in respect of the Cutty Sark at Greenwich, the London Zoo and Madame Tussauds; in all those places charges have been increased and the number of visitors has increased. That has been the experience of museum directors in the past, and I see no reason why anything should happen to check the same experience now. I have only those few points to put to your Lordships. I intend to vote against the Motion, and I hope that your Lordships will do the same.
7.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, you see before you one who experiences a certain disassociation of personality, if that is the right expression, because although I sit here upon these Benches behind my noble friend, the Paymaster General, in spirit I am sitting over there next to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and I may as well say that straightaway at the beginning.
Like many others, I have paid small sums, in Munich and Rome and else
1456
where, to go into foreign museums and galleries, and I have done so without the slightest objection of any kind but with a certain feeling, not of chauvinistic smugness but, I confess, of satisfaction of a national kind—I might also call it pride; it is not smugness; it is not superiority. The satisfaction comes from this: that I believe that the dedication which has grown up over the last century, or nearly century and a half by now, to the proposition that the great national collections shall be free to all who care to go in and look at them, is in itself a mark, I might even say a light, of civilisation. It is the mark of a civilised country. When we find it not shining to the same extent in other countries, there is no reason to be critical or smug, but, equally, there is absolutely no reason whatever to feel that we ought to follow the example of those countries. I am entirely in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who perhaps put it the most strongly, but also with others who have objected to the point of view that says that if other countries do this we should follow their example.
The arguments put forward in favour of the imposition of charges are a little surprising. The economic and political ones are obvious enough. I understand them, but I do not care for them, because I think we are dealing with a matter of the spirit, and that should be somewhat outside politics. Skipping over those altogether, I would point out that nobody has yet put forward—my noble friend the Minister has not—any argument in favour of putting admission charges on galleries and museums. I speak subject to correction, but I think I am right in saying that all the arguments have been directed to showing that it will not do any harm, either to the people who go into the galleries or to the galleries themselves, and great play has been made with comparisons and analogies with other institutions. It has even been carried to the length of comparing the great national art collections with the Zoo.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, with the greatest respect, I must say I compared it with the Natural History Museum and not the National Gallery.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I think the comparison was made, even if my noble friend does not

1457
accept it in those terms. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, certainly mentioned the Zoo. It was received with some amusement. Even when we go not quite as far as that, we talk about castles and palaces. Hampton Court—perhaps that was not mentioned, but the Tower of London certainly has been mentioned over and over again. The Tower of London is a great romantic, ancient castle, and people do not go there to look at the art collection inside. When they go to an art collection or museum they do not go to look at the building. They do not go to look at the building known as the Tate Gallery, but to experience the art treasures within. I maintain that there is no comparison which can be made between those two kinds of institution. If a comparison is made, it cannot be pushed as far as it has been.
What we have been told is that most of these institutions of one kind or another have had considerable experience of putting up their charges and that it has had no effect on attendance. It is perfectly true. If you put up the price of cigarettes or whisky it will not have any effect on the consumption of cigarettes or whisky. But we are not talking about increasing the prices of museums; we are talking about putting a price on new, for the first time. Several noble Lords have said, notably I think my noble friend, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and certainly the Paymaster General, that there is no evidence that an imposition of a charge has put down attendances. The one example of admission charges being put on a museum is the one my noble friend, Lord Cranbrook, mentioned, the Castle Museum at Norwich. I entirely concede that this is a good point to the Government's case. But is there no other? This is the only museum that has been mentioned that is in fact comparable in character to the great national museums, wherever they may be. This is one that has increased its attendances in spite of putting up charges. Are there no others? Why do we have to go to Norwich?
Has nobody thought about Kenwood? Kenwood is surely comparable in character to the others. What has happened there? This has been for many years a famous collection, and one of our best, but not one of our biggest. It has been free. In 1969, they instituted admission charges on Saturdays and Mondays: 3s.
1458
for adults and 1s. for children. The year before they did that, their annual attendance—these are official figures—was 214,280, and, the following year, after putting on charges, it was 146,198, a drop of 68,082 or 31·77 per cent. if my arithmetic is right. So they were 31 per cent. down at Kenwood for putting on charges on two days a week, and nearly all the drop, of course, happened on the two pay days, although attendance on the free days has gone down also to some extent. There is also Marble Hill, a lesser institution certainly, another Greater London Council administered property, linked with Kenwood, which also put on admission charges in April. 1969. They did it for every single day: 2s. for adults, 1s. for children—not a very big charge perhaps. I will not bother your Lordships with the figures, but perhaps you might like to guess what the drop in admissions was in the year after that. The answer is 79·5 per cent. That is what happens when you put on admission charges that have not been imposed before.
It seems to have been forgotten by many of your Lordships that the noble Lord, Lord Clark, in that most admirable maiden speech the he made, told us how at the National Gallery they put on a charge of not more than 6d. in order to keep people out, and they did keep people out. That is what is going to happen. It is not a bit of good noble Lords saying that there is no evidence to show that it is going to happen. I have just given the evidence. There it is.
A question that has been asked is, why should the Arts have a special position? Why should they be treated separately from anything else? Why should the people who patronise the Arts be exempted from payment? We are not talking about the Arts. This is not a tax that has been put on museums and galleries; it is not being put on the pictures; it is not being put on the exhibits within. It is being put on the people who go in; and what they go in for is an experience. It is nothing at all to do with the Arts as such, and it is totally false to make any comparison between what goes on in the museums and what goes on at, say, Sadler's Wells, the ballet, the theatre or any other kind of entertainment for which one has to pay. This is totally different, unless you think it is possible

1459
to make an exact, straightforward analogy between static, creative art and live, interpretative art, which is, I submit, absurd.
I have more to say, but I am not going to say it—the debate has gone on long, and your Lordships do not wish to hear more from me. But I do want to say that, whatever may happen at the end of this debate—and I hope that the Government will think about this proposal again, because that is all they are being asked to do—I have a certain personal satisfaction in having, I hope, added my tiny candle to this one particular light of civilisation that burns in this country and of which we ought to be proud. I hope it will continue to burn and that it will not be snuffed out by my own Party.
7.24 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, in this most interesting debate we have heard many noble Lords—and the last speaker was no exception—oppose the new charges which the Government propose to make. What has astonished me is the fact that most people feel that it is a tradition in this country that our museums are free; we feel that there are hundreds of museums in this country which have always been opened free to the public. But that is just not the case. The tradition is indeed the other way round: most of our museums charge, and it has been the exceptions which have proved the rule—for example, the Tower of London, which has been charging for over 200 years. I cannot see the logic in the fact that the Science Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum are free in London but that they charge for their satellites at Clapham or Apsley House.
This afternoon the main opposition, both inside and outside this House, has come from trustees, directors and curators who have never had any experience in the charging for museums. Few, indeed, have had any experience of employing well-tried commercial methods in making their institutions more viable.
I excuse this intrusion into this debate at this late hour by the fact that perhaps from my own experience—my museum is, I believe, the third largest attended museum in the country after the Tower of London and Windsor Castle—and as one who really knows about charging I
1460
can make a few helpful observations. I have never found that the imposition of charges has any deterrent effect at all. Indeed, my experience in visiting overseas museums has always been that by putting on a charge the attendance has often gone up, as indeed it has at the Tower of London. I am sorry to disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, but all I can say about Kenwood is that it must be extremely badly promoted if the attendance has fallen.
We have also heard other noble Lords say what astonishing results emerge when money is taken at places like the National Gallery. We do not know what the charges are, but there seems to be some disagreement. I am astonished not at how much, but at how little is taken; how very much lacking some museum directors are in using facilities for selling even more stuff.
Unfortunately, museum directors are inevitably rather introspective, and they rarely take into consideration what people really want, or take steps to attract the public, except for special shows, when they are amazed how much money they can take for a special occasion. They really do not know who comes, or why, because they have never bothered to find out. Those of us who have to make it our business to find out do know. We know where they come from, why they come and who comes. And what we know is that museum habits are changing. They are no longer the dusty mausoleums which one was taken round on a wet day as a child. People come to be entertained as well as educated. It is the combination of these two factors which is most effective to-day. Nowhere is this better seen than in America, where attendances at museums are increasing all the time; where the average price of entrance is about two dollars (which is nearly £1) and where there are three museums opening every week, all of which are charged for.
Noble Lords have asked this afternoon about the costs of collecting these charges. Having no experience, they are speculating what these may be. I can tell your Lordships. They are about 1 per cent., which I think is reasonable. If they are more than that, then there is something wrong with the productivity of those museums. I should be happy to advise noble Lords if they need it. As to

1461
deterring children, there is no evidence of this at all. Often children come unaccompanied with as much as £1 in their pockets to spend on ice cream and souvenirs.
It may be that we have for many years been proud that our museums are free, but I am not so proud to-day when I see our museums falling more and more behind in regard to display and facilities. I would rather be proud of what is in the museums and how they display these things, than that they should be free. This is particularly relevant to overseas visitors, 5 million of whom have come to this country this year. I am sure that they would be the first to agree that a charge is absolutely right and proper.
It has been suggested that people will no longer give things to museums. A very distinguished man in the art world, Hugh Leggatt, has threatened to withdraw his pictures. Obviously, the public are going to be the loser, although it may be that the "Victory" will have it at Portsmouth. But with the greatest respect to people who do loan things to museums, there are certain advantages which should not be forgotten. There is the fact that the things are well maintained at no cost, they are insured, and people have a great amount of pleasure in seeing their treasures enjoyed by other people.
With regard to the Valasqucz, I am entirely in agreement that this picture really should be allowed to be exported now. But I should like the Paymaster General to look at the question of trying to see that in future Englishmen can bid on equal terms in the sale rooms of London with those from overseas. With the enormous tax incentives given to Americans to endow museums, the State is virtually subsidising their museums at very little cost to themselves. This would be much better than preventing objects from being exported.
I should like to support the plea made by Lord Norwich in regard to provincial museums, which are indeed in dire straits. Many are running down and are no longer the proud places that they should be. I hope that some of the Arts Council grants will go to them, and perhaps more exhibits which are surplus and are in stores can also be used. Most fundamentally—and we are talking about matters of principle now—I believe the
1462
charges will bring about an important change of attitude among museum directors. It will strengthen the Paymaster General's arm with the Treasury, and I am confident that arrangements for students, children, old-age pensioners, season ticket holders and so on, will be no problem whatsoever for those who have experience in this matter, and that they can easily be worked out. I believe that museums will emerge stronger both in body and soul.
7.30 p.m.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, debates on the Arts in your Lordships' House are bound to raise strong feelings. If I may reminisce for one moment, I remember that some years ago we had a debate, introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Long-ford, on the state of the theatre. The next day those of us who took part in the debate were accused in the Press of being hysterical and bordering on insanity. It is perfectly understandable that emotions should run high when dealing with problems concerning the Arts. In some ways I am slightly surprised about the strength and intensity of feeling on the introduction of admission charges, since up to 1939 the National Gallery, the Tate Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery, the Wallace Collection, and the National Gallery of Scotland charged on two or three days a week. As we have already heard in this debate, museums and galleries dropped all charges after the war because war damage had been done, so this problem slipped quietly away. We have heard a lot about comparisons not being made with countries abroad, but it is worth stating that in Austria, France, Italy and Japan, charges are made in all galleries. Denmark, West Germany and Holland, charge a percentage on certain galleries.
The feeling has been expressed in today's debate that the revenue from admission charges should be kept by the institutions, and regarded as extra money over and above the Exchequer grant. In principle, I agree with this view. The Government no doubt feel that charges are regarded as Exchequer monies, but let us for a rnoment look back to the days of the Road Fund. About five years ago I did quite a lot of research on the question of motorways and the Road Fund. I contacted one of the officials in the Ministry and asked him who was the

1463
first Chancellor of the Exchequer to break into the Road Fund. There was a slight pause, and then a rather hushed voice came back and said, "Churchill". From the point of view of the public, if it could somehow be kept separate it would make a great deal of difference.
I personally feel—and here I disagree with my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery—that there is a certain parallel one can take concerning museums and galleries and, say, the Royal Opera House. I am not a trustee of any museum or art gallery, but I know a good deal about the Opera House. After the war it had to be taken back by the Government. It was given a small subsidy, and then relied entirely on the ballet to bring in the money. Then opera became fashionable and popular. It also became very good and a great deal of money was given to the Royal Opera House by the Arts Council as a grant. I think none of us who went to the Opera House grumbled as, from time to time, the price of tickets went up. This was accepted, and I think there is a certain parallel that can be drawn here.
I have just one point that I should like to make to my noble friend on the Front Bench (though I have not given him notice about this) and possibly he will pass it on to the Minister. Although one day a week is asking too much, I wonder whether it would be possible that on one day a month there should be no charges at all at museums and galleries? I do not believe that there would necessarily be a gigantic rush to get in, but people who have not much money, and who are really keen and think deeply about pictures and all forms of art treasures such as we have in these galleries, would find such a concession of great benefit.
7.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, some noble Lords opposite have been full of sound and fury this afternoon. As this is the Christmas season, perhaps they will not take offence if I draw a simile from pantomine, and describe them appropriately as mental giants who have been crying "Fe-Fi-Fo-Fum". Certainly some of them have been smelling blood, and are after blood. In my opinion noble Lords opposite have been both up the beanpole and in Cloud Cuckoo-land. I say this because seldom
1464
have I heard noble Lords so moved by emotion at the expense of logic and common sense. The words "free" and "gratuitous" have been bandied about in almost every speech in support of the Motion, including the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, when introducing the debate.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, I really could not help using the word "gratuitous"; because it was used in the codicil to the will which Turner made.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I fully accept that. On the other hand, I feel that perhaps in making that will he was unable to have regard to the circumstances at the present time. We must surely know that nothing is free, and that all human endeavour seeks some reward.
To get this question into perspective, it is as well to remind noble Lords that the costs borne by museums and galleries are now, and have been mainly in the past, met from grants from the Exchequer, and are nearly all for salaries. Establishments of museums have risen, since 1950, by anything up to nearly 200 per cent., in the case of the British Museum, and 212 per cent. in the case of the London Museum. Is it unreasonable that, faced with this mounting burden of public expenditure, and with the inevitable future increases to follow, the public should be called upon to make a partial, though a relatively small, contribution as visitors to the museums and galleries rather than as taxpayers? One way or another the bill will have to be met.
There is no suggestion—none has been made in your Lordships' House this afternoon, and none will emanate from me—that museums and galleries are over-staffed or inefficiently staffed. The reverse is certainly true. Therefore the salaries must be paid. Is it not just and sensible that some part—and the proposal is for about 9 per cent.—of the cost should be met by the museum and gallery-visiting public, rather than that the whole burden should fall on the taxpayers, some of whom may not have the slightest interest in their national cultural heritage, even though they will continue to contribute towards 91 per cent. of the cost of preserving that heritage?

1465
While I was deeply impressed by the brilliant maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Clark, which was for me the highlight of the afternoon—as are all his appearances, whether personal or on television—I must say that I was not impressed by the force of his argument about alternative contributions. Purchase grants represent an investment by the nation, whereas grants-in-aid are for the staffs and other costs. The sacrifice of the one for the other would be to compound our financial difficulties, to which the noble Viscount referred, and which he hopes to alleviate. Also, the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, knows perfectly well that in this matter we are dealing with a reallocation of resources, and that the present proposals are not inflationary.
Unfortunately, one of the anomalies of the decimal system is that a 2s. 6d. charge would be impracticable, and the Government may well find themselves in the position of having to mint a new coin in order to cope with the museum and gallery charges, particularly if it is found, as it may well be (and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine) that 2s. is too low and 4s. too high. The scale of charges and the concessions to be given will therefore present a problem to those responsible for fixing them. So I think it right that the directors and trustees of museums and galleries should at this stage be given the widest possible discretion to recommend both charges and concessions according to their special circumstances, and their views should receive the most serious consideration.
I must say that, when one considers the enclave formed by the Science Museum, the Natural History Museum and the Geological Museum, and views the proximity of the Victoria and Albert Museum to those other institutions, one is tempted to ask oneself whether the problem could be appropriately considered in a wider context than the imposition of entry payments. But the difficulties of rationalisation and standardisation are very great. Those four institutions account for over 5 million out of a total of 14 million admissions to national collections. But the Natural History Museum conies under the British Museum and is responsible to the Trustees of the British Museum; the Geological Museum is sponsored by the Natural Environment
1466
Research Council; and the Science Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum are responsible to the noble Viscount the Paymaster General. So that, while they are within walking distance of each other, they may be poles apart, administratively, and on matters of policy and direction. For that reason, I believe that there will be disparities between them as to charges and concessions, as well as in regard to the cost and distribution of season tickets and so on. So I hope that there will not be too great an attempt to impose standardisation, which in the circumstances could be utterly inappropriate.
I feel that the argument about whether or not other countries impose charges is irrelevant, but it may amuse noble Lords to know that the Soviet Union also imposes charges in most of its museums. The charge is 20 kopeks, with half-price for children. In my opinion, children up to school-leaving age should be given free admission to museums in this country, and I also recommend that old-age pensioners should have free admission. That may mean that we shall have to support a rather higher level of charges than the 20 kopeks which are considered appropriate in the Soviet Union, but it will be a sacrifice well worth making for the sake of giving free entry to our young children and students.
This may be an appropriate moment to refer briefly to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who I regret is not here. He spoke with great eloquence, great humanity and great compassion. He mentioned the power of the purse: but never has the purse been more powerfully, if ineffectively, used than when the Party which the noble Lord supports was last in office. Never have the purse strings been drawn so tight, and never has so much money passed out of the hole at the bottom of the purse. If the present Government are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, I am sure that the country understands that and will support them.
Finally, I should like to refer to the effect of charges on admissions, a point mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, As the noble Lord, Lord Clark, said, this is a matter of pure speculation, but it is worth mentioning that the question of alternatives to visiting museums or galleries must arise mostly

1467
in London, because it is in London that 80 per cent. of the admissions are found. I do not necessarily believe that the other facilities where families may spend their money are sufficiently attractive, and the prospect of the alternatives being overcrowded, as a result of people choosing to go to them rather than to the museums, will in the long run deter people. Since most people go to museums to enjoy the satisfaction of a cultural experience or in search of knowledge, I cannot feel that, apart perhaps from a short temporary drop, admissions will suffer in the long run in any shape or form.
Because of that, and because so little is known about the likely effect of the proposals, I think it absolutely right and proper that the funds arising from the charges should be kept away from the institutes and should go straight to the Exchequer. It would be quite wrong to distort the purposes of the institutes, which could well happen if the revenue were applied to them directly and did not come up to expectations, Under the Government's proposals the institutes will remain tied to the grants system, which I believe is right and proper and is what the institutes themselves prefer.
I am convinced that the proposals will work and that the administrative problems will be successfully overcome. They will produce added revenue and useful foreign exchange, which will come from the pockets of foreign visitors, for the benefit of the nation, as well as enabling the institutes to qualify for improved budgets. While the institutes are second to none, the trustees and directors would certainly not claim that there were not many urgent and desirable improvements to be made. As contributors to the Exchequer, under the wise guidance of the noble Viscount the Paymaster General, and with his encouragement and support, the institutes will have a much more powerful voice. For this reason, I support my noble friend in opposing the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and invite noble Lords on both sides of the House to share my views.
7.49 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just spoken will not expect me to agree with everything he
1468
said. But I certainly agree that we all enjoyed enormously the very moving maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Clark, who referred to the heart of this matter by talking about the life-giving experiences which are the subject of this debate. What I am so bold as to do—and I am delighted to see the noble Viscount the Paymaster General back in his place—is to hope that, for three very good reasons, he will be good enough to accept this Motion without a Division.
First of all, it asks very little indeed. It merely asks that a Minister, who has told us that he had this idea himself—admittedly, out of his long experience—and who, without consulting those most interested, without consulting his colleagues, put it forward without anyone having an opportunity to discuss it publicly until it was announced, should reconsider his decision. He is asked to do that having regard to the new information which has come to light, and having regard to the new evidence of which he has been made aware, of which he could not have been aware in view of the unfortunate and erroneous advice that was given to him about non-consultation, to which I shall shortly refer.
I therefore hope that the Minister will be good enough, out of his enormous stature and prestige on these matters, to recognise that he above all could afford to be seen to be reconsidering this matter. To a lesser man, less known to be sympathetic and helpful to the Arts, this might be asking too much of a political Minister: to him, I am sure it is not. I am sure that it would do nothing but add to his already great prestige if he were prepared to say that, in view of everything he has heard, he would think again—just think again—as to this proposal.
My Lords, I always rejoice to find such a great measure of agreement as there is on all sides of your Lordships' House about a number of the aspects of the matter we are considering. There is unanimity that we all wish to help the Arts so far as we can. Nobody has taken the opposite point of view. There is wide agreement that the Arts are in a special position, and should receive a measure of subsidy. The only question being considered is whether certain forms should receive an absolute subsidy or a reduced subsidy.

1469
There is broad agreement that the effect of the charges would be to deny to many, particularly those who just manage to get by on their private family budgets, an experience which none of us would wish to deny to them—what the noble Lord, Lord Clark, referred to as life-giving experiences. On all these matters there is wide agreement; and I am sure that there is wide agreement that we should not be seeking voluntarily to lower the quality of life, which is what is proposed, unless there were impelling reasons why we were forced to do it, or were forced to consider doing it.
My Lords, there is one further reason why I hope I can say that there is a broad measure of agreement; that is, that certainly in my case it gives me enormous pleasure—I hope a proper sense of pride and pleasure—to take visiting Parliamentarians from different Continental countries to the V. and A. to see the wonderful Chinese porcelain or the English silver, and to hear them say, "Free? Do we not have to pay?" I say, "No. Our tradition, of which we are very proud, is that anybody who wishes to enjoy this experience can do so freely, uninhibited. It is a matter of his capacity to enjoy and enrich his standard of living, not a matter of the length of his pocket". I am proud, and I am sure that many of those who have already spoken are equally as proud, that this tradition has grown up among us.
So, my Lords, I am bound to turn my attention to the question: what is the impelling factor which has made all us art and museum lovers—none greater than the noble Viscount himself, the Paymaster General—wish to impose charges, and what has made us do it in this odd manner? I shall come to that a little later. We have heard the answer. The answer has been given to us on the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The reason is that this is one of a series of charges resulting in a reduction in public expenditure, so that, to use the Chancellor's own words:
"…we can now look forward to the prospect of tax reductions".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 27/10/70, col. 50.]
He then went on in his speech in October to detail the reduction in taxation. So what is under consideration is the lowering of the quality of life for many people for the sake of a sixpenny reduction in
1470
the standard rate of income tax for some people.
In case the impact is not sufficiently clear, I have done my arithmetic. Alas!, I have had to do it myself, and therefore it will probably be quite wrong. But according to the Inland Revenue tables it works out that a married man who earns £5,000 a year and is a keen supporter of the Conservative Party and of the present Government will be subject to the following request by the Paymaster General. The Paymaster General will say to him, "I am sorry; we have decided to reconsider this charge, and instead of saving, on your 6d. reduction in income tax, £88 7s. 6d. a year, you will now save £88 2s. 3d. a year. As a result of our reconsideration, you will be 5s. a year worse off". What I challenge the Paymaster General to do is to produce a single one of his supporters who will say, "I am earning £5,000 a year, and I would rather charges were made to see the great treasures in our museums, including charges to those who find it difficult to meet them, because otherwise I shall be 5s. a year worse off". That is the purpose of these proposals, my Lords. You have to get to the level of £15,000 a year earned income, man and wife, before you are prejudiced to the extent of £1 in the whole of one year by a reconsideration and a rejection of these proposals.
I am bound to say that in my opinion the noble Viscount has not given himself time to think about this. I am sorry that he was misinformed and that, as a result, he did not take the sensible step of prior consultation. But now, I think, he can justifiably say, having heard what he could have heard before but what, owing to inaccurate advice, he did not hear, that he will take account of it. My Lords, it is a matter of fairly regular practice, to which I can bear first-hand witness, that the Treasury and the Inland Revenue consult, in confidence, prior to a proposal being put either to the Cabinet, or certainly to Parliament, those who are liable to be directly affected by changes in charges or taxation. That has happened time and time again during my own experience.
I apologise for delaying the House on this, but as the noble Viscount has been totally misinformed by his advisers I

1471
must make the position adequately clear. It has happened time and time again in my own six-year experience. The normal form is that the Chairman of the Inland Revenue writes to say, "Dear Chief Secretary, The proposals we have in mind are complicated; they will involve this, that and the other. I should like your permission to discuss them in confidence with the interests concerned". And I always gave it.
There were several such occasions. Unfortunately, as the proposals were discussed in confidence, the House will not expect me to breach that confidence. There was one occasion, however, which is a matter of public knowledge, and that relates to the Bar Council. All the proposals affecting the taxation of barristers in their last year of practice, which were very onerous proposals and meant that a particular tax benefit no longer existed, were considered fully with the Bar Council. The Council made representations to the Revenue, who then made representations to Ministers; who considered them fully before the proposals were introduced more than a year later in Parliament.
I am saying to the noble Viscount that it is unfortunate that, somehow, he was given the information that it would be unprecedented or unfortunate or wrong for him on constitutional grounds to find out the information he could have found out had he taken consultations first. Therefore he is more than entitled to take the view that he ought now to accept this Motion in order to give himself time to consider the matter and to listen to the evidence which he would then have had. He would have found out a number of interesting things that we found this evening. He would have found out that even if it was essential, in order to give the £5,000 a year taxpayer £88 7s. 3d. instead of £88 2s. 3d. benefit, in the course of a full year, he could have saved a million pounds without charges.
The noble Lord, Lord Clark, explained that in his view the Government had got the priorities wrong. If the Minister had consulted those with knowledge and experience of the matter they would have said, "We would rather do something quite different from making charges". Not all would have said that;
1472
but many would. How many more could there have been who would have put forward suggestions to avoid this method if they had been given the opportunity of doing so. I am saying that this proposal was not well conceived. It was not a proud moment for our country when it was decided by the Government that we should seek to lower the quality of life for many people in order to make the final five shillings a year benefit for some fairly well-to-do taxpayer.
Finally, on a rather technical point, the noble Viscount has not told us what we all suspect—and which is the reason why this proposal has come up time and time again and has been turned down time and time again, as every Minister knows—that it is something not worth the bother of doing. Even if you are satisfied as to the principle, as you often are when considering different forms of taxation, you reject it when you come to examine the method and the cost of collection. What wasteful expenditure may be incurred in collecting every four shillings or whatever the amount may be! The noble Viscount made an interesting and valuable speech but he did not say one word about the cost of collecting this charge, when he knows—he must have been so briefed; and we all know, who have been in Government—that cost is one of the main reasons why this old chestnut has been thrown out time and time again.
So I hope that what I am saying to the noble Lord is not felt to be antagonistic. Nobody could be more sympathetic to his translation than I, who was similarly translated when I came from the world of opera and many battles on Sadler's Wells straight to the Treasury, where everybody thought, mistakenly, that opera from then on would have endless resources put at its disposal. I understand how the noble Viscount felt about his translation to his present position. I do not want to go so far as to say that we should be ashamed of charging; but I repeat that it is something that we should not want to do if we were not compelled to do it—and the measure of compulsion here is totally inadequate. The reasons for doing it are bad. The noble Viscount, as much as anybody else, wishes to raise the quality of life. All we ask him to do out of his great store of goodwill is to reconsider this proposal.
8.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I have never thought of myself as an economist, so it is cheering to find from these Benches that I am going to come to somewhat similar conclusions to those of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. But what I get out of those conclusions is something quite different. I am sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is not in his place. I enjoyed his speech. He asked my noble friends why they did not raise charges for admission to watch this House. One could reply that this must be the only museum in the world where the exhibits are paid a pittance for being contained by it. At this late hour I am not going to speak too long, not only because of the hour, but because I am going to urge your Lordships to vote against a Motion suggested by my boss. While in a free society one can do this, one should not harangue him too much over the reasons for voting against his Motion.
I agree with noble Lords opposite that we are debating a question of principle. I, as a Conservative, would not deny that. The question is: are the Government justified in principle in looking towards admissions charges to national museums and galleries as a way of reducing, or rather keeping in check, expenditure on these museums? I say "in principle" because my noble friend the Paymaster General has explained that he cannot go into the details—and this answers some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, raised—about what the museums themselves propose, and about what the working of this policy might be, because he is still in consultation with them. It is for this reason I feel that the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, is a little premature; but it has been so eloquently introduced and so vigorously debated that we can all still be grateful to him. If when we go to Division any of your Lordships are still wavering, I suggest, again with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that you consider the principle first and foremost. I suggest that we shelve for the moment the arguments over what sort of turnstiles we are going to have to make collection economic, how we are going to reorganise the lavatories and the question of entrances and exits marked "One" and "Two" at the Victoria and Albert. That will be come. The national museums and galleries in
1474
this country are run by able and determined men and where the Government have the will to raise charges they will find a way.
If noble Lords accept with me that what we may shortly vote upon is a question of principle, the arguments put forward by both sides fall into place. Noble Lords opposite—and I am thinking of the Liberal and Cross-Benches as well—are suspicious of the present Government. They are put in an embarrassing position because they are not suspicious of my noble friend and many of them have paid personal tributes to him. They are suspicious of his right honourable friends in the other place; and they are suspicious of the idea that the way to contain inflation, which we all agree is the national priority, is to reduce personal taxation—a reduction which I concede affects social groups "A" and "B" most favourably—and that to reduce personal direct taxation you must either cut public expenditure or increase indirect taxation or, as in the present instance, have a mixture of both.
I am no economist and it is not for me to say whether my right honourable friends and my noble friends are going to devour or be devoured by the inflationary monster by fighting it with these weapons. But Conservative though I am, I cannot help regretting that bad luck and various failures of political nerve did not enable the previous Administration to offer an alternative which could without distortion of the term have been called Socialist. To make charges for entrances to places of spiritual, aesthetic and intellectual treasures is contrary to truly Socialist principles, and this in my view is an honourable idea. But for noble Lords opposite to flail away at the Government for reducing a subsidy by a small amount, while simultaneously trying to cushion the effects of this reduction by giving the museums themselves a role in the method of its application, is to flail away at windmills; is quixotic Opposition and quixotic Socialism.
Lord Shinwell's poetry—there is no other word for it—notwithstanding, noble Lords know quite well that there are hundreds of museums and places of cultural significance and splendour which do make charges. Was the old Ministry of Works, the Ministry now under Mr. Walker's wing, wicked or barbarian or—to use Lord Annan's word—"divisive"

1475
in seeing that the Tower of London kept to its charges? Is my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire an enemy of enlightenment, because the public have to pay an entrance fee to Chatsworth? Should the noble Lord, Lord Clark, refuse payment for his books, because they deal with the cultural heritage of mankind?
It is hard to get across to noble Lords opposite that money itself is neutral; it is a medium of exchange. How many people in this country, bent on offering their own experience and perceptions to those of great makers and artificers of the past, would not be proud enough, and would not have self-respect enough, to offer 4s., or even 5s., for that privilege and that experience? If that depressing vision is to be ours, then "Bacchus and Ariadne" becomes mere loot, a mere cultural and national status symbol. To Christie's with it, and let us build a mile or two of motorways in its stead! I must also say, since a little asperity seems to be in order in this debate, that I was less than ecstatic at the letter opposing the Government's plans, which two British artists of world fame sent to The Times this morning from a Swiss address. A case on fiscal and cultural quis custodietism.
To conclude, no one can deny that we have a Government with a reasonable purpose, which has made an uncomprising declaration of intent, whatever the fate of that intent. I am no Tory diehard. I would say that I was to the Left of both Government and Opposition in matters of foreign policy, and I am prepared to acknowledge that time may modify out of all recognition the present Government's economic strategy. But, just as I regret that we have not since 1951 had in this country a Government which could in any serious sense be called Socialist—we have not tried such a Government—so I believe that the overall strategy of the present Administration should be given its run. With the greatest respect to my boss, Lord Annan; to two writers whom I admire, the noble Lord, Lord Clark, and the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich; and with respect to the artistic concerns of my noble friend the Paymaster General, I believe that this Motion is a red, or perhaps a pink, herring. What we may be asked to divide
1476
on has nothing to do with the Arts. It is the right of the present Administration early in its term to tackle its declared policies. I urge your Lordships to give it that right.
8.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT BOYD OF MERTON: My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships for only one minute. I speak for myself alone, though I have the honour of being a Trustee of the British Museum and also of the Natural History Museum—the sole survivor of the small number of people who were appointed as Trustees of both Museums after the passing of the last British Museum Act. I do not share the view of a number of noble Lords that it would be scandalous to levy charges, but I think it is very much open to question whether, when all the sums have been done and all the exemptions have been provided for, it will be worth while. Therefore I join with other noble Lords in urging my noble friend the Paymaster General and the Government to keep an open mind on this matter until they have received the submissions from the national galleries and museums.
8.13 p.m.
LORD FLETCHER: My Lords, my only reason for intervening at this late hour is because, like my noble friend Lord Boyd of Merton, I am a Trustee of the British Museum and think it right to make my own position clear in this debate. I must first of all apologise to your Lordships for not having been here earlier. I was detained on public business in the North-East, and I very much regret missing the opportunity of hearing so many of the speeches made earlier in this debate.
There is one thing on which I am quite sure the Paymaster General and all the Trustees of the British Museum will be in agreement; and that is that the British Museum, like I have no doubt other museums throughout the country, is sadly in need of further funds. Nobody knows better than the Paymaster General himself that the British Museum, with its incomparable store of treasures, could render far greater service to the community if it had more funds.
I am not betraying any secret when I tell your Lordships that until the present Administration was formed the Paymaster General and I, and our colleagues

1477
on the Board of Trustees, were considering the necessity of making a public appeal for funds to supplement the amount which the British Museum receives from the Government. We felt that that was essential if we were to improve the service, increase the staff, increase the space and make the fullest use of all the wealth of material which exists—some of it not yet exhibited, owing to lack of space and opportunity, in the British Museum. I am sure that the Paymaster General will realise that if he pursues his present intention of imposing charges on the museums and appropriating to the Treasury the amount so collected, it will make it quite impossible for the Trustees of the British Museum, or of any museum, to launch an appeal for public funds to supplement the amount of money they are receiving from the Government.
I ought to say this. I must admit that on principle I am not entirely at one with some of my colleagues on these Benches who have spoken. I do not see this as a matter of principle. I find it difficult in principle to see the difference between making a charge for going into a museum and making a charge for going into the Tower of London or any of the other monuments owned by what used to be the Ministry of Works. I think it is partly a matter of administrative convenience. I should have been more disposed to support the Government if I thought that any money derived from the charges for entering museums and galleries was going to be used to increase the opportunities which the museums and galleries have.
Since the Government's announcement was made, I have made some inquiries, like my noble friend Lord Boyd of Merton; and I share his view. I am doubtful whether the administrative expense involved, even in a big institution like the British Museum, and still more so in some of the smaller museums, can possibly compensate for the amount of revenue which the Government hope to attract. Therefore I support those who have spoken and very much hope that the Paymaster General will reconsider this matter. I hope that he will be able, in replying to this debate, to give us some assurance that, even if he persists in the Government's announced intention of making charges for entry
1478
into the galleries and museums in this country, the result will be used to improve the total sum available to the museums and galleries for rendering service to the public and that he will use such influence as he can to persuade Her Majesty's Government to take this view.
8.20 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I speak as a deputy turn, and I have put my name down at the Table. I will not vote in favour of this Motion, because I think that it has not been given enough thought. I have heard a great many brilliant speeches in your Lordships' House to-day but I do not think that your Lordships have got down to the real facts. We all know that museums started with a great deal of public enterprise. People put up money for them because they wanted people to see works of art and mechanical contrivances, as in the old days my ancestors put private money into starting small schools, because they wanted people to learn to read and write, so that they could read their leases and sign them in their favour, which was a very suitable and charitable thing to do. The same principle has continued. People put up money for museums because they wanted other people to go to museums, so that they could appreciate art and appreciate the prices that the people who put up the money wanted to obtain for antiques, which I think is right and praiseworthy in these modern times. The point is that the British Museum wants money: all museums and all charities always want money—but, of course, the British Museum is not a charity, it is a public utility. But they will not get it this way.
I am talking commercially. After all, I run a pub in the Isle of Man, and many people come there. I am not talking nonsense; I am talking commercialism. All right, I want to make money. You could not go about making money in a worse way than this, and that is why I hope the noble Viscount will withdraw his proposed charge. The British people object to paying sixpence, threepence, twopence, a shilling, and so on, to go to museums or other places. You have to stand back and look at the thing. The National Trust, who struggle along without a great deal of assistance, are wonderful, and everybody who comes to this country wants to see their properties.

1479
They make a charge. I give something every year to the National Trust and I get a card, which I always lose. If I had the card I could get into places free, but as I have not got it I pay 2s. 6d. or 3s. to see something that I want to see. Some of the museums in this country, as your Lordships know, make a charge for entrance already, and some of course do not—your Lordships' House, for instance. They let you in, and, if you stay too long, they show you out.
Now let us get down to commercial common sense. We are a great tourist country. Tourists like this country. They like the whole idea. They think we are much nicer than we are, which is a great thing. They like to see the Guards standing at Buckingham Palace; they like to see the soldiers guarding King Charles II's Palace, which has not been inhabited for a great number of years, and nobody is trying to riot against it. What you should do is to sell to all tourists who come into this country a coin or a medal, minted by the Royal Mint, which has the reputation of being the best minter (if that is the right word). You should mint an ordinary coin which can be bought at an ordinary price of, say, 10s., and that 10s. should let them into everything. It would include the whole National Trust properties and all sorts of little, funny things. When you are abroad and going into a cave at Las Caux, or somewhere, you have suddenly to find francs in your pocket, and some old woman who has been got out of bed lets you in with a torch. Here you would show your medal, and you would be in. That kind of method must be established.
I am not criticising the noble Viscount. He just has not thought about tourists and what they are like. The medal I am suggesting would have a date on it. It would be minted by the Royal Mint, and would be what is called a bad coin. If you do not lose it you can get in everywhere. You can go to the British Museum, just as if you are a member of the Marylebone Cricket Club, you go to Lords. You say: "I have a card"— but you have lost it of course. Under this method you can buy a mint coin (I am not talking nonsense) which is either
1480
nickel or silver. Your silver coin costs you £5, but your nickel coin costs you 10s. or £1, or you can have the ordinary coin at the ordinary price. Tourists would buy these things, numbered, with a date and the year on them, because they rise in value. A £5 silver coin will be worth £10. A crown came out in the Isle of Man which was probably the last crown ever issued by the Mint, because of decimal currency. It is a nice coin. The £5 one issued by the Mint was silver. People were buying it in the Isle of Man and selling it in Liverpool for £10.
All you have to do is to make the tourist interested in the thing, to boost it up, so that they say: "I've one, and you haven't". With a scheme founded on that basis much more money will be obtained by the museums than can ever be obtained in this way, which costs labour in issuing and collecting tickets—but I need not go into all that. My Lords, I have spoken!
8.26 p.m.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, we have now reached a complete Alice in Wonderland atmosphere in this debate. That may not be a bad thing, because in the course of listening to speakers of distinction from every part of the House what has struck me is the number of points that require to be clarified. At least let us be clear about our facts, and then agree to differ, if need be, on the basis of the facts. One fact that I am sure we all accept is that we have been fortunate in that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has given us the opportunity of debating this important subject.
We have also been fortunate in having two maiden speeches of such distinction. We have had a speech from my noble friend Lady White, with her wide knowledge and interest, beginning with Wales but by no means ending there. Then we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Clark: and no man in this country, no man in the whole field of international Art, commands greater respect than he does. It would be understandable if men of Lord Clark's distinction should live in what is called an ivory castle, and feel that they are making their contribution to their country and to civilisation by their sensitive erudition in their special fields of study. But what is so

1481
encouraging and so wonderful, when we approach this problem of museum charges, is the generosity of spirit that has been shown almost universally by those who have most knowledge and most experience in this field. The Trustees of the Tate and of the National Portrait Gallery have said quite openly that they think this is a most deplorable and regressive thing to do. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, knows perfectly well that he has hardly a single friend among the Trustees of his own beloved British Museum. I know the exception, and, so does he.
We have had a speech, again of great distinction, from the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan. As his trustees have decided that they may have more influence with the Prime Minister by private pressure than by public pressure, the noble Lord said that he was speaking for himself alone. But if you analyse what the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, said, he reduced this whole business to absurdity. If you exempt children; if you exempt students, and accept the fact that you not only have to exempt art students but have to give every opportunity to your scientists and technicians of the future; and if you include also people of retirement age (they have been mentioned), other special students and special readers, who is left?
The noble Lord, Lord Clark, dealt with this and made a very important point indeed—one that I have ventured to stress again and again: that often those who have the most difficulty in finding even the most modest entrance charges are not the students—although they can be very hard up—but the 20 to 30 year olds, the young marrieds. That is why I say that my noble friend Lord Clark, and all his colleagues, would have been making a big enough contribution in many eyes by their distinction and service in the field of the Arts. But to this they add great humanism, great compassion and a great understanding of how ordinary people live—the young couple who have to pay the rent, getting some pieces of furniture together, perhaps with a baby coming along. It is nonsense to say that charges, however moderate, are not inhibiting.
I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, who made the rather unworthy sneer at two great artists, Graham Sutherland and Ben Nicholson, from their so-
1482
called ivory towers in Switzerland. They are high and dry. They were not speaking of their own needs. The great thing about the plea that is going up from the academic world and the artistic world—with a few exceptions, but not very many—is that this is not a pressure lobby, where men are seeking for their own narrow self-interest. They are speaking for the less privileged.
My old friend, Graham Sutherland, is no doubt remembering what happened to him when he was a young man. He had his difficulties; he was earning his living as a school teacher until he was 40 years of age and was befriended by my noble friend Lord Clark. Artists of distinction of the present day—John Piper, Henry Moore and so many others—found easy access to our museums their very life-blood when they were young men. I hope that I shall be able to convert the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, because I am a fantastic optimist. That is why I hope he will forgive me if I ask to have his attention. Many of us in this House have friends among older artists. We know what it must have meant to youngsters like Henry Moore, the boy from the coalfields, to John Piper and Graham Sutherland, to be able to concentrate on their own special line of study. This went far beyond the years when they were students.
So what is left? There are what I call the "gentlefolks", and I mean "gentle folks'. There are a great many people in our country who have not taken part in what we sometimes call the "rat race". There are many gentle families whose wealth has been access to books, to museums and galleries, to pictures and all the treasures of the world. Many of them, sometimes young, sometimes of the middle years, sometimes getting on into the late years, find that this is the joy of their life; and you want to humiliate them.
I went to the Tate the other day and there it was: "Special exhibition, 6s. for adults, 3s. for old age pensioners or students". I want to discuss this point with your Lordships because it brings us on to the question: "Do museum charges prevent people from going to museums?". We have heard quite a number of speeches to-day which show that some Members of this House

1483
genuinely believe that these charges do not deter people from going to museums. But what is the fact? The fact is that we can be proud of the rising standards of education; we can be proud of the fact that for the first time we have had a survey made of the use of museums and galleries by our schools. That had never happened until the last Government came to power. It was all piecemeal before, but we were beginning to get the complete picture. Why? Because for the modern child school is not the classroom within four walls; that rigid old school has gone. Intelligence is interest. You have to excite and interest the child—and how they love getting out of those four walls! When the child goes to a library, a museum, a gallery, the stimulus and excitement of it is the child's school.
If you are going to put charges on museums and galleries, even though you exempt the child, you are still causing an inhibition, because, as has already been said, there are occasions when the child goes with his class, but there should be occasions when the child goes with his family. Where is the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, going to get his million pounds? I am now sheltering behind what are these days the rather dubious pages of The Times, but in a leader yesterday some extraordinary things were said. But one plain fact pointed out was that in the past decade Treasury contributions to the museums and galleries had been quadrupled.
That is not enough. If people are impressed by being informed that we are spending four times more now on museums and galleries, they should ask themselves the question: "Where were we ten years ago?". It obviously shows neglect. In the six years during which I had some responsibility for the Arts, I never nagged, talked about the past, or bragged, because I knew that the very essence of this job was that we had to win friends, support and allies wherever we could find them. I accepted that this was not a sharply dividing Party issue, and it is not. It is not a Party vote in your Lordships' House to-night. Although it is not a Party divide, there is such a thing as Party philosophy, and if the present Government have departed from the philosophy of making the best more
1484
generally available, have they thought out the consequences?
We are told that there is only a derisory minority of intellectuals, or esthetes, interested in this matter. Wait until we start a roll call. Does the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, want peace or war? I want peace. I would rather win a victory than win an argument. But the noble Viscount had better look carefully at what is going to happen in this matter. I do not agree with colleagues who have said that this is a foregone conclusion; that it has all been settled; that we can do nothing about it. It is not a foregone conclusion in the minds of many people who care fervently about those matters. If he will find out what is happening in our universities, among our students, among artists of great distinction of every kind, and among educationists of every kind, the noble Viscount will discover that he is not facing small opposition.
Just as it is not a straightforward Party issue, it is not a straightforward trade union issue, but I have had the most cordial support from Mr. Victor Feather, the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress, and he has the endorsement of his General Council. I am not saying that every member of the trade union movement is going to march on this issue. I am not even saying that we have 100 per cent. support in my own Party. We never have 100 per cent, support over anything—and I have just seen my noble friend Lord George-Brown entering the Chamber. The only place where you get 100 per cent. acquiescence is in the grave.
I want the Paymaster General to note that although we may have odd men out in the Labour movement, either on the trade union or on the Labour Party side, the movement is overwhelmingly standing in with those others who care about making the best of the Arts more generally available. So, if I may respectfully say so, the Paymaster General must look to his own troops, because this issue is not going to be decided upon Party lines. think the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, said, very wisely, what most of us would surely agree upon: that at least we ought to know the facts. How much are the charges to be? What are the exemptions going to be? I come back now to the point that charges do not

1485
deter. Would the noble Viscount the Paymaster General think it discourteous of me if I asked him whether the Prime Minister consulted him before sending his reply to the Trustees of the Tate? May I have the answer now?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: Yes, my Lords, he did.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: He did? Well, well, well! I assumed that, but I did not want to take too much for granted, because it is extraordinary. A Prime Minister has the advice of the most distinguished civil servants, experts in the various fields of government; and the Prime Minister also has the advice of his friend and colleague whom he has entrusted with responsibility for the Arts. But in this letter I read:
"The Trustees' own experience with special exhibitions at the Tate Gallery for which an entry charge is made does not suggest that attendance will be seriously affected by charge."
But does the noble Viscount the Paymaster General know the facts? Was the Prime Minister properly informed? Does he know that only one-quarter of that Tate-going public, that special public, old and young, who visited the Tate to see the general exhibition went into those special exhibitions that had to be paid for? Is the noble Viscount going to say that three-quarters of the visitors either went in out of the rain because their feet were tired or were young lovers who wanted to hold hands? We have always had, and let us hope we always shall have, a public who go in for the beauty and the quietness. A sneer we have often had made is that old folks go in to rest their feet, and young ones go in hopefully for purposes that may not be strictly aesthetic. And what better place? But surely not 75 per cent.
Then, we were privileged to have a most wonderful exhibition of paintings loaned to the Tate by Ambassador Annenberg; and this generous patron not only loaned his magnificent collection but also paid all the overheads. That meant that on this occasion no charge for the special exhibition was required. The result was that the number of people going in to see this special exhibition was approximately the same as the total number going into the Tate. My Lords, that is the position concerning the Tate. I
1486
hope that it begins to be clear to Members everywhere why our Trustees and curators and directors, almost without exception, are alarmed by the possibility of charges being made, however small those charges may be.
Now we come to the National Portrait Gallery. The National Portrait Gallery, under its present Trustees and directors, has been doing a wonderful job in carrying out what was the philosophy we hoped we should all agree upon; namely, to make the best of the Arts more generally available. They have also been staging many special exhibitions. But I will tell your Lordships what the sad figures are. At the National Portrait Gallery the proportions of visitors who saw the special exhibitions were these: 13 per cent. in 1968; 14 per cent. in 1969; 10 per cent. in 1970 until we had the Queen's portrait there, when the figure went up to 44 per cent. That was splendid, because new audiences were attracted who had gone in because the subject was the Queen; others went in because it was a highly controversial portrait. Those who visit the gallery have their fare to pay, but at the end of the day they have not seen the highlights. Of course, we all like to see what is over the wall, and curiosity alone should be enough to ensure that anyone who goes into any of our great museums or galleries wants to see the special exhibitions.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, could the noble Baroness tell us what was the scale of charges for the special exhibition?
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, the scale of charges for the Tate when I was there the other day was 6s. for adults and half for students and for old people. I do not know the other charges. I think, however, if the noble Earl will forgive me, that the figure is irrelevant. As the noble Lord, Lord Clark, said, at one time 6d. was charged to keep people out. The fact is that there is no money in this for the Government. If this were something about which it could be said, "We are in a great national crisis. We are against this on principle, but it is going to bring in a hundred million", or a thousand million, then we could understand it. But this is not even chickenfeed.

1487
My Lords, think of the indignity of the situation in which if you can pay you go in on the quiet days, and if you cannot afford to pay then maybe there will be a free day. Need we be as undignified as all that? Do your Lordships know the figures for the great Museum of Modern Art in New York? On Sunday, a free day, 30,000 people clamour to go in; on days when they must pay, an average of 1,000. Do we want that kind of indignity? And are the people who can pay the people most interested?
I think we are very indebted for a brochure on this subject that has been produced by Mr. Basil Taylor and for which Mr. Hugh Leggatt is responsible. I should like to quote one sentence from it
"There is no relationship between the ability to pay and the possession of any of those capacities and instincts which determine the response to Art, intellectual curiosity and the desire for artistic understanding. It was a recognition of this that made the museums free institutions a century ago."
Would anyone really challenge that? Elderly people may be jostled around because the only day when they can go in is the free day. This applies to all kinds of gentlefolks for whom this is their life. And are those of us who can afford to pay going to feel very comfortable? If we go "lording it" on the day when money is being charged, is it because we are so superior? It is the indignity of it! It is the triviality of it!
One of your Lordships said "the time had come". The time had come! Even in the between-wars years, with over 2 million unemployed—in the year 1923 to which my noble friend Lord Shinwell has referred—this proposition of charging was looked at and discarded. It was discarded by some on principle, and discarded by other sensible people because they knew it was not worth collecting. That was 1923. What about 1945? What about the period in our history when we had lost two-thirds of our overseas assets, when our cities were blitzed and our industries disintegrated? In 1945–50 we had courage. We never even thought about a retrograde step like this. What did we do instead? We built the Festival Hall: that was done by the old London County Council. We had the Festival of Britain. We reopened Covent Garden. I can remem
1488
ber in my own home in those years Noel Coward urgently pleading for Drury Lane to be reopened. We were not always serious, not always concerned only about the highest levels of art. So we listened to him and fixed it. Nor did we apologise to people who still did not have homes or did not have hospital beds, because it is a recipe for barbarism to say that the priorities of a civilised Government must not make at least a small provision for the things of the spirit.
This is the test of any Government and I would tell the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that I am not joking or teasing him: I mean it literally when I say that I have a vested interest in his success. I told him on a previous occasion that I was his best friend because when he went to his Prime Minister and his Chancellor of the Exchequer he could quite properly use the record of the last Labour Government as his battering ram; and he did it, I am sure. He may say, "Well, we must do better than that". I hope he will. That was why I pointed out that the allocation for museums and galleries had been quadrupled in the last ten years; so I hope that we shall see it more than quadrupled in the next ten years. I know that is what the noble Viscount wants. This is why he is a mystery character: because he cares about these things.
He speaks about museums and galleries, and I agree with him when he says that the museums and galleries should earn more money. And since I have a colleague from the Treasury sitting behind me (and we all know that we are not always, when Ministers. 100 per cent. in agreement with our Treasury colleagues), I think I must in common fairness say that when, along with the then Paymaster General, I was fighting in order that our museums and galleries should be released to earn more money, and that the practice of the best should be the practice of all, it was not—for once—the Treasury officials who formed the obstacle, but the Accounts Committee. I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that he has an extremely businesslike Labour Chairman of his Accounts Committee, and I wish him all success. There is no doubt at all, in my view, that many of the restrictions—and we have agreed about that—were quite unnecessary.

1489
I now come to what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, had to say. I am glad he worked out the figures for me, because I too was thinking of those £350 million-worth of sixpences that we are collecting. Surely we could spare one of those millions in order to save our precious national institutions from these charges. I am very glad to know—because I did not know before—that if a person has an income of £5,000 a year it would cost him only 5s. a year. Mind you! if your income is £25 a week, the present 6d. will give you 4s. 2d., so you might be losing about a penny.
What does this all amount to? It means that we belong to a great country which has had many a crisis in the past. It had a crisis of deep unemployment between the wars; it had a much worse crisis than anything the present Government are facing, immediately after the Second World War. But no Government, Conservative or Labour, has ever thought of doing anything so trivial, and, I believe, so self-defeating, as this measure.
What I consider is happening is that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, is committing ideological hari-kid, and why should he? There is no money in this for him; therefore there must be an ideal in it for him; and the ideal he has is that people should pay. Even if you insist on payment, because of rising standards of education there is a natural growth in the number of people who want to visit our museums and galleries. Even charges will not prevent this kind of growth, but what the Government are doing is making it not only difficult but impossible for some people to share in one of the most civilised of pleasures.
And I do not think it is the numbers that count. I believe that this is a thoroughly wrong thing to do; I think it is against the whole trend of education. It will be resented and I believe it will be a running sore in the side of the Government. They must not imagine that the people who are opposing these charges will be drawn only from one Party or from one group in society. There will be a continuing campaign, and there is no reason at all why the Paymaster General, whom we all respect in this House—we know his deep concern, we know how hard he worked for the British Museum—should spoil his reputation, antagonise the entire student population
1490
that is concerned about those things. Therefore, if the Paymaster General is not prepared to save himself, I ask Members on all sides of the House to unite and rescue him in spite of himself.
8.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, if I have the permission of the House I will speak again. First, I think the debate has been remarkable, not only for the quality of the speeches but for the number that we have got in before nine o'clock. I think there have been 32 speeches in all, and I am sure that all noble Lords who have listened will have welcomed the brevity of the speeches. This is a good example, because we might have other debates in which we want to have 30 speeches by nine o'clock, and I must thank all noble Lords who have taken part.
I must add my tribute to the two maiden speakers. When one is translated from another place one often misses old friends—the people one used to hear in the other place. Then one day they turn up here, and as I was listening to the noble Baroness, Lady White, I thought, "Well, that is the old charm, that is the old skill; how agreeable it is to hear the noble Lady again". Certainly I listened with great interest and seriousness to what she said, and especially about the particular position in Wales, which I can tell her is rather complicated. One day she might like to have a word with me about it.
As for the noble Lord, Lord Clark, when I was a boy of 14 at Winchester he knocked my front teeth out with a racquet, and when he began his maiden speech to-day I thought he was going to knock the rest of them out. But he was kinder than I expected and certainly we are fortunate to have him here. Whenever we have a debate on the Arts I am sure that it will be the wish of all of us to persuade him to come and speak again.
I do not want to keep your Lordships long, so I will try to say what I think has been the essence of a fascinating debate. Of course, we got into a bit of a muddle as to whether there was a principle at stake. I think the answer is that if by "principle" you mean are we doing something we have never done before in charging an entrance fee at a museum,

1491
or some historic place where people go to see beautiful objects, then of course there is not a principle. Nor do I think there is a principle as between the visual Arts and the other Arts. Of course we can argue that as long as we like. Some people would say, "Well, I like Picasso at the Tate; it is from Picasso that I get great nourishment". Other people would say, "I like Judy Dench at the Royal Shakespeare", and so far as I know my young people, one would settle for the one, and the other for the other.
I do not think that there is a great difference between the contribution to the quality of life of one of the fine arts as against the other, but that is not really what your Lordships have been debating. I think what you have been debating is the fact that if charges are put on, some people who now go to museums will be deterred from going; but none of us knows how many. We can all speculate upon that. I do not myself think that the example from the Tate special exhibitions is particularly convincing, because 6s. is a large amount to pay for a special exhibition. When the Picasso exhibition was on, half a million people paid to go and see it. It depends very much on what the special exhibition is. In the normal way quite a lot of people would probably not be as interested in the special exhibition, as in the rest of the gallery, and that is why you do not get them all going in. But there is no way of proving how many people will be deterred. I want to say, as sincerely as I can, that I think it is really sad when anybody does not have the chance to get that spiritual nourishment, which the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, spoke about so well, in going to a place of art. This is a deprivation which we must take into account.
Really the debate is about whether it is more important to maintain the museums as they are, with no charges, and therefore some people visiting them who will not visit them if they are charged, or whether it is more important—especially given not only the number of people going now but the increasing number of people we all know will go year by year—to put ourselves in a position really to develop the museum service. I think there is fairly general agreement among your Lordships that a
1492
great deal wants doing in the museums, especially if you consider the provincial museums as well as those in London.
I do not think much has been said about what still must be done for the scholars. Personally, when I was at the British Museum I worried very much about the scholars, because though they are small in number I believe that their contribution to our civilisation is enormous. It is absolutely clear that in many museums the number of scholars for which they cater, and their needs—proper places to work at, sufficient staff to assist in research et cetera—is now becoming a terrible problem. The Director of the British Museum has to write to all the American universities and ask them to tell their scholars who come here, mainly in the summer months, "Please stagger your visits, because otherwise you will not find anywhere to work". I looked at the Tate Gallery report recently and saw that their great desire is to carry further their work with scholars in art. This is a very important question, and we ought not to forget it when we come to the, by comparison, numerically larger problem.
There is a point where, if the museums are not properly equipped—and mainly this means more gallery space and more amenities and more information—the crowds become self-defeating. I have seen that in the summer months here already. It is interesting to notice that the advice I have received from the Directors so far—and more than half of them have already tendered their advice—is against free days of any kind, because they already know what happens on the days when they have their largest numbers, and they are afraid that the same thing will happen on the free days. I think this is very important. I am very interested in this, because this is exactly what is going to happen, as has already happened in America. In some of the great museums in America now they ration the people; you have to book in advance in order to get into the museum. This is going to happen here, and there are several ways in which we can deal with it. We can adopt the rationing method, and say, "We are not going to have more than a certain number of children every day." I was talking the other day to the Director of a splendid museum in Toulouse. He has now cut down the number of children entering in

1493
any one day to three parties, maximum thirty each. But surely the right thing to do is to find enough money to expand the museums we already have and make them capable of handling very much larger numbers than they can now. That is my ambition. It will cost a very great deal of money.
It would be very agreeable if there were a certain prospect of getting something like the capital programme, which will end up, if we do it properly, at something between £5 million and £10 million, plus all the consequential recurrent grants. It would be splendid if I could stand here and say that this money will be available. Of course I cannot. There is competition from other parts of the Government service, and I may say that the defects in the Health Service, and what my right honourable friend has to do to put them right, add up to a tremendous amount.
With this competition for money, and with the Government absolutely determined to contain the rise in their expenditure, what really ought I to do? I could advise the House to let the museums continue as they are, with no charges and with no prospect of any large additions to the Vote. I could, on the other hand, say, as I do, that if we make this contribution, along with those who are paying more for their subscriptions, school meals, council rents and the rest, we shall be in a fair position when resources are available. I have all my life been an expansionist, very devoted to museums, and I would say to your Lordships that a vote for charging is now a vote for the improvement of the museum service.
There are just one or two questions I should like to deal with before I finally wind up. One is about children, which was raised by several noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, who I thought made an excellent speech, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lee. The directors who have written to me have said that there are two kinds of children; those who come in organised parties and those who come by themselves. All directors, and, I am certain, every noble Lord, want the organised parties of children to be as well catered for as possible. That means that you have to communicate with the teachers beforehand, provide them with a certain amount of
1494
notes and, when they get there, with a guide and perhaps a lecture. All that, they say, will be much easier to organise when there is a system of charging, whether or not the children are charged anything, because they will have to be known. This is an ordinary administrative fact. You will be able to deal with these children much more rationally and intelligently afterwards.
As to the other children, one sees them in the museums where they are a most agreeable and amusing sight. But it depends on how many of them there are. I have been in the Egyptian galleries of the British Museum, when they have been playing "cops and robbers" round the Rosetta Stone, in and out of the bays and—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Rubbish!
VISCOUNT ECCLES: That is a fact. If any noble Lord cares to come on some day and see this, it is quite amusing. But it is a question of how many there should be on any one day.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount a question? In which group does he think that the geniuses of the future will be—among those who are herded in by the schools, or among those who go in on their own account? Because they are more important than the rest of us.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I do not know that I can answer that question, because a number of the schoolchildren that I have seen in museums are extremely intelligent. They enjoy the experience enormously. They bring their sketch books and benefit greatly from having a teacher who can tell them what it is they are looking at.
LORD PLATT: I do not deny that for a moment.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether he will undertake that in considering any representations that are made on this point he will consider them on their merits, and not with a view to achieving any financial targets—in other words, that the children will be taken on their merits and not as part of a financial undertaking?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, certainly. I think it is fairly well known that we wish to bring the educational service a great deal closer to the museums than at present. I would not have anything happen under a system of charges which might hold up the connection between the museums and the schools, the technical colleges, and other forms of further education.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, may I ask—
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I think the House wants me to finish as soon as I can. As to the regular visitor, for whom we all have great sympathy, I really think that a season ticket which admits one to all 18 national museums and galleries will not cost very much. I ventured in my first speech to say that it would cost no more than one orchestra stall seat at the Coliseum. No doubt there will be a rebate for students. I do not think that that is going to embarrass the young people of to-day, and probably it will be a great convenience to people who are making a fortnight's tour of the country or something of that kind.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, asked me whether I would be flexible in considering the system of charges. The answer is, of course, yes. It is quite interesting that already the directors' replies are showing up considerable differences between one museum and another. That is exactly what we expected, because they are not all the same; and I undertake to the House that no system will be finally settled without the fullest consultation. I am taking into account many of the difficulties. I know the inside of the British Museum. I know that we give a free ticket to the Readers. That is Going to cause considerable difficulty, but we must do it. I know what these difficulties are going to be like. But I am equally sure that, with good will and with good planning, we can overcome them.
My Lords, it all comes back to this: Do you think that the museums ought to have a policy of expansion? If you do, then I have to tell you that it is sensible to get some contribution towards the future of what I believe to be one of the greatest areas of adult education, let alone of children's. Therefore, I must ask the House to oppose the Motion.
9.14 p.m.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, I think the House is with me in seeking to come to a conclusion on this debate. We have been at it a good time, but I should like to thank noble Lords and noble Baronesses for the marvellous way in which they have responded on this occasion. It has been a splendid debate. I want also to add my congratulations to the two maiden speakers who "did us proud" and certainly lent great distinction to our counsels to-day.
When I was asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, to withdraw my Unstarred Question and was then offered by the Leader of the Opposition this day (which of course is an Opposition day) I said that I should be willing to introduce a debate, provided that the Motion was a conciliatory one: because, like all who are concerned with the trustees, or with the management or direction of museums and galleries, I have a horror of museums and galleries becoming a political issue, dividing the nation and the political Parties. That is why the Motion is framed in these terms.
I asked the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, whether he would reconsider the matter, and I put to him various ways in which I thought the museums might respond if the matter were put back to them and they were asked to produce some suggestions. He refused in his opening speech, and in his last speech I did not hear any suggestion that he was willing to reconsider the matter. Therefore, though I have been asked by many noble Lords not to press this Motion to a Division, I feel that I must do so, because I know perfectly well that if I did not some other noble Lord would be fully entitled to do so.
There is only one thing that I should like to say, in reply to one point. That is that the Paymaster General has told us that it is the policy of his Party to review the whole business of subsidies and charges, and particularly, he says, in the social services, so that those who can afford to pay should pay. He is also presumably employing the principle of "clawback". The only trouble about museums and galleries is that you cannot employ "clawback" at the turnstiles. That is really the only point I wanted to make in reply because the House. I am sure, now wishes to divide.

1497
I should, however, like to make one last point. This is, as I have said, a conciliatory Motion; it simply asks for reconsideration, and I will not add one word of condemnation of the Government for their attitude at this moment. All I ask is for reconsideration, and I hope that those who wish the matter to be recon
sidered and put back to the museums and galleries will support me in the Lobbies.
9.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 84; Not-Contents, 121.

CONTENTS

Annan, L. [Teller.]

Gaitskell, Bs.

Nunburnholme, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gardiner, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Arwyn, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Platt, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Barrington, V.

George-Brown, L.

Popplewell, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Raglan, L.

Beswick, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Blyton, L.

Hamnett, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bowden, L.

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Bowles, L.

Heycock, L.

Serota, Bs.

Brockway, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brown, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hoy, L.

Sherfield, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Hughes, L.

Shinwell, L.

Byers, L.

Jacques, L.

Slater, L.

Champion, L.

Kennet, L.

Snow, L.

Chester, L. Bp.

Kilbracken, L.

Sorensen, L.

Clwyd, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Stocks, Bs.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lindgren, L.

Stonham, L.

Crook, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Diamond, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Wade, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Longford, E.

White, Bs.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Loudoun, C.

Winterbottom, L.

Falkland, V.

Maelor, L.

Wise, L.

Faringdon, L.

Marks of Broughton, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Fiske, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Fletcher, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Foot, L.

Norwich, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Gridley, L.

Albemarle, E.

Conesford, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Aldenham, L.

Cowley, E.

Hailsham of St. Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Aldington, L.

Craigavon, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Hatherton, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Daventry, V.

Hawke, L.

Amory, V.

De Clifford, L.

Headfort, M.

Audley, Bs.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Howard of Glossop, L.

Balerno, L.

Devonshire, D.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Barnby, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Ilford, L.

Belstead, L.

Dudley, E.

Inglewood, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Dundee, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Bessborough, E.

Dundonald, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Bethell, L.

Eccles, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Blakenham, V.

Egremont, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bledisloe, V.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Lindsey and Abinger, E.

Bradford, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Lothian, M.

Brecon, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brentford, V.

Exeter, M.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Falmouth, V.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mansfield, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Ferrier, L.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gage, V.

Milverton, L.

Caccia, L.

Gowrie, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Caldecote, V.

Gray, L.

Monk-Bretton, L.

Carrington, L.

Greenway, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Grenfell, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Nairne, Bs.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Strathcarron, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

St. Helens, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

St. Just, L.

Sudeley, L.

Oakshott, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Tenby, V.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Salisbury, M.

Terrington, L.

Poole, L.

Sandford, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Sandys, L.

Thurlow, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Savile, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Reay, L.

Selsdon, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Redmayne, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Vivian, L.

Reigate, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Rochdale, V.

Stamp, L.

Windlesham, L.

Rowallan, L.

Strange, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

CIVIL AVIATION (DECLARATORY PROVISIONS) BILL
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS) BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

BOOTLE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
BRIDGE STREET BAPTIST CHURCH, BANBURY BILL [H.L.]
GRIMSBY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
PORT OF LONDON BILL [H.L.]
READING CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) SEWERAGE BOARD BILL [H.L.]
WILTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments.
  IMMIGRATION CONTROL AND COMMONWEALTH CITIZENS
  IMMIGRATION CONTROL AND COMMONWEALTH CITIZENS
  EUROPEAN SECURITY: PROPOSED MEETING IN HELSINKI
  EUROPEAN SECURITY: PROPOSED MEETING IN HELSINKI
  RHODESIA: DEFINITION OF THE FIVE PRINCIPLES
  RHODESIA: DEFINITION OF THE FIVE PRINCIPLES
  COURTS: RECONSTITUTION OF CIRCUITS
  COURTS: RECONSTITUTION OF CIRCUITS
  EDUCATION OF HANDICAPPED CHILDREN: TEACHERS' STATUS
  EDUCATION OF HANDICAPPED CHILDREN: TEACHERS' STATUS