Sitting of 14 December 1971

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    National Savings Bank (Investment Accounts)
    Captain W. Elliotasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to remove the requirement of at least £50 in an ordinary department account before it is possible to open a National Savings Bank investment account.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): As usual my right hon. Friend will be reviewing the terms of National Savings before the next Budget.
    Captain Elliot: Is my hon. Friend aware that a constituent of mine wished to invest £6,000 in a National Savings Bank investment account and was told that he could not do so unless he had £50 in an ordinary department account? His rather natural reaction was not to invest anything. Could not my hon. Friend try to introduce some flexibility into these arrangements in order to encourage National Savings?
    Mr. Higgins: My hon. and gallant Friend may recall that both he and I served on a Standing Committee concerning trustee savings banks in 1967, when this issue was debated in the context of the trustee savings banks. There are arguments both ways, but I will ensure that my right hon. Friend takes into account the kind of case which my hon. and gallant Friend has raised.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: Would the hon. Gentleman clarify the Government's policy? Do they want the public to spend or to save?
    Mr. Higgins: That is a separate question. Our policy is designed to ensure that people have more both to spend and to save.

    Building Societies (Interest Rates)
    Mr. Carterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to ensure that increases and decreases in interest rates charged by building societies are introduced at set intervals in relation to Bank Rate.
    Mr. Higgins: No, Sir.
    Mr. Carter: Does not the Minister agree that it is an intolerable situation which allows building societies to increase mortgage repayments when Bank Rate is increased but not to move with the same rapidity concerning mortgage repayments when Bank Rate is reduced? Is it not time that the building societies or, if not the societies, the Government took action to remedy this entirely unjustified situation?
    Mr. Higgins: We have discussed this matter at Question Time on a number of occasions. I maintain the position which I have maintained previously, namely, that this is a matter for the building societies. The connection between Bank Rate and the rates which building societies both pay and charge is rather more tenuous than the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. McCrindle: Would not the acceptance of the proposition of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) substantially limit the freedom of building societies to balance the need to attract funds from investors with the provision of funds for house purchase by prospective buyers? Is it not clear that no building society holds its lending rate any higher than is necessary for one day longer than it feels it must?
    Mr. Higgins: It is very important to appreciate the fact that if building societies are to have adequate funds to meet the demand for mortgages, they need to take account of the rates paid by other institutions with which they are competing.

    Economy (Reflationary Measures)
    Mr. Dykesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now consider further expansionary measures, bearing in mind the substantial margin of spare resources which exists in the economy.
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement giving the progress of the reflationary measures introduced since July, 1970, with regard to reducing unemployment.
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to the report by the National Economic Development Office on trends in mechanical engineering, that growth will be nil in 1971, and 1 per cent. in 1972, compared with his own estimated growth rate of 4 per cent. per annum, what steps he now proposes to take forthwith to reflate the economy, stimulate demand in engineering and other industries, bring to full capacity industries which are working up to 25 per cent. below capacity, and reduce unemployment.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): I have nothing to add to what I told the House in the debate on unemployment three weeks ago, on 23rd November.—[Vol. 826, c. 1167–81.]
    Mr. Dykes: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's care and concern about avoiding overheating and not doing too much too soon after the measures taken this year, which were very substantial reflationary measures. None the less, is it not now time, perhaps, either now or early in the New Year, to consider additional measures that could be taken, bearing in mind the basic underlying situation of the economy, with a margin of spare capacity that has never before existed, with a labour margin which is at its highest, with stock output ratios at their lowest—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—in comparison with this particular stage in the cycle, and on the balance of payments front an enormous surplus, and the promise of trade continuing to be very favourable? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Would not my right hon. Friend—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is being intolerably long.
    Mr. Dykes: May I finish by asking whether my right hon. Friend—
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Barber: Since October, 1970, the Government have reduced taxation by £1,400 million in a full year and announced additional public expenditure
    236
    measures amounting to more than £600 million specifically to boost employment over the next couple of years or so. I have given an assurance that whenever changing circumstances or forecasts warrant it, the Government will not hesitate to take appropriate action, at any time during the financial year.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even though he has taken those reflationary measures, stocks are at their lowest since 1967 and investment in the first nine months of this year is lower than in the corresponding period of 1970? Will he now make a truthful statement to the House that we shall have one million unemployed by February, 1972?
    Mr. Barber: I agree with much of what is behind the hon. Gentleman's question, that it is now clear that it has taken somewhat longer than many people thought to throw off the consequences of the years of Socialistic restriction and ever-mounting taxation.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend observe that Question No. 15 is neither planted nor rigged, nor is it Ministerially inspired, and that in the West Midlands—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has asked one supplementary question already.
    Sir G. Nabarro: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I did not hear what you said.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to really only one supplementary question, and he appears to have asked it already.
    Sir G. Nabarro: On the contrary, Sir, that was the preamble.
    Mr. Speaker: It was much too long a preamble. Mr. Douglas Jay—
    Sir G. Nabarro rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Seriously, I ask the co-operation of right hon. and hon. Members in being brief in their supplementary questions. I call the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) for a brief supplementary now.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Has my right hon. Friend observed that in the West Midlands there is now an unemployment rate among males of 7·9 per cent., which has risen steadily since the July measures? How high must that figure go before my right hon. Friend takes the additional measures necessary to put those men back into work?
    Mr. Barber: I am well aware of the concern which my hon. Friend has consistently shown about these matters, and for that area, part of which he represents. The National Economic Development Office report mentioned in my hon. Friend's Question refers to the growth of production in the mechanical engineering industries rather than to my forecast of a 4½ per cent. growth of the domestic product as a whole between the first halves of 1971 and 1972. On the information we have now, I believe that we are still on target for that.
    Mr. Jay: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman at least make a further reduction in Bank Rate, for which there is every possible reason in present circumstances?
    Mr. Barber: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well from his own period in office that no Chancellor ever comments on that.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Has my right hon. Friend given consideration to a possible regional incentive to replace Regional Employment Premium when it is phased out? Has he thought about the possibility of a regionally-varied income tax or corporation tax?
    Mr. Barber: I never rule out any representations made to me on any matter within my province.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that constant repetition of the statement that he will not hesitate to act can have the worst possible effect? It can have the effect of making industry wait for him to make a clear statement. Will he therefore make such a statement before Christmas?
    Mr. Barber: I do not propose to go any further than I have gone.

    Balance of Payments
    Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of the seasonally adjusted figures for the United Kingdom balance of payments for the second quarters of the years 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971, respectively.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): I would refer my hon. Friend to the figures in Table 1 of the Press notice on the balance of payments issued on 7th December and in Table 1 on page xiv of the September issue of "Economic Trends".
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures in that table show graphically the improvement in our balance of payments position as compared with the position under the previous Government, and that they provide the exact basis for the recovery in our economy for which we all hope?
    Mr. Russell Kerr: One million unemployed.
    Mr. Macmillan: My hon. Friend is right. It is particularly gratifying that export volume, which showed virtually no change from the middle of 1969 to the end of 1970, has this year increased very considerably and contributes to the expansion.
    Mr. Dell: Which is more important—to maintain the balance of payments surplus or to bring down the level of unemployment?
    Mr. Macmillan: The mainainting of the balance of payments surplus and the increase in exports and expansion into other markets are a prerequisite to bringing down unemployment.

    Post-War Credits
    Mr. Cockeramasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now repay all outstanding post-war credits as a means of injecting more purchasing power into the economy.
    Mr. Barber: This matter has been raised by a number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen and it merits a full reply. For the convenience of the House, I will, therefore, answer it at the end of Questions.

    Banking (Credit Measures)
    Mr. John Hannamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made as to the effect of his new credit measures on the banking industry.
    Mr. Higgins: The new arrangements have been in operation for only three months, but there is already evidence that they are having the intended effect in stimulating competition and innovation in banking.
    Mr. Hannam: Is my hon. Friend aware that many small firms have welcomed the ending of the official ceiling on lending, and that this has adversely affected the investment programme of small firms, as was pointed out in the Bolton Committee Report?
    Mr. Higgins: I am not quite clear about what my hon. Friend said. I understood him to say that this had been welcomed but that it had adversely affected the small firms. I will look at the matter in the context of the report, on which the Government have not yet taken a firm view.
    Dr. Gilbert: Now that the Government are switching over to a policy of operating on total resources rather than on the total loans of the banks, will the hon. Gentleman consider recommending to the Bank of England that it follows the example of the Federal Reserve system in the United States, under which the minutes of the Open Market Committee are regularly published?
    Mr. Higgins: No, Sir. I think that the two institutional arrangements are quite different. The arrangements we have introduced are, nonetheless, a major advance and should be recognised as being to the general benefit of the economy as a whole.

    Public Expenditure
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in order the eight programmes of public expenditure which he expects will grow the fastest between 1971–72 and 1975–76.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The figures for each of the 21 programmes are given in Table 1.2 of the recent public expenditure White Paper (Cmnd. 4829). The
    240
    eight programmes showing the highest percentage increases are common services, arts, roads, overseas aid, law and order, miscellaneous local services, health and personal social services and education.
    Mr. Chapman: Whilst I applaud the general trend in the White Paper on increased Government expenditure, and welcome the new road construction and realise that it shows one of the highest average annual rates of expenditure, does my hon. Friend agree that at least a sum equivalent to a proportion of the extra expenditure on roads should be spent on minimising and alleviating the pollution that will result from such expenditure? Can he arrange the stewardship of the finances of this country to ensure that that happens?
    Mr. Macmillan: The pollution caused by more motor cars using better roads is a separate matter, which would be better dealt with under the appropriate part of the expenditure figures rather than as part of the road construction programme.

    Government Borrowing (Charges)
    Mr. Redmondasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total of interest and charges paid by the United Kingdom so far in 1971 on official short-and medium-term borrowings made since October, 1964 from the International Monetary Fund and central banks; and how this compares with the years 1965 to 1970, respectively.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: In the first three quarters of 1971 about £23 million. With permission, I will circulate the remaining figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Redmond: That is a little awkward. We might have had a comparison of the figures. If we had, could not we have seen that there has been a great reduction in interest rates? If so, could great publicity be given to it, because that would encourage industry to invest and give it confidence in the future?
    Mr. Macmillan: I am sorry to have caused my hon. Friend embarrassment. It is true that there is satisfactory reduction in the amount of debt outstanding and, therefore, in the amount of interest payments.
    Following is the information:

    Year

    Amount (million)

    1965

    16·0

    1966

    23·4

    1967

    31·9

    1968

    83·6

    1969

    138·4

    1970

    73·5

    Expenditure and Tax Reductions
    Mr. Parkinsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of accelerated Government expenditure and special tax remissions which the Government have introduced to increase employment.
    Mr. Barber: General taxation reductions amounting to £1,400 million in a full year; £150 million over two years for accelerated depreciation; and £450 million in extra public expenditure up to 1974–75—not counting the RB211 and Rolls-Royce (1971).
    Mr. Parkinson: Would my right hon. Friend agree that this record presents a startling contrast with the record—
    Mr. Heffer: Planted!
    Mr. Parkinson: No; this is an entirely spontaneous Question, not at all spurious. Would my right hon. Friend agree that this presents a startling contrast with the record of the Labour Party when it was in Government when it deliberately set out to deflate the economy and to create unemployment? Does it not give the lie to the allegations that we as a party do not care about the consequences of our policies?
    Mr. Barber: My hon. Friend has made a very good point.
    Mr. Taverne: Does not the total result—having regard to unemployment—show that the whole trend of the Government's policy has been misdirected? Does it not further show that the public expenditure cuts announced earlier and the charges imposed were unnecessary?
    Mr. Barber: No, Sir. The cuts made in 1970 and the charges announced in the autumn of 1970 represented a wholly justified change in public expenditure priorities, as we explained. As to the policies we have pursued over reductions in taxation and increases in public
    242
    expenditure, I shudder to think of the level of unemployment we would have now if we had not taken such steps.
    Dame Irene Ward: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that he promised to help me draft a Parliamentary Question to ascertain what particular projects the increased public expenditure will produce? Does he remember that he said that it was a very good Question and would help me with it? Is he aware that so far I have not had a reply? Can he tell me when I shall be able to put the Question down?
    Mr. Barber: The reason why my hon. Friend has not had the reply is that she has not yet put down the Question, but in fairness to her I should say that the reason why she has not put down the Question is that, although I have drafted it for her, I have not yet sent it to her. It will come later today.
    Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. Could I make it clear that I rang up and asked the Chancellor if he would let me have a Question—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The telephone conversations of the hon. Lady are not matters of order.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Reverting to the original Question, can the right hon. Gentleman say how we are getting on with increasing employment?
    Mr. Barber: It was implicit in what I said earlier that the present Government have done more than any other Government to increase demand and to create employment.

    United Kingdom Reserves
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present level of the official reserves.
    Mr. Higgins: At end-November, converted at par, £2,322 million.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does my hon. Friend consider that the state of our reserves is now such that we can reduce our international indebtedness still further in the near future?
    Mr. Higgins: The only official short and medium-term outstanding debt to the I.M.F. is £415 million at the end of November, 1971, which compares with an

    243
    amount outstanding at the end of June, 1970, of £1,461 million. The outstanding debt I have mentioned is not due to be repaid until next June.
    Dr. Gilbertasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will henceforth publish full figures of the United Kingdom's gold and foreign currency reserves.
    Mr. Higgins: This is already done.
    Dr. Gilbert: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the full international position is never given? In answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) a moment ago he gave figures which were some of the highest in history. Why can we not have the full figures?
    Mr. Higgins: The answer is that this is already done, as I have said. The monthly statement about the official reserves gives the true total, at the end of the month, of the exchange equalisation account, current holdings of gold, S.D.R.s and foreign exchange. This is the definition of official reserves, used by successive Governments for a long time.

    Rented Property (Tax Offset)
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what circumstances the cost of any rented property is permitted to be offset against taxation.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Rent, repairs and other maintenance expenses of business premises or sub-let property can be set off against the income from the business or the sub-letting.
    Mr. Ashton: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why big business should be allowed to offset rented property against their tax when council tenants and tenants of other rented property are not? Why is there this preference for businesses and not people?
    Mr. Macmillan: It is not a question of big business at all. Any business can set off the repairs to the premises in which that business is carried against profits from that business. As far as I know the only other people who may set off rents against income are some M.P.s in some circumstances.
    Mr. Skinner: On the basis of that last answer, would it be possible for the
    244
    Treasury to introduce a Bill to allow council tenants to turn their properties into businesses?
    Mr. Macmillan: If a person is carrying on a business from the premises rented to him by a local authority, whether he is allowed to carry on that business is a matter for the local authority and whether he can charge to tax any expenses which he may incur in the course of the business is a matter for the tax authorities, quite independent of who is his landlord.

    £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
    Mr. William Priceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much, in percentage terms the £ sterling has declined in value during 1971.
    Mr. Higgins: Between mid-December, 1970 and mid-October, 1971, the latest date for which information is available, the purchasing power of the £ sterling is estimated to have fallen by 7·3 per cent.
    This comparison is based on the movement in the General Index of Retail Prices.
    Mr. Price: Why will the Chancellor not admit that he has been caught with his finger in the till? Why does he not go to the people and say quite honestly that at the present rate of progress and as a direct result of Government policy, the £ will soon be worth nothing?
    Mr. Higgins: If the present rate of progress continues, the de-escalation will on the whole be welcomed—not that we are complacent about the overall position. Between July and October retail prices rose by about ¾per cent. compared with 1½ per cent. for the same period in the previous year. We are making progress in this battle, but obviously we had a great deal of ground to make up, given the situation we inherited.
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Can my hon. Friend say whether he considers the nature of the inflation from which we have suffered over the last few years to have been cyclical or structural or a mixture of both, and if it has been the latter, could he confirm that the flexible and multi-directional efforts that he and his right hon. Friends have made are mast likely to be effective?
    Mr. Higgins: The answer to my hon. Friend, whose interest in this subject is, I know, considerable, is that the basic situation was created by the previous Government, but the aproach which we are now adopting—the measures of my right hon. Friend, the C.B.I. initiative and the policy of resisting any inflationary wage claims—is, I believe, beginning to bear fruit, and that is reflected in the figures which I have quoted.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when the Treasury will authorise an increase of pensions to old-age pensioners to compensate them for this serious reduction in purchasing power?
    Mr. Higgins: I am astonished that the hon. Member is not aware of the increase recently made. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend.

    Mortgage Interest (Tax Relief)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek powers to limit claims for income tax relief on mortgage interest to the principal residence of the applicant.
    Mr. Higgins: No, Sir.
    Mr. Jenkins: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Question asks whether the Chancellor will limit relief on mortgage interest to the principal residence of an applicant. As the Government are cutting housing subsidies, will they not be equally keen to investigate whether the intentions of Parliament are being unreasonably exploited in this direction too? If, as I suspect, a large number of mortgagors are receiving tax relief on more than one house, would it not at least be worthwhile investigating the situation and then telling us what the position is?
    Mr. Higgins: I had read the hon. Gentleman's Question and would stress that this was a point discussed at considerable length on 23rd November at Question Time when my hon. Friends the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary dealt with this on the grounds that comparisons of this sort were not applicable.

    Investment
    Mr. Tugendhatasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to make any changes in the regulations governing direct industrial investment coming into this country from foreign-owned companies.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: My right hon. Friend does not propose any changes at present.
    Mr. Tugendhat: Does the Chief Secretary accept that that is a disappointing answer? This country needs substantially to increase the level of industrial investment. One of the advantages of joining the Common Market should be that we attract more investment from international companies, both American-owned and Continental. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the present restrictions requiring these companies to bring in sufficient funds to cover the value of their fixed capital assets is a disincentive and that the level of investment might be improved if he did something about it?
    Mr. Macmillan: My right hon. Friend is certainly well aware of the value of foreign investment in this country. We will bear in mind the point which my hon. Friend makes.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on recent trends in private investment.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Provisional figures published yesterday, 13th December, indicate that in the third quarter of this year manufacturing investment was at the same level as in the second quarter. There was a further rise in the third quarter in investment in the distributive and service industries, excluding shipping.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that those figures are very depressing? Will he say what is his estimate of the trend in the next 12 months and when there will be some effect on the disastrous unemployment figures that are repeatedly referred to in the House?
    Mr. Macmillan: The reflationary action taken by the Government will

    247
    help industrial investment by strengthening demand generally. The fact that the estimates for the third quarter have remained unchanged from the estimates for the second quarter suggests that the fall in manufacturing investment may well have been halted.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Conservative answer is the true one? The one thing that will bring about investment in the private sector is lower taxation and no Government interference.
    Mr. Macmillan: I have noted my hon. Friend's contribution.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Will the hon. Gentleman not rest upon that piece of dogma, which has proved peculiarly inappropriate over the past year? Will he also recognise that these investment figures in what they mean for the future are the most disturbing of all the depressing indices in the economy at the present time? What the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done is to stimulate demand generally. Will not the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has further measures in mind to ensure that 1972 is not as uniquely dismal a year from the point of view of private fixed investment as 1971 has been?
    Mr. Macmillan: In spite of the contrasting dogma, my right hon. Friend's ideas have produced more successful results than the right hon. Gentleman did in his period of office. I do not think that the adoption of the kind of fine tuning and forecasting of economic planning which was so disastrous during the period of office of the previous Government is a sensible suggestion to make at this time.

    Macro-economic Forecasting
    Mr. Douglasasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the facilities available to the Treasury for macro-economic forecasting.
    Mr. Higgins: The economic assessment divisions, which cover both short and medium-term macro-economic forecasts, consist of three divisions and two supporting units which together employ about 30 professionally qualified staff, most of whom are economists. They work in close contact with the economic
    248
    and statistical divisions of the other economic departments of the Government. An extensive range of computing facilities is available.
    Mr. Douglas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that although the Chancellor of the Exchequer has at his disposal some of the best economic forecasting services available to any Minister of Finance in the world, his incompetence in interpreting the results of this forecasting has resulted in the disastrous unemployment situation?
    Mr. Higgins: I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but I certainly do not agree with the second part. We have been in many ways in an unprecedented situation, with a rapid rate of cost-push inflation. It has been extremely difficult, because there has been virtually no historical basis on which to establish relationships, to estimate the effect this will have on unemployment. The effect on unemployment of inflationary wage increases is much greater than we expected.
    Mr. Molloy: Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Gentleman seem to have remarkable confidence in their policies, which they say are designed to bring down unemployment, every time they come to the House of Commons and say this, the rate of unemployment increases. Would it not be sensible to consider the poverty and anguish which unemployment means and to have the courage to change these disastrous policies?
    Mr. Higgins: Certainly not. What is important in this area is the question of time lag. If there is one thing that one learns from economic analysis, it is that it is very dangerous to take action in view of all the lags in movement of economic variables. My right hon. Friend has made quite clear his position in respect of the overall management of the economy.

    Income Tax
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present effective rate of income tax for a married man with two children not over 11 years of age who is earning the average weekly wage; and how this compares with his effective rate in the financial year 1970–71.
    Mr. Higgins: About 12·8 per cent. now compared with 14·2 per cent. for 1970–71, assuming the average wage appropriate to each year.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: I congratulate the Government on the substantial drop. I suggest that it would make the collection of tax much simpler if all married men on particular rates of income paid the same amount of tax and the difference was then made good to married men with children by increasing family allowances.
    Mr. Higgins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his first point. I will study the second point which he raised.
    Mr. Latham: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this question concerns the average income of a married man with a wife and two children under 11 years of age. Having deduced a 1·4 per cent. improvement, so that we can make a comparison, will he say what is the percentage of increased outgoings in terms of milk, school meals, higher fares, proposed higher rents, health and prescription charges, increased food prices and the higher cost of living?
    Mr. Higgins: If the hon. Gentleman cares to put down a Question we shall do our best to answer the point he raises.

    Value-Added Tax
    Mr. Boothasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether stocks of footwear on which purchase tax has been paid, held in stock by shops, will be exempted from value-added tax in the legislation which he is to propose.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I have nothing to add to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher) and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) on 26th October.—[Vol. 823, c. 281.]
    Mr. Booth: Will the Minister accept that, unless an early guarantee is given that there will not be double taxation on footwear in shops on the day when value-added tax is introduced, there will shortly be a rundown in orders so as to run down stocks to avoid double taxation? This will disrupt the production of shoe-making factories and increase
    250
    unemployment and short-time work in areas where the unemployment situation is already intolerable.
    Mr. Macmillan: We are carefully considering all the representations and suggestions which have been made by the trade. We have asked all those concerned to make representations to Customs and Excise. These are difficult matters and my right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to announce a decision.
    Sir G. Nabarro: May I press my hon. Friend on this matter? Does he recall that many months ago we raised with him the question of a simple charge in respect of purchase tax paid on stocks admitted against an assessment of value-added tax, all of which is utterly practicable? Unless there is an announcement soon, it will not only be boots and shoes, it will be the whole gamut of manufactured goods, with a consequential great increase in unemployment.
    Mr. Macmillan: My hon. Friend, as he said, some months ago made relatively simple proposals. These have been discussed with the trades concerned but have turned out to be not quite so simple as seemed at first sight. Customs and Excise are anxious, in coming to a satisfactory arrangement about this, to meet the manufacturers concerned as far as possible.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that serious hardship is likely to be caused to small companies in comparison with chains of companies with parent manufacturing companies who carry stocks which are not subject to purchase tax? Even more important is the economic effect of the running down of stocks on unemployment and consumer demand. It is important that the Minister should not give the non-replies which we have had today but should make a clear statement very soon.
    Mr. Macmillan: We are very much aware of the problem, including the special points made by the hon. Gentleman. The complication of such matters makes it so important to come to a correct solution first, rather than to make an announcement before one has been reached which will be fair and satisfactory to all concerned.

    Consumer Spending
    Mr. Croninasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking designed to broaden the pattern of increased consumer spending, having regard to the present concentration of increased consumer spending on durable goods.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The initial effect of the Budget and July measures has been to increase sales of cars and household durable goods; the retail sales figures for October suggest that the growth of consumer spending may now be spreading into other areas.
    Mr. Cronin: With nearly one million unemployed, is not the hon. Gentleman being rather complacent about the increase in consumer spending? Is not the real problem the general lack of confidence in the Government's economic policies? Would this not be partly offset if the Chancellor were to divert more spending power into the hands of those who have an urgent need to spend—namely, the lower income group, particularly retired pensioners.
    Mr. Macmillan: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await anything my right hon. Friend may have to say on that latter point. As to his general point, the lack of confidence is not in the policies of Her Majesty's Government, but in world conditions of trade and other uncertainties which are outside our control.

    International Monetary Situation
    Mr. Pardoeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement about Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the floating pound.
    Mr. Rostasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied with. the outcome of the recent international monetary talks in Rome; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his official discussions with the Group of Ten in Rome.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will
    252
    make a statement on the Rome meeting of Ministers of the Group of Ten.
    Mr. Tugendhatasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the latest developments in the world monetary situation.
    Mr. Barber: I have already reported to the House on the meeting of the Group of Ten which took place in Rome on 30th November and 1st December. I leave tomorrow for a further meeting in Washington. I shall go to that meeting ready to agree a settlement and I believe that a settlement at that meeting is possible. I would add, however, that the problems are complex and a solution does not depend only on the United Kingdom. Consequently, while I hope for a settlement at Washington, I should not be unduly surprised if there had to be a further meeting. On the subject of floating exchange rates, I have nothing to add to what I said on 23rd November. —[Vol. 826, c. 1109–10.]
    Mr. Pardoe: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that very full reply. Could he say whether the one per cent. rise in intervention level this week means that the Government have now accepted a virtual revaluing of the pound against the dollar of 5 per cent., and is the Government aiming at a 6 per cent. band around 2–52 dollars to the pound? Will he also say whether the C.B.I.'s stated opposition to a return to a fixed exchange rate has now at last convinced him of the Liberal view that a return to a fixed exchange rate would be an act of sabotage to our economic growth?
    Mr. Barber: On earlier matters I said that I did not believe it would be helpful to comment. I believe that a return to a realistic pattern of parities is in our best interests and in the interests of the world. This is the view of all the members of the Group of Ten.
    Mr. Rost: Does my right hon. Friend accept that an early settlement of the international monetary and trade crisis is a matter of priority if business confidence is not to be undermined? May I take it that he will do everything possible when in Washington to reach a settlement?
    Mr. Barber: I agree that this is a matter of great importance, and I shall go to the meeting in Washington ready to

    253
    agree a settlement. But there are problems involved, and it is not a matter only for the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Dalyell: Are British and American national unemployment problems on the agenda in Washington?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Barber: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have an answer, I will give him one. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is looking it up."] I am looking at what I have said before on this matter, which the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. What I have said is:
    "My first duty is to ensure that such a settlement does not prejudice our own competitive position and in particular that it does not threaten our plans for reducing unemployment by faster economic growth."
    That remains our policy.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is it not by now evident that the United States needs a settlement of the situation created by its 15th August measures at least as much as, if not more than, the nations of Western Europe; and that the first priority should be the abolition of the import surcharge and the discriminatory tax measures, which are in defiance of G.A.T.T.?
    Mr. Barber: Certainly any settlement concerning currencies, the import surcharge and the discriminatory tax will have to come as part of the overall bargain. I believe that a realistic settlement is not only in the interests of the United States, ourselves and members of the Group of Ten but also in the interests of all those other members of the I.M.F. who are not represented at the Group of Ten meetings, including the developing countries which have been seriously affected as a result of the decisions.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, while I agree with him that it is desirable in the interests of all concerned that a settlement should if possible be reached at the meeting, at this stage it should not be too rigid a settlement? The issues raised involve a fundamental re-look at the international monetary situation and this will take some time to achieve. In the meantime, will he ensure that neither we nor anybody else get boxed in with a parity which might be damaging for the future?
    Mr. Barber: It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman implies, that recently we have been concentrating on the short-term problem and all the talk has been about that. But, as the right hon. Gentleman knows from his time as Chancellor, it is true from our point of view that we should achieve a sensible long-term reform. I hope we shall be able to proceed a little faster with this, though I remind him that discussion is now proceeding in the I.M.F. about the longer-term reform.

    ECONOMIC GROWTH
    Mr. Duffyasked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange to take the chair at the next meeting of the National Economic Development Council, in order to discuss the different forecasts about economic growth in 1972 produced by the Government and the Council.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): No, Sir. The Council has made no forecast of the rate of economic growth in 1972.
    Mr. Duffy: Is the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed in this House three weeks ago that the demand for engineering products at home and abroad was encouraging and that a subsequent N.E.D.C. report described this as pessimistic? Before the right hon. Gentleman takes refuge in the more optimistic forecasts of the Treasury's monthly economic report published yesterday, will he bear in mind that the report also pointed out that capital investment in the manufacturing sector was flat in the third quarter? Should not he now say something definite about the timing and co-ordination of the Government's efforts to bring about a revival of capital investment?
    The Prime Minister: I think there may be some misunderstanding on this matter. The N.E.D.C. as such does not make forecasts; it is a forum for discussion. Economic projections into the future are for the Government and other bodies. As for forecasts of engineering orders, the provisional estimates show a 16 per cent. increase in the third quarter of 1971. I

    255
    believe what the hon. Gentleman has in mind is that the Economic Development Committee for Mechanical Engineering, which is only one part of the engineering industry, made a forecast about short-term trends in mechanical engineering. Mechanical engineering is only part of the total, but is included in the overall engineering forecasts. It is those that matter.

    EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
    Mr. Kaufmanasked the Prime Minister whether he will delay his signature of the treaty of accession to the European Economic Community until satisfactory arrangements have been worked out for trade between the European Economic Community and an independent Rhodesia.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. There is no connection between our accession to the European Economic Community and an eventual Rhodesian settlement.
    Mr. Kaufman: Is it not absurd for the Government to lament the damage done to Rhodesian exports by sanctions and then to seek to replace those sanctions by a common external tariff? Would it not be more consistent for the Government either to abandon their attempt to drag an unwilling Britain into the Common Market, or to call off their shameful deal with the Rhodesia Front—or, preferably, both?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir, there is no connection between them. As for a Rhodesian settlement, the hon. Gentleman is fully aware that the next stage is to await the carrying out of the fifth principle, which is to be put to all the Rhodesian people.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Would it not be a good thing if, for the first time in seven years, the Prime Minister were to concentrate on the simple objective of advancing the economic prosperity of the Rhodesian people?
    The Prime Minister: The House has debated this matter and can form its own judgment. The extent to which the lot of Africans and others in Rhodesia can be improved is an important aspect, but we must now await implementation of the fifth principle.

    CHINA
    Mr. Pardoeasked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to the People's Republic of China.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Pardoe: Is the Prime Minister aware that China's recent emergence as a fully fledged world Power prepared to play her part in the concourse of nations is not only a great turning point in history but offers a massive opportunity and that, in spite of President Nixon's visit, there are real limitations to an improvement in relations between the United States and China? What action does the Prime Minister intend to take to ensure that this opportunity for a real leap forward in Sino-British relations does not go by the board?
    The Prime Minister: Successive British Governments have been aware of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. It was a Labour Government who recognised Peking in 1950. I am glad to say that relations with Peking have improved considerably in the last year and that we are discussing the question of our diplomatic representation with the Chinese Government.
    Mr. Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, nevertheless, that the sister of one of my constituents has been imprisoned or detained in China without any information being given to her family and that such treatment of former British subjects does nothing to enhance a possible improvement in relations between this country and China?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, there are these difficulties and we should like to sort them out. The talks that we are having at the moment may be helpful in that way.
    Mr. Maclennan: What progress has been made with what Mr. Chou En-Lai described as a major stumbling block to the alteration of our diplomatic relations, namely, the attitude of the British Government towards the future of Taiwan?
    The Prime Minister: This is a matter that we are discussing with Mr. Chou En-Lai's Government.

    BIRMINGHAM, NORTHFIELD
    Mr. Carterasked the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to the constituency of Birmingham, Northfield.
    The Prime Minister: None at present, Sir.
    Mr. Carter: Is the Prime Minister aware that, if he changes his mind and visits my constituency, he will be told in no uncertain terms by my constituents that no amount of effort on the part of the Conservative Party will return the Secretary of State for Education and Science to public favour? In view of her efforts at that Department and the way in which she has reduced our standards of education, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that she should be removed?
    The Prime Minister: This Question obviously is not concerned with the hon. Gentleman's constituency. My right hon. Friend has been carrying out a policy for education which has changed the priorities in the direction that we believe to be right. I am astonished that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should oppose the improvement in primary schools, in which we are carrying through a major programme.

    YOUNG UNEMPLOYED PERSONS (WORK GROUPS)
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Department of Employment and the Department of the Environment on the National Association of Youth Clubs' scheme for special work groups of young unemployed people; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. All the Departments concerned will be closely watching the outcome of this experimental scheme to employ young people in activities of social value, especially on environmental improvement and community work.
    Mr. Tebbit: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this has been welcomed widely as a constructive new idea—[Interruption.]
    258
    Is not that so? Will my right hon. Friend consider expanding it, not merely in time beyond the present phase of high unemployment, but over other parts of the countryside, and will he ensure that there is adequate consultation between other Departments concerned? One which obviously springs to mind is the Department of Education and Science.
    The Prime Minister: As I emphasised in my original reply, this is an experimental scheme. It is right that we have adopted the suggestion made to us and carried it out. It is also right that we should get experience of its practical operation before extending it more widely to other parts of the country.
    Consultations have been carried on between Government Departments and with a wide variety of other bodies, including local authorities, employers and the T.U.C.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Having regard to the marginal effect that this scheme will have, is not it remarkable that the Department of Education and Science has not been able to announce a grant for the continuation of the Young Volunteer Force Foundation? I know of the right hon. Gentleman's approval of this body. Will he take that under his wing, because it is more likely to be beneficial to the youth voluntary service?
    As for unemployment among young people, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nothing can be more degrading or soul-destroying for young people than having to start off on a life of work on a voluntary basis, which is no adequate substitute for full employment?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows, because he is also concerned, that I attach the highest importance to this matter, and it is under consideration. However, these two schemes are not exclusive. We can carry on both at the same time. But in the case of the one that I am discussing at the moment, the jobs will be real jobs. I do not think the hon. Gentleman meant to give the impression that there was something not really substantial about them.
    Mr. Molloy: Admirable though the scheme may be, does the Prime Minister expect young people to take it seriously when they have to spend so much time

    259
    looking for work? Many of them, having spent years in apprenticeships in the engineering and allied industries, now find that they cannot be involved in voluntary work because they spend too much time in dole queues. Should not this be the priority, rather than the suggestions which have been made?
    The Prime Minister: The first priority must be to find employment for school leavers and young people. But the National Association of Youth Clubs devised a scheme and presented it to us, and it is right that we should implement it on an experimental basis and judge from our experience whether we should extend it further.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
    Q6. Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer at Sale on 27th November on reflation represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does not the Prime Minister recognise that the electors are sick and tired of being told by the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministers that the last Administration are to blame for the present high unemployment? After all, the present Government have been in office for 18 months. Will the right hon. Gentleman give some hope to the development areas by indicating that he and his right hon. Friends will change their policies and accord with the wishes of the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. so that we can get to these areas the employment which is so vitally necessary?
    The Prime Minister: We had very full discussions with the T.U.C. Economic Council in the early part of the summer. In carrying out his policies, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer implemented a considerable number of the measures which that body suggested to us. Since then, we have had long discussions with the General Council of the T.U.C. and we are examining with the utmost care each of its proposals.
    Mr. Bob Brown: Does the Prime Minister accept that, even if a rapid inflation in the national economy took place tomorrow, the development areas have fallen so far behind the rest of the nation that special measures must be taken in them if they are to have any hope of getting back to their former status?
    The Prime Minister: It is also true that, until we get increasing growth in the economy as a whole, such regions as Scotland, the North-East and the North-West will not benefit. In addition to the measures which my right hon. Friend has introduced for the economy as a whole, he has also taken special measures for the development areas, including a very large amount of expenditure on the infrastructure.

    JAPAN
    Dr. Gilbertasked the Prime Minister what plans he has to seek to pay an official visit to Japan.
    The Prime Minister: As I told the House on 1st July, I have accepted in principle an invitation from the Japanese Government to visit Japan, but no specific plans have yet been made.
    Dr. Gilbert: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to recent Press reports to the effect that the United States Secretary of the Treasury, on his recent visit to Japan and in subsequent discussions in Washington, has put forward the idea of a Pacific free trade area to include the United States, Japan, Canada, New Zealand and Australia? In the light of the support given by successive United States Administrations to this country's entry into the Common Market, will the right hon. Gentleman tell President Nixon on his next visit that he would support such a development in the Pacific?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot be expected to give undertakings of that kind at the moment. The discussions on a possible free trade area have been mentioned before. As far as we have been able to discover, they have never had any substance in them. Our policy on the European Economic Community has been settled by Parliament. However, I think that there is a general interest on both sides of the Atlantic and in Japan that

    261
    we should continue to work for the abolition of protectionist devices and for a general lowering of tariffs in the Western world.
    Mr. Tom King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when he visits Japan, he will see how enormous are the opportunities for British exporters in that market and how too few British companies still follow up those opportunities?
    The Prime Minister: I think that there is general agreement that there are tremendous opportunities for British exporters in Japan. Every encouragement is given to them by the Department of Trade and Industry—and was given by past Administrations through the Board of Trade—to go to Japan and seize those markets.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the Prime Minister aware that most of us do not care where he goes? What we want to know is when he is going.
    The Prime Minister: As has happened so often before, the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed.

    NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (EXPENDITURE)
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Prime Minister whether he will specify the respective responsibilities of each of the Ministers in his Administration concerned with the level of spending in the nationalised industries; and whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between them.
    The Prime Minister: The responsibilities of my right hon. Friends are specified in the relevant statutes. There is already close co-ordination between them.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the Prime Minister aware that in June this year the British Steel Corporation in Sheffield announced 4,000 redundancies and that two weeks ago this was changed to 400, for which we are very glad? Will he tell us which Ministry made the announcement in June, which reprieved it, and who was responsible for the change of policy in the meantime?
    The Prime Minister: That is a matter for the British Steel Corporation. I understand that the change was made after discussions between the British Steel Corporation and the unions. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is pleased about it.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Question No. 6 to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Leonard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members will have noticed the outrageous fact that Questions from the Opposition outnumber those of the Government supporters by no fewer than seven to one. Will the Prime Minister give us an assurance—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I should prefer points of order about Questions at the end of Question Time. I have called Question No. 6 to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

POST-WAR CREDITS
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): With permission, I will now answer Question No. 6.
It has often been suggested, as by my hon. Friend, that all outstanding post-war credits should be repaid at the earliest opportunity instead of being phased according to age or hardship.
The difficulties of doing this are, however, considerable. The House will appreciate the sheer magnitude of the operation involved. It has been estimated that the number of credit-holders still unpaid may be of the order of perhaps 5 million, and up to £130 million may be still outstanding. Against this, repayment is now being made at the rate of about £14 million a year to some 300,000 people.
But it is now more than 25 years since the end of the war, and the time has come to dispose of this relic of the past. All outstanding post-war credits wilt, therefore, be repaid as soon as possible, which is from the beginning of next April. The bulk of the repayments will be made during the six months following that date.
This will be a very large operation indeed, and to undertake it at all exceptional measures are called for. First,

263
some staggering of repayments will be essential. This will be mainly over the period of six months from April to September next year, and, for a reason I shall mention shortly, it is essential that the work should be largely completed within that period.
Second, in the initial invitation to the public to make claims under this procedure it will only be possible for the Revenue to deal with those to which a post-war credit certificate is attached. The date on which claimants who cannot forward a certificate may claim will be announced later. It would be quite impossible for the Revenue to handle this very large task if time had to be spent on the detailed research needed to settle the claims of people who do not have a certificate. In the interests of getting the work done, therefore, these people must be left to a later date. In the meantime, the Revenue cannot enter into correspondence, nor can it issue duplicate certificates in these cases.
Third, interest on credits repaid under these arrangements will run to the common date of 30th September, 1972. This will produce a uniform addition on account of interest of 38 per cent. to all credits. As this will be a winding up operation, I also propose that there will be a final date after which no further claims to repayment of credits will be accepted by the Inland Revenue.
The necessary legislation will be included in the next Finance Bill.
The burden on the Inland Revenue will obviously be a heavy one, and it is clear that when tax offices begin work next September on the unified income tax scheme introduced in this year's Finance Act there will be no further opportunity for at least three years of undertaking this operation. Hence, the particular timing, which will enable the bulk of the outstanding credits to be repaid in the six months preceding the preparation for unification.
The reason for making this announcement now is to allow the Revenue to carry out the great deal of planning and organisation which will be needed. To get through the work, I have authorised the Inland Revenue to engage about 2,500 additional temporary staff for a period
264
of some months. Some of these extra staff will be located in special post-war credit repayment centres and, wherever possible, these will be established in development areas.
Individuals who qualify for repayment under the existing regulations should continue to submit their claims for repayment whether or not they have certificates. Other people should not get in touch with their tax offices. In due course, full publicity will be given about when and how to claim under this general release.
I have decided on this action primarily because we now have an opportunity which will not recur for some years. As far as the impact on the economy is concerned, I would not expect the repayments to have other than a small effect on gross domestic product in 1972–73 and, of course, this action has the advantage, in present circumstances, that it is a once for all operation.
Finally, I know that the House will join me in a tribute to the Inland Revenue for taking on this extra task, notwithstanding its present burdens and heavy future programme.
Mr. Cockeram: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his announcement, whilst restoring social justice, will also give great pleasure to a group of people who served their country with distinction during the war? Will he also accept the congratulations of the House that this announcement made today, together with other economic measures which he has announced and taxation cuts, will ensure that 1972 will be the year of rising economic activity?
Mr. Barber: I think that the proposal which I have made will be generally welcomed.
Mr. Heffer: Whilst obviously everyone will welcome this announcement—[Interruption.]—as it was one of the proposals made by the General Council of the T.U.C. when it met the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in recent discussions, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that he will take the advice of the T.U.C. in all its other proposals and that he will this afternoon go further and announce the other steps which he will take along the lines of

265
the T.U.C.'s proposals to really get down to solving the problem of unemployment?
Mr. Barber: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said a few minutes ago, we have in fact implemented a considerable number of the proposals which, over the past year, have been put to the Government by the T.U.C. in part in meetings with my right hon. Friend, at other times with myself, and partly in N.E.D.C. I am certain that whenever the T.U.C. puts forward proposals which we consider have merit and will help the economy, we shall accept them.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is my right hon. Friend as surprised as I am that neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the Shadow Chancellor has welcomed this announcement?
Mr. Marks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great many people who gave distinguished service in the ranks during the war do not have any post-war credits and that in the main this is a long-awaited benefit to those in their fifties who had reasonable jobs during the war. Is this in accordance with the Government's policy of giving to those in greatest need?
Mr. Barber: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said about the level of incomes of people who will be entitled to these post-war credits. I am also very surprised indeed at the implication behind the hon. Gentleman's question that this is not a welcome move.

EMPLOYMENT SERVICE
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Paul Bryan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the future of the public employment service.
My right hon. Friend has today made available in the Vote Office and through the Department's local offices copies of a report entitled "People and Jobs" which outlines a programme for modernising the Employment Service. This programme is based on a review my right hon. Friend has been making of all the Department's manpower services. We acknowledge the debt we have owed during that review to earlier work on the
266
Employment Service, including the comments received from many individuals and organisations on the Consultative Document of May, 1970, for which the right hon. Member for Backburn (Mrs. Castle) was responsible.
The Employment Service has important economic and social functions. It has responsibilities for improving the operation of the labour market and for helping people who have difficulty in finding or keeping satisfactory employment. The present service is undoubtedly doing good work in both these respects; but for largely historical reasons it is not able fully and effectively to meet the many and varied needs of employers and workers in a modern labour market.
Accordingly the Government are making major changes in the way the service is organised and run. These are set out in detail in the report. The main changes are as follows.
First, the Employment Service is to become a departmental agency—that is, a self-managing unit within the Department of Employment. A newly appointed Chief Executive will be directly responsible for the efficient performance of the service. Second, the staff and offices dealing with placing and other employment work on the one hand and administration of unemployment benefit on the other will be separated and unemployment benefit will be paid by post.
Third, job self-service and vacancy displays will be extended to all local employment offices and the staff and training requirements of advisory interviewing work will be thoroughly reviewed. Fourth, a new network of attractively designed well located employment offices will be developed.
Fifth, plans for restyling the Professional and Executive Register and charging employers for the service will be urgently followed up. Sixth, a new division of responsibility between the Department of Employment and local authorities will be established for giving careers guidance and a placing service for young people.
As the House will realise, it will not be possible to make all these changes overnight. The Chief Executive, supported by a management team which has been freed from responsibilities for day-to-day

267
work, will be responsible for carrying out the modernisation programme as quickly as practicable in full consultation with staff and other interests concerned.
The Government are determined to carry through this programme with all urgency and believe that it will provide the positive and dynamic public service which is required as an effective instrument of manpower policies in modern employment conditions.
Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, despite the gloss that he has put on it in his statement, this is a deeply disappointing document, on which we shall want an early debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Give me time. Is he also aware that, now that we have the document, there is clearly no justification for the delay of 18 months in producing it, since we have had none of the dramatic new initiatives which were hinted at at a certain time, and that all we have in this document is a continuation of policies which had already been initiated in the Department and an emasculated version of proposals which I published in May, 1970?
Is he aware that, by this delay, the Government have cost the country millions of working days, since, if improved employment services succeed in cutting down by one day on average the time taken by unemployed men and women to move into a new job, we avoid the loss of 3 million working days a year? How can he justify still further delay by leaving it to yet another management team to decide whether to set up the manpower centres which we proposed as an integral part of the modernisation? Second, when will he reach a decision on the future of the Youth Employment Service, instead of fudging the issue as he does in this document? Third, is not one of the purposes of his policy to give a further lease of life to the fee-charging private agencies which are costing employers thousands of pounds a year and which it should be the purpose of a modern employment service to make unnecessary?
Mr. Bryan: We would certainly welcome an early debate on this subject. I am surprised that the right hon. Lady gives so tepid a welcome to our proposals.
268
If she had listened to the one o'clock news, she would have heard Vic Feather give a much warmer welcome to them.
The right hon. Lady's document was a consultative document and did not claim to be anything else. This is a document of decision and action—action which will add up to the biggest programme of reforms which the Employment Service has ever had in all its 60 years' history. As to her question about delay, as I have said before, it was a considered decision by this Government to make a general review of all manpower services together, and that is what we have done. If this means that this document has come out a month or two later than it might have done, I can only say that the enormous stimulus that our new system of management will give to the whole system will certainly make up for any of the days or months lost.
As for the Youth Employment Service, we have made up our minds which way we mean to go. This is, of course, that the service will be shared with the educational services. This is clearly laid down—
Mrs. Castle: But not mandatory.
Mr. Bryan: It is not laid down as mandatory, because we think that we should discuss this with the local government organisations. But the whole guidance and direction of these services is clearly laid down and no one doubts which way we are going. Where the right hon. Lady was in doubt, we know what we want.
On her last question, about fee-charging agencies, the very fact that we will produce a highly efficient and competitive service is the greatest competition and curb that any inefficient fee-charging body can have—although of course there are many efficient ones too.
Mr. John Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the country will welcome these exciting and radical new proposals—particularly employers, employees, and those who work inside the employment agencies? In the meantime, will he forget and not eat the sour grapes which the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) offered him? Will he give particular attention instead to the employment figures of the over-fifties to see that these are not forgotten in the

269
progress of the new plan which the Government have brought in?
Mr. Bryan: The improved services provided will certainly do well for the over-fifties. The improved services which we shall get from our very highly trained staff will give advice, especially in our occupational guidance services, of just the sort which will be of special use to those of that age.
Mr. Hooson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the modernisation of the Employment Service is long overdue and therefore should be welcomed on every hand? But is he further aware that no time is given in this statement? Over what period will these changes take place? Do the Government appreciate that the first priority must be jobs for the Employment Service to advise upon?
Mr. Bryan: As I said, a good start has been made this very day by the appointment of the Chief Executive, Mr. Ken Cooper, and his management team.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Well, that is one job.
Mr. Bryan: After that, a start will be made right away on the business of separation, and there will be evidence of this in the coming year. Work will also start on our self-service work, and evidence of that will be seen in the next year. During the next year or so we will also see the development of the payment of unemployment benefit by post, which will be an advance. Of course, one will also see the start of our programme of the actual improvement of the siting of the offices.
Dame Joan Vickers: My hon. Friend referred to highly trained staff. What type of person will be appointed to this staff? Is he aware that one of the biggest difficulties at the moment is that totally unsuitable jobs are offered to people, and if a chap refuses a job, the staff tend to wash their hands of him. What type of training will be given to ensure that we have this highly trained staff? Can we be assured that they will be better equipped to offer the right types of jobs to individuals?
Mr. Bryan: The separation of unemployment benefits from the actual Employment Service will very much simplify the task of the staff, because there will
270
be specialists on each of these two sides. The jobs on both sides will be carefully analysed and the new management will provide training and selection. I expect to have a highly expert staff on both sides of this administration.
Mr. Hugh D. Brown: If these proposals continue to improve the Department in the public image, then obviously they are to be welcomed. Is the Minister saying that the youth employment offices will be taken over by the Department? If so, have the local authority associations agreed to this? Will there be an increase or decrease in the overall staff of the Department?
Mr. Bryan: Regarding the Youth Employment Service, we have reached what I consider to be the rational decision that instead of laying down a particular age at which an individual comes under the local education service or employment service, we are saying that when a person leaves school, whatever his age —15, 18 or 20—he will get guidance from the education system. Having got a job, if he wants to change his job later he will then be on the labour market and will go to the employment agency.
That is, I think, the sensible solution. Nothing will be absolutely rigid. If a young man has just got a job through the education authority and then, after a few weeks, wants to change it, he will be able to go back to the education authority and he will not necessarily have to come to us. The system will remain flexible.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. These matters will have to be pursued on another occasion. We must get on.

NORTHERN IRELAND
Mr. Pounder: 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 flatter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
"the provision of protection to persons in Northern Ireland who hold public office."
The House will recall the dastardly attack on, and murder of, Senator Jack Barnhill on Sunday evening. The House

271
and the country were justifiably outraged by this evil deed. This morning, however, between 11 o'clock and noon, four separate attacks were made on the homes and persons of people prominent in public life in Belfast. Indeed, all of them are constituents of mine.
In one case, that of Senator Mrs. Edith Taggart—the only woman senator in the Northern Ireland Parliament and a former chairman of my constituency women's association—her husband was attacked by raiders. He was taken afterwards to hospital and up to the moment of speaking I do not know anything about his condition. I pray that it is not serious.
Another attack was at the home of the former deputy lord mayor of Belfast, Councillor William Christie, where a bomb was de-fused before it exploded.
The third case was at the home of an 81-year-old lady, Mrs. Nora Totten, who until a year ago was appeals organiser of the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and whose house is jointly occupied by Mr. David
Wilkinson, my current constituency chairman. The bomb went off and the hallway was destroyed, but nobody was injured.
The fourth case was at the home of my first divisional chairman and very personal friend, Mr. Terry Hill, whose wife, Joyce, beat off the raider, and no damage was done.
In the light of these facts of only four hours ago I submit that my request for a debate is unquestionably on a specific subject. The facts tell their own story about the urgency of the matter, and show that the subject is of public importance. This I should have thought was self-evident.
I hope the House will forgive me if I speak somewhat emotionally about the cases I have detailed, for all those whom I have named and who have suffered wanton attack in the last few hours are personal and close friends of mine. I am sickened and revolted by the assaults that they have suffered.
Mr. Speaker: 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,
272
"the provision of protection to persons in Northern Ireland who hold public office."
I am sure that the whole House understands the hon. Gentleman's feelings about these matters, feelings which I believe are widely shared. It is not for me to comment on the merits but simply to make a procedural decision as to whether the right way to discuss these matters is under Standing Order No. 9, and I am afraid that I must reject his application.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker: Yesterday the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) drew attention to the subject of Questions to Ministers and submitted that a situation had arisen in which interference with, or impediments placed on, hon. Members of this House in carrying out their parliamentry responsibilities might amount to a breach of privilege. I promised that I would consider the matter and rule on it this afternoon.
I have now had the opportunity of examining the precedents to which my attention was drawn yesterday and to consider all other relevant circumstances.
My decision is that the matter does not so clearly fall within the ambit of privilege as would justify me in giving it precedence over the Orders of the Day. My Ruling does not, of course, in any way inhibit the House in taking such action as it might think fit. The only effect of my Ruling is to prevent priority being given to a discussion in the context of privilege.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): The whole House will be grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your Ruling, and I hope that at this stage I may be able to help the House over the whole question, though I do not know whether I am in order in doing so now or whether I should be speaking to a point of order. May I proceed?
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman may proceed.
Mr. Whitelaw: I believe that it would be right, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition suggested yesterday, that the whole problem of

273
Questions and Question Time procedure should be considered by a special Select Committee of this House. I would accordingly propose that a Select Committee should be set up for this purpose as soon as possible after the Christmas Recess.
I would naturally wish to discuss its terms of reference and membership through the usual channels. I would further propose, if that were agreeable to the House, that I, as Leader of the House, should take the chair of this Committee.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has earned the thanks of all of us on this side of the House for so rapidly adopting what we proposed to him yesterday? I am sure he will not take it amiss if I congratulate him on the different way in which this matter has been handled today compared with the way it was handled yesterday.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us feel that it would have been wrong if these events had been closed with the little apologia to which we were treated yesterday? We therefore welcome the setting up of this Committee and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman will take the chair during its deliberations. Does the Leader of the House intend that, before the Committee sits, there should be a debate in the House so that he might get the general views of hon. Members in all quarters, or does he envisage the Committee meeting and reporting, with its report subsequently being debated?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am placed in some difficulty. I do not know whether you wish me to reply, Mr. Speaker. If so, I shall be only too happy to do so.
Mr. Speaker: There is an element of irregularity in the whole of these proceedings—[Interruption.]—but I think it would be for the benefit of the whole House if the right hon. Gentleman were to answer.
Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party for their comments. I do not propose to comment on some of their remarks, except to tell the Leader of the Liberal Party that I should not have thought that a debate was suitable before the Select Committee met. I take the view that this Select Committee would have wide terms of reference and would have the benefit, for some part of its work, of the valuable reports which have been presented in the past by the Select Committee on Procedure.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think it would be wise for us to get back to order. I imagine that there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to question the Leader of the House at business question time on Thursday.
Mr. Whitelaw: May I be allowed to point out, Mr. Speaker, that there will not be business questions in the normal way on Thursday? I have already announced the business for next week; but there will be one day next week when I shall announce the business for the first week after the Christmas Recess.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Would it require a Motion? If so, would it be debatable?
Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, it would. I am speaking without having taken advice; I may, therefore, subsequently be proved wrong. I understand that it would require a Motion and that it would be debatable.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Perhaps it would be better to leave any brief comments until then, without necessarily having a full debate on the subject.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think it would be much better for all of us, including myself, to digest the statement of the Leader of the House.

ABOLITION OF GAZUMPING AND KINDRED PRACTICES BILL
4.0 p.m.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect prospective purchasers and vendors of houses and other dwellings, and in particular to abolish the practice known as "gazumping".
"Gazumping" is a term introduced into this country from the United States where it is used in the second-hand car trade. Briefly, it may be described as a racket whereby, having agreed to sell a commodity—in this case a house—to one person, the seller sells it at a high price to another. Hon. Members will be aware of the great amount of distress, anger and expense that this practice is causing to people throughout the country, and national and provincial newspapers, and other media, have been particularly helpful in drawing attention to this abuse. Not least was an important leader in The Times, to which I respectfully draw the attention of hon. Members who may not have seen it.
In normal business contracts, once an agreement is made it is legally binding, but contracts for the sale of land have to be evidenced in writing, and when such evidence is provided there is often inserted the words "subject to contract" so that until the contracts are exchanged nobody is bound by them.
A few illustrations will suffice to show the typical situation which arises. The first concerns a man who was temporarily a constituent of mine. In the summer of this year he was a police inspector seconded to do a degree course in sociology at Hull University as a mature student. He then returned home, and he writes:
"I returned to my own Force on completion and, as is the vogue, sought my own house. I found one suitable which was offered at £7,350, made a full price offer and paid a 'good faith' deposit to the vendor's agents. I know that other buyers were told that the house was 'sold' and contracts were subsequently drawn up and agreed by both parties. I paid my full deposit, and awaited exchange of contracts. There was some delay in exchange due to the vendor's new house not being ready. On the very day that we were to exchange, that is, when my building society confirmed that my mortgage was available, the vendor withdrew and demanded another £1,000. I wanted to offer £500 but my building
276
society would not advance this amount as they said the house was over-valued. After some discussion the vendor gave me two days to exchange at £8,000 but this did not allow me sufficient time to get another survey carried out and I was obliged to withdraw. My cash loss, due to sale of car, legal and survey fees, purchase of various items for the new house and other expenditure, I estimate at some £300 to £400 none of which can be claimed from the person that caused the loss.…
Incidentally the same vendor 'accepted' an offer of £8,350 from a prospective purchaser and subsequently sold it 'over his head' for £8,600 to another buyer!"
The evil reached its zenith in a letter which I received from a person living in Chippenham, who sent me a letter he had received from the estate agent for the vendor in which he said:
"I am writing to inform you that I have received a second offer for the above property. It is one of more than the asking price, in fact £7,500. I am very sorry this has happened but, as you will appreciate, there is very little one can do about it."
The writer goes on to say, and this is the terrible thing:
"The best course of action now would appear to be for both prospective purchasers to make their highest offer and put it in writing to us by 12 noon next Monday, 1st November. I shall open the envelopes at that time and the highest bidder will be the purchaser."
Then comes a nice little touch:
"It is also important for my client to effect an early completion."
The second way in which this can occur—and for this example I am indebted to the hon. Lady the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) who has had counsel's opinion on it—relates to the purchase of a house about to be built. An advertisement appeared in a local paper, The Citizen, which said:
"Firm Price on Payment of £50 Initial Deposit subject to contract."
In this case a person put down a deposit, saw his building society solicitors, suddenly found that contracts could not be exchanged until the house was almost completed, and then found that the price had accelerated. In this type of case the acceleration in price often more than compensates for any increase in material and labour costs. Counsel's opinion was taken, but the magic words "subject to contract" were sufficient to kill any hopes of recompense of the prospective purchaser.
My Bill seeks to deal with those abuses, to protect a purchaser or a seller

277
from inverted gazumping. I propose that once a sale price has been agreed, subject to contract or otherwise, and the prospective purchaser has incurred any legal or surveying costs, or any expenses in connection with trying to obtain a mortgage, the seller cannot increase the price or sell to a third party at a greater price unless, first, he repays all the purchaser's fees and expenses, and, secondly, he informs the purchaser in writing of his desire to sell elsewhere.
If he gives such notice in writing, the purchaser shall have 14 days in which to deliver his part of the contract. If he does so, the seller will be bound. If he does not do so, the seller will be liable for the expenses of the purchaser only up to the date of the notice. Breach of that provision would be an offence punishable with a fine on summary conviction.
As a further safeguard, once a price had been agreed the purchaser would be entitled to register the agreement at the local Land Charges Register, or at the Land Registry, thus giving any third person knowledge of his claim for expenses against the seller.
To prevent a seller from being inversely gazumped, he will be allowed to withdraw from any agreement six weeks after the original agreement has been reached, or at the end of a period of 14 days of which he has given notice, subject to whichever is the lesser period.
The Government have referred this matter to the Law Commission, but it is too urgent and too immediate a problem to await the Commission's deliberations. A measure to meet the abuse will receive support from hon. Members on both sides of the House, from the estate agents' representative body, the National Association of Estate Agents, and from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, who support the Bill in principle and who are very concerned about this practice. It will save many young people the misery of seeing their savings disappear as they are gazumped, and it will help elderly people seeking homes to which to retire. Above all, it will help the conscience-striken from whom I have received letters, the gazumped who have been forced to become gazumpers. The Bill will prevent the introduction
278
of a new counsel of perfection—"Gazump not that ye be not gazumped."
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered, to be brought in by Mr. McNamara, Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. Ashton, Mr. Concannon, Mr. Crosland, Mr. Clinton Davis, Mr. John Fraser, Mr. Kaufman, Mr. Kinnock, Mr. Arthur Lewis, Mr. William Price, and Mr. Skinner.

ABOLITION OF GAZUMPING AND KINDRED PRACTICES
Bill to protect prospective purchasers and vendors of houses and other dwellings, and in particular to abolish the practice known as "gazumping", presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 28th January, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]

CIVIL LIST
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I should explain to the House that there is a technical difficulty about the Amendment to the Government Motion put down by the Opposition, which is, to leave out 'charged on the Consolidated Fund' and add:
'payable out of moneys provided by Parliament'.
Were I to announce now that I had selected the Amendment and asked the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to move it forthwith, the debate might be restricted solely to the question of how these sums of money should be paid. Therefore, I suggest that any argument which might be used on the Amendment should be made in debating the general proposition and that perhaps during the wind-up speech of the Opposition the Amendment should be formally moved so that there may be an opportunity for a separate Division if the Opposition so wish. If that is satisfactory, that is how we shall proceed.
4.10 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): I beg to move,
That further provision be made for Her Majesty's Civil List, for the members of the Royal Family for whom provision has been made by the Civil List Acts of 1937 and 1952 and for the payment of certain pensions and allowances, and that provision should be

279
now made for Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester and any future wife of a younger son of Her Majesty in the event of any of them surviving her husband; and that sums payable in pursuance of provision so made should be charged on the Consolidated Fund.
First, I express my gratitude to right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House who served on the Select Committee. It was for all of us a unique experience, and my task as Chairman was made the easier by the courtesy and, if I may say so, the good humour which was evidenced throughout the many deliberative sessions' which we held which, in accordance with custom, are not recorded in the report.
This debate has been foreseen for a long time. I think that one might say that the prospect of it has been with us ever since 1952. I say that because the 1952 Select Committee, with every hope of a long reign and with a well-founded suspicion of a long period of price increases ahead, realised that the arrangements that it recommended might in due course need to be reviewed by Parliament. I remind the House that the Select Committee said that if:
"…any considerable change should take place either in the burden of public functions laid upon Her Majesty or in the level of prices, it would be in complete accordance with constitutional practice for Her Majesty to send a further Gracious Message to Parliament asking that the original grant should be reconsidered."
That was almost 20 years ago and both things—an increase in the burden of work and an increase in the level of prices—have taken place since 1952. So our task now is to devise new arrangements which will take account of these changes.
I will remind the House of the recent history of the matter which led to the setting up of the Select Committee and to this debate. The need for further action by Parliament within the foreseeable future was made clear in November, 1969. The then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), made a statement to the House in which he set out the position. He disclosed that Civil List expenditure had begun to exceed the amount provided in the 1952 Act as early as 1962 and that, therefore, the reserves accumulated during the earlier years were being run down. He went on to inform the House that the reserves would be exhausted and the
280
Civil List would move into deficit by 1970—that is, last year.
In the light of this situation, the Labour Government informed the Queen's advisers that a new Select Committee would be appointed at the beginning of the next Parliament. The General Election and change of Government occurred in the summer, 1970. Discussions with the Queen's advisers began almost at once after the election, and in due course Her Majesty's Gracious Message was sent to this House, which led to the setting up of the Select Committee and the report which we are considering in the context of the Financial Resolution authorising the introduction of a Bill.
The report has been in the hands of hon. Members for nearly two weeks now, and I therefore need not take up time by going over its contents in detail. I want to deal with three main points—first, the nature of the inquiry; second, the nature of the problem; third, the solution which the Select Committee has recommended.
I first draw the attention of the House to the thoroughness of the Select Committee's investigation. Although I was Chairman of the Committee throughout, I must admit that I claim no personal credit for the thoroughness of the investigation because, in the early stages at any rate, I personally had hoped that we would be able to present our findings to the House a little sooner than we did eventually. But the Committee was very rightly concerned to explore every possible solution before reaching its conclusions. In the event, it held more meetings, saw more witnesses, collected more evidence and considered more schemes than any other Civil List Committee, at least in this century, and, I would guess, in the last as well. The results of our inquiry and the evidence on which it is based are set out in the printed report as a document of more than 250 pages.
The publication of evidence is, as the House knows, an innovation. Never before has a Select Committee on the Civil List reported the evidence submitted to it. But I think that all of us in the Committee reached the conclusion that this evidence would be of the utmost value in enabling the House to get to grips with the somewhat complicated financial arrangements under review. I want particularly to draw the attention

281
of the House to the evidence given by Sir Michael Adeane about the burden of work falling on the Queen and the other members of the Royal Family, the evidence of Sir Basil Smallpeice about the possibility of achieving economies and the evidence of Lord Cobbold about the financial situation, because all this evidence, I think it is fair to say, was the crucial evidence which led a majority of the Committee to accept the need for further financial provision.
At this point I want to deal with one major misconception which bedevils the whole subject for those who do not know what the Civil List really is. There seems to be an impression, at least in some quarters, that the Civil List is in some sense the Queen's salary and that a proposal to increase it therefore amounts to a pay claim. Nothing could be further from the truth. One has only to glance at the facts to know that it is absolute nonsense to speak of the Civil List as the "Monarch's salary".
The Civil List represents the operating expenses of performing the public duties of Head of State. It is the cost, at Head of State level, of performing national functions of representation and hospitality which are also exercised at a lower level by Her Majesty's Ministers and by others of Her Majesty's subjects. As the published evidence shows, the greater part of the Civil List expenditure covers the executive staff dealing with the mass of State papers and correspondence and with organising the State occasions, visits and other public engagements, together with the many interviews and investitures, and so on, undertaken by the Queen.
In this respect, the costs are in many ways comparable with some of those which are incurred within the Government, for example, in connection with Government hospitality. No one would pretend that because the expenses of Government receptions had increased by such and such a percentage over a period of 19 years this represented a pay rise for the Ministers of the day. In the same way, it is ridiculous to describe the Civil List as "the Queen's pay". It is primarily the operating expenses of part of the machinery of State, and to a large extent the increased expenditure represents the cost of pay increases given to Palace staff over the last 20 years.
282
An increase in the Civil List is not, therefore, a pay award either for the Queen or for anyone else. This is just as well perhaps, because anyone who thinks that he would be on to a good thing if his pay moved in line with the increase in Civil List expenditure would, I fear, be grievously disappointed. A few figures will make that clear.
What is the increase in Civil List expenditure? The figure most frequently quoted in the Press is 106 per cent. This is the increase from £475,000 to £980,000, but, in fact, it understates the real increase because it takes no account of the different composition of the two figures. For example, the £475,000 includes a contribution to the Privy Purse which the £980,000 does not. Moreover, neither of the figures represents the actual cost of the Civil List in the years in question. In each case there is a margin to be held in trust by the Royal Trustees until such time as it is required.
There is no simple way of comparing figures of this sort. A much more reliable approach for the purpose of comparison is to look at the out-turn on the two main classes comprising salaries and expenses of the Royal Household. In 1953 the figure was just over £316,000. In the current year the out-turn is expected to be £770,000. This is an increase of about 143 per cent. This figure is slightly overstated because it does not take account of some items which were transferred to Vote-borne expenditure during the period; but expenditure on these in 1953 was relatively small and would not greatly affect the figure. It might have made it about 150 per cent.; so an increase of 150 per cent would be a very fair figure to take as the increase in the Civil List.
Over the same period the income of the average wage and salary earner has increased by over 200 per cent., and the retirement pension by 260 per cent. Incidentally, taking account of the proposals made last week, the pay of Members of this House will have increased by 350 per cent., even disregarding the separate expense allowance, which did not exist at all in 1953. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), who continues to describe the Gracious Message as a pay claim, will, I hope, draw the appropriate conclusion. The fact is that

283
we are spending relatively less on this part of the machinery of State than we were at the beginning of the reign, and this will still be true when the increases now proposed have taken effect.
Having stated what the Civil List is not—that is, a pay increase for the Queen —let me now turn to what it is. The 1952 Civil List provision of £475,000 is in three main parts: a payment of £60,000 to the Queen's Privy Purse, a payment of just over £300,000 for the salaries and expenses of the Household and supplementary provision of some £70,000 to meet future cost increase in the second item. The Gracious Message of 19th May indicated that Her Majesty was content to forgo any further provision for the Privy Purse, and the Civil List provision with which we are now concerned is confined, therefore, almost entirely to the operating costs of the official aspects of the Royal Household; that is, everything that is done in connection with Her Majesty's official and public functions as Head of State.
The greater part of it, as with any Department of Government, represents the salaries of the staff, who are now almost entirely paid and pensioned on a basis analagous to the Civil Service. At one time it may have been practicable, and indeed acceptable, to achieve economies by expecting staff to work for less than they could get elsewhere. But those days, if they ever existed, have gone. The Monarch, like every other employer, has to pay the going rate; and the Civil Service Union was quick to press this point in the evidence it gave to us in the Committee.
At this point I should perhaps refer to the payments to other members of the Royal Family which do not form part of the Queen's Civil List but are in many respects closely analogous. They represent in the main the operating expenses incurred by the other Royal Households in carrying out a share of the royal functions. To some extent they also represent, as the Committee's report points out, compensation for the fact that the Queen's closest relatives are precluded from earning a living in the ways open to the rest of us. In these circumstances, a payment from public funds is justified, and it is more appropriate that each member should be separately provided for than
284
that a much larger sum should be given to Her Majesty to be distributed at her discretion.
To the extent that these payments are on account of expenses of office, they, like the Civil List itself, are largely attributable to staff costs and have also suffered from the effect of inflation. In any organisation faced with rising costs, good management will consider, first, whether all the functions are necessary, and, second, whether they can be carried out more cheaply. The Select Committee looked into both these possibilities. Neither, however, offered any prospect of substantial savings. It is certainly true that costs could be cut if the public functions and appearances of the Monarch within the United Kingdom were to be substantially reduced; but there is no evidence that this is what a majority of people in this country want.
Again, it is true that some money no doubt could be saved if Royal tours abroad were restricted, but it is generally accepted that the value of these events to this country as a whole vastly exceeds their cost; so the Committee concluded that there was no case for seeking savings in this direction.
The second possibility of securing economies by more efficient administration was also gone into by the Committee. The Committee questioned Sir Basil Smallpeice, the administrative adviser, on this aspect. A good deal has already been achieved, because, despite an increase in the amount of work, staff numbers have actually been reduced by 13 per cent. since 1953. No doubt further improvements will be made. But the scope for economies is insignificant in relation to the cost increases which have to be met. So, failing major economies under either of these two heads—greater efficiency or a cutting down of functions —there was another possibility of avoiding increases in the Civil List itself, and that was by carrying further the process of transfer to departmental Votes. As the House knows, a number of items have been transferred from the Civil List to Votes since 1952. But the further this process is carried, the more difficult it becomes to find additional items to transfer to Votes. In fact, already more than three-quarters of all expenditure connected with the Monarchy is borne on Votes.

285
So one reaches the conclusion that to attempt to make further major transfers would amount to transforming the Household as it now exists into a Government Department, and this, of course, is the solution favoured by the Opposition. I will return to it in a few minutes. At this point I need only to say that, although we went into this particular suggestion with great care, in the end it was not acceptable to a majority of the Committee. We were able to identify only two relatively minor items which could be transferred to Votes, and these, though useful, made no great reduction in the total Civil List requirement.
The Committee therefore recognised—and I do not think any single member disagreed with this—that extra money had to be found. The difference of views which emerged in the Committee, and which can be seen very clearly from the report, were concerned not with whether extra money need be found but with how the money should be found. It was, in fact, a problem of finance and accountability, rather than expenditure, which faced the Committee.
The Committee went very thoroughly into all the possible ways of tackling this problem. As hon. Members who were not on the Committee will know from the report, there were in all no fewer than five schemes favoured by one or more members of the Committee.
I do not propose to take the House into the detail of each of these schemes. No doubt individual hon. Members will be elaborating them during the course of the debate. The report makes clear that careful consideration was given to two new, and very different, schemes: first, to finance the Civil List in whole or in part from annual Votes, and, alternatively, to provide for an increasing annual payment from the Consolidated Fund by means of some form of index-link. As the House will realise, these two schemes are at opposite poles so far as the House is concerned, because the first would bring the subject before us every single year, while the second—if it worked—would remove it from us for the rest of the reign.
There is, of course, much which can he said—and which certainly was said during our deliberative proceedings—both for and against each of these schemes. I think that the best service
286
I can do for the House is to comment briefly on the scheme put forward in the Committee by the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who is to follow me.
Most of the attention given to the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, at any rate in the Press, has focused on the paper which he submitted as an alternative draft report. This appears at page 48 of the Committee's report. But this paper, though it sets out in some detail how a scheme for a Department of the Crown could be made to work, and what it would look like in terms of the financial estimates and organisation chart, does not attempt to argue the case for such a solution. Unlike the report which was adopted by the Committee and which argued the pros and cons of each of the possible ways of tackling the Civil List problem, the right hon. Gentleman's scheme merely describes a solution without setting forth any of the arguments in its support. I do not doubt that this afternoon we shall have this from the right hon. Gentleman.
But as the right hon. Gentleman's scheme has, as I understand it, the support of the official Opposition, the House's attention should be drawn to an earlier paper called "Proposal to set up a Department of the Crown", which the right hon. Gentleman circulated to the Committee in July and which is printed as Appendix 3 to the minutes of evidence of the Committee.
This is a very significant paper because it is there made crystal clear that the advantages of what might be termed the Houghton Plan, or now the Opposition Plan, are in the main presentational. I do not for a moment deny that this is a very relevant and important consideration, but it is right that the House should realise that if the Opposition Amendment on the Order Paper is pressed to a division, the issue on which we shall be dividing is essentially one not of how much money Parliament should provide but of how the payment should be presented, financed and controlled. This is why I ask the House to consider the earlier paper submitted by the right hon. Gentleman and the arguments it puts forward for a Department of the Crown. It points out that any solution along traditional lines would almost certainly be headlined as "The Queen's Pay

287
Increase" and comparison made with other pay increases.
Mr. Douglas Houghton rose—
Mr. Barber: I said that the right hon. Gentleman was right. This is a matter of presentation. The right hon. Gentleman, like the rest of us, knows perfectly well that this is not a pay increase. He was right in the presentational aspect. That is why I am dealing with it. It is important.
I ask the House to bear in mind that the paper states that a Department of the Crown would result in a reduction of the Civil List provision while at the same time relieving the strain on the existing Civil List and
" … to some extent …"
" … upon the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Queen's private income."
I must say that this particular argument for a new Department of the Crown may have little appeal to some of the right hon. Gentleman's friends.
Further on in this paper the right hon. Gentleman describes the advantages of his proposals as
"obvious from the point of view of public understanding."
He continues:
"It is as important for the Queen as for M.P.s not to be credited in the public mind with a gross income which bears no relation to the net personal value of emoluments."
I agree that this is an important point. But the question is whether we really take the view that a short-term embarrassment of this sort is adequate justification for the constitutional change involved. There are different views sincerely held about this. After all, the right hon. Gentleman recognises, very fairly—this point is made—that from the point of view of the Monarch there could be what he describes as
"loss of security and stability of resources"
because of the procedure of annual Votes for the new Department.
I repeat that I recognise to the full the importance of presentation in these matters, as I believe the whole Committee did, but I do not believe that I exaggerate when I say that the Opposition's proposals appear to be directed—I put it mildly; I have in my notes "almost
288
entirely", but perhaps I had better change that and say "to a very considerable extent"—to ensuring certain presentational advantages, which in this context means trying to "lose" Royal expenditure in amongst ordinary Government expenditure, apparently in the hope that the man in the street will not notice how much the Monarchy is costing.
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I fully agree with the points that my right hon. Friend is making about the presentational aspects of the problem, but is it not true that, with very few exceptions, the Press presented this Bill precisely as a measure for expenses for the Monarchy and not as a pay rise? I refer particularly to the Daily Telegraph and The Times, for example.
Mr. Barber: From looking through the Press cuttings, I think it varied, but, certainly as a result of some of the things written in the Press or said on television by certain individuals who are supposed to know about these things, the impression got into the minds of some members of the public that this was in some sense a pay claim, in the same way as are the emoluments of Members of Parliament or any other public persons. As I say, I accept generally that that is not so.
But what is important is that certainly the proposals of the Opposition would not save any money, because the staff are already paid on the same basis as civil servants. The Committee found nothing to show that significant economies could be achieved by setting up a new Department of State. Indeed, such evidence as there was pointed the other way.
But the real objections to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal do not relate either to costs or to the level of public understanding or misunderstanding of those costs. The first point is that the Royal Household would be an entirely different kind of institution if it were treated as simply another Department of State. There are some, like the right hon. Gentleman, who would say that they would prefer that, but the arguments in favour of the existing concept are held not only by what might be called the "management side". The Civil Service Union, in oral evidence to the Committee, made it clear that the staff would themselves prefer to be part of a Household and not of a Government Department.

289
The right hon. Gentleman has tried in the alternative draft report which I mentioned to suggest some differences between the proposed Department and any existing Department of State. In particular, he has tried to draw a parallel with the staff of this House, who, as hon. Members know, are not civil servants although they are paid from annual Votes. But this suggestion, though superficially attractive, is very far from convincing. Those of us who know any-think about the staffing of this House realise that it is very far from being anything like a Household, Royal or otherwise.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: On that point, as this appears to be one of the major arguments that the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward about the argument of the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, taking the staff of No. 10 Downing Street as an example, each successive Prime Minister has his own particular stamp and creates his particular body of advisers around him? Surely it is not suggested that the fact that they are on a departmental Vote in any way depersonalises or subtracts from the Prime Minister's right of initiative and the ability to make his particular imprint upon the Administration which he runs and his own staff? Is this not a comparable case?
Mr. Barber: I know that the right hon. Gentleman takes the view that it would not make any difference to the Royal Household if the overwhelming majority of the staff were civil servants and formed part of a Government Department and a Royal Department of State. I can only say to him that I take an entirely contrary view. I believe that it would change the whole nature of the Royal Household if that were done.
Since the evidence certainly did not indicate that it would mean any saving for the taxpayer—on the contrary, all the evidence that there was indicated that it would be more expensive—what is the advantage of doing what is proposed? It is purely presentational. Perhaps I can disclose that in our deliberative sessions we dealt with the question of presentation, which we recognised as an important factor. But I do not believe that it is
290
worth the major change proposed merely to avoid what I consider to be possibly a short-term embarrassment.
The point that I was making, which the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) fairly questioned me about, is not the only objection. There are other important constitutional implications in the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. Her Majesty is Queen not only of this country but of no fewer than 10 other self-governing Commonwealth Monarchies. She is their Queen as much as ours. Although the cost of the Monarchy in this country is and always has been borne by the United Kingdom, it would be a major change if the cost were to be borne in such a way as to intrude a piece of United Kingdom Government machinery—that is what a Department of the Crown would be—between the Queen and the Commonwealth countries.
Mr. Houghton: What is the contribution from those other Governments to the support of the Monarchy? Do we receive a financial contribution from them?
Mr. Barber: No. Perhaps I had better repeat exactly what I said, because the right hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear me. I said that the cost of the Monarchy in this country is and always has been borne by the United Kingdom. It would be a major change if the right hon. Gentleman would have us say, "Because they do not make a contribution, to hell with them. It does not matter what they think about it." I do not take that point of view. We are bound to ask whether they could be expected to relish a situation in which their normal and regular channel of approach to the Monarchy lay through a Department controlled by the United Kingdom Government. That is a real problem. I do not say that there is no possible solution, but the change could hardly he welcome to them. That it is another factor to be taken into account in deciding whether for purely presentational reasons we should adopt the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.
Mr. Michael Stewart rose—
Mr. Barber: I will not give way. I have quite a lot more to say.
As we found in the Committee, no solution is likely to be ideal in the sense

291
that it will satisfy every criterion and be equally acceptable from every one of the different points of view put forward in the Committee. The scheme which the Committee eventually adopted was intended to meet the main criticisms made on both sides of my original proposals. I withdrew them to produce a scheme which took account of the criticisms. The great merit of the scheme now before the House is that it avoids the need to submit an annual Vote to the House while giving the House a periodic opportunity to review the amount of the provision for the Civil List. It relies for its impetus on the periodic preparation of a report by the Royal Trustees, which will be laid before the House, followed by a Treasury Order authorising any increases in provision that the report shows to be necessary. I believe that a scheme on those lines is the only way to deal with the problem to which I referred in opening—to continue to provide for the expenses of the Head of State on traditional lines while allowing for the possibility of future cost increases and without having to resort to new legislation every few years.
I must say something further about the proposed payments to the other members of the Royal Family. These annuities are all subject to tax, and exemption can be given only to the extent that the Treasury is satisfied that the annuity is being spent wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of Royal duties.
Important as these matters are, it is also important not to get them out of perspective. The Palace costs rather less to run than our Embassy in Paris or our Embassy in Bonn. The total cost of all aspects of the Monarchy, including all the Vote-borne services, does not much exceed the cost of our Embassy in Washington. The annual sum which we are considering in the Civil List is less than the Arts Council's subsidy to Covent Garden opera. I mention these facts to put the matter into perspective, not to minimise the importance of the proper scrutiny by Parliament.
A Select Committee of the House has already had 20 meetings on the subject, and now we have a full day's debate. Thereafter, we shall have the stages of a short but necessary Bill. The basic reason why we are giving such considera-
292
tion to the matter is that we all, whatever view we took in Committee and whatever the view of individual hon. Members who were not on the Committee, know that we are taking decisions about an institution which, just as much as Parliament, is an essential part of our history, our constitution and our way of life. It is with those thoughts in mind that I commend the Motion to the House.
Mr. Stewart: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he deal with this point? He suggested that the Queen's realms other than the United Kingdom would not relish the sort of change which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) suggests. What evidence has he for that? Have any of them expressed an opinion, or has he himself consulted them?
Mr. Barber: No, Sir. They have not been consulted. The right hon. Gentleman will find that what I said was that this is a question that we should certainly have to pose. I added that I did not doubt that the right hon. Gentleman might be able to find a solution to that aspect. I respect what is said by the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart), with his experience as Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. My basic point is that the difference between the two schemes concerns not the amount but purely the method of payment, and the question is whether for the advantages of presentation, which I agree are very real, we should take upon ourselves the disadvantages, some of which I mentioned and others of which were discussed in the deliberative sessions of the Committee.
Mr. Stewart: So the answer to my question is, "No".
4.48 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Houghton: This is a somewhat unusual debate, since the Chancellor of the Exchequer has replied to my proposals before I have put them to the House.
Another curiosity about the debate is that I must refrain from moving my Amendment lest it restricts the scope of the debate. I must leave it to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) at the end of the day. However, I shall go over my proposals carefully in the hope that I can

293
persuade the House that they have more merit than the Chancellor has suggested.
As one who was fortunate enough to attend all the 20 meetings of the Select Committee—quite a record, if I may say so—I should like to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman's genial and patient chairmanship throughout all our proceedings. It is a strange thing that when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen get into the atmosphere of this House impulses seem to be generated which are never seen in Committee. The Chancellor has been rather less patient this afternoon than he was throughout the whole course of the proceedings of the Select Committee. However, we thank him.
One of the features of the Committee was that we probably had more deliberative sessions than has ever been customary. Members of the Committee from both sides of the House were anxious to get to the heart of the matter, which was how to make adequate provision for the support and expenses of the Monarchy during a period when inflation and changes in values and prices made it extremely difficult to decide upon an adequate amount for a considerable period of time in the future.
As for my own scheme, I make it clear that it is not primarily devoted to money. It is more to do with the method of providing money, having regard to the circumstances to which I have referred. The proposal I made in my memorandum means paying the cost of the upkeep of the Monarchy—the Queen's personal expenditure and personal staff excepted—out of moneys provided by Parliament instead of it being a permanent charge by Act of Parliament on the Consolidated Fund. The Government Motion proposes the continuance of the past and present practice of fixing the amounts payable by Act of Parliament, by the Civil List Act, and charging them to the Consolidated Fund. My scheme makes the main expenses of the Monarch open to scrutiny and, if it is thought fit, to debate in this House. They would require the approval of the House, along with other estimates of Government expenditure.
As the Chancellor has said, a substantial part of the comprehensive expenses of the Monarch are dealt with in that way. Expenses for the Royal yacht, for example, of which we have heard a great
294
deal at times—that it is too expensive, we cannot afford it, it is not adequately used, and so on—amounting to about £750,000 a year are not chargeable to the Consolidated Fund but are on the Estimates of the Ministry of Defence and are open to debate at any time when estimates can appropriately be discussed. If people want to torpedo the Royal yacht they can do it in this House now. If they want to ground the Queen's Flight they can do that now in this House because that again is chargeable to the Estimates of the Ministry of Defence.
The maintenance and repair of the Royal Palaces is on the Vote of the Department of the Environment, in the old Ministry of Public Building and Works. If it is a matter of which colour the windows are painted, whether there is enough varnish on the door and other such matters relating to the upkeep of the Royal Palaces, it is on the Vote of that Ministry—£900,000 a year. These are not chargeable to the Civil List or to the Consolidated Fund. Royal Household pensions and Civil List pensions, while chargeable to the Consolidated Fund, are separately provided for in the Civil List Act and are not therefore chargeable to the moneys made available to Her Majesty for normal administration purposes.
As the Chancellor said, we have just short of £3 million a year of expenditure related to the institution of the Monarchy, borne by departmental Votes. If we want to "lose" expenditure on the Monarchy by scattering it across departmental Votes we have gone a long way towards doing that already. My proposal would be to bring all these together so that they would be seen to be part of the comprehensive expenditure of the Monarchy. They would not be lost at all; they would be there year by year, not lost for 10 years under the Government's proposals.
There is another item to be brought into the reckoning, and that is the £52,000 a year postal charges which are borne by the Post Office Board. It allows the Crown free postal facilities. I will not stop to examine the effects of that concession on the finances of the Post Office; all I would say is that it is the gift of a grateful Post Office Board to Her Majesty. I do not criticise it; I state it as a fact. The Amendment would transfer all this and a substantial portion

295
of the costs of staff and administration to the new body to be created, the Commissioners of the Crown, a body similar in functions and responsibilities to the Commissioners of the House of Commons. We are not reluctant to have our financial affairs as Parliamentarians put in the Estimates of the country or to have them debated in the House.
This would not be, as the Chancellor pointed out—or did he?—a Government Department. It would not be a Government Department in the usual sense any more than the staff and officers of this House are within a Government Department and any more than they are civil servants, because they are not civil servants. There is much in the conditions of service of officers and staff of this House which is comparable with similar grades in the Civil Service, and that is the principle which has now been accepted by the Crown to govern the conditions of service to apply to all the 450 staff employed in the Royal Household.
Another quite unusual feature about the existing arrangement is that not only is the principle of fair comparability accepted but in the event of a dispute the union can go to the Civil Service arbitration tribunal and the Crown is honour bound to accept the award of that tribunal in the same way as this House and the Chancellor accept the awards of the tribunal for the rest of the Civil Service. We can see how close this is to the Civil Service already. Under this proposal these people would not be civil servants.
Why are we proposing this? What is the motive behind it? I can say sincerely that we are out to help the people and the Monarchy towards a better understanding of the realities of running an important institution within our parliamentary system. I can say without any qualification that there is nothing personal against Her Majesty in what we are proposing—certainly not so far as I am concerned, and I am sure that goes for my hon. and right hon. Friends. Her Majesty is held in great respect and deep affection by millions of Labour voters. No one can doubt her dedication to her duties and responsibilities, her constant care to uphold the dignity of the Crown, and the contribution which she
296
makes towards the unity of the Commonwealth. I was rather sorry that there was any note introduced suggesting that She would not be able to do that so well under my proposal as under the existing system. Let that be taken as sincere and as being said with conviction. May I suggest that it sets the tone of this debate?
Is it worth while even spending a moment on any alternative? Do we want a President? One of my American friends said that if I wanted to know the real cost of the Presidency I should go to the United States and take a look. He said that it costs more just to elect the President than it costs to keep Her Majesty year by year. If we were to have a national poll on a President, a new form of election would be brought into our constitutional arrangements. If we were ever to consider having a President elected by Parliament, we need only look at the jam Italy is in.
I mention this more freely in your presence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, than in the presence of Mr. Speaker, but we seem to be having difficulties even in electing a Speaker. I recently read a suggestion that this should be done by secret ballot, with an eliminating contest if necessary. If that is our taste in Heads of State, let us get on with it, but it is not mine, and I do not think it would commend itself to the general opinion of the House.
Sir Robin Turton: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will refrain from quoting a document which is confidential and, therefore, privileged.
Mr. Houghton: I am not quoting from anything that I have read. I am saying what people have told me about this matter. It is common knowledge that these things are being talked about.
Our Monarchy is better suited to our history and traditions. We might all agree right now to retain the Monarchy and consider how we should finance it. What sort of Monarch should we have? Should we have a Monarch who goes about on a bicycle or in a gold coach? From what I have seen of two right hon. Gentlemen on bicycles, one wearing a bowler hat and one without a hat, I should not think that is a particularly impressive way of presenting oneself to the people. There is nothing to be said for

297
a Monarch, a President or even a Chairman of the Trades Union Congress who does not have some glamour. It is a matter of degree, and the degree is a matter to be decided by the House of Commons as representing the people. This is what we have to decide, because it is implicit in the method of financing which we adopt.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the draft report, which went before the Select Committee and was rejected by the narrowest majority of any division throughout its proceedings, contains no arguments in support of it. He was good enough to refer to the memorandum which I presented to the Committee and which contained my first thoughts. It is reproduced on page 88 of the report. I acknowledge that my original ideas were all my own work, but the draft report was not. Like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has more need of assistance in these matters perhaps than I have, I had a bit of extra help to draft the report, and I acknowledge the great services rendered to me by the officers of the Committee in that connection. I said there one or two things which I will repeat.
Whatever the historic claim of the Crown to the Throne, the practical position is that the Monarchy in a British democracy, with a free Press and universal franchise, exists at the will and pleasure of the people. No Monarch should be ashamed to be in that position. The position carries with it mutual loyalties, obligations and duties. It implies a sense of obligation to the Head of State to maintain the holder and the office in a suitable style to enable the duties to be performed without financial strain or a feeling of ingratitude.
The fulfilment of the requirements of the Monarch as part of the institution of Parliament as the titular Head of State and Commonwealth can be accomplished only by supporting the Queen with, first, staff, accommodation and services needful for these purposes and, second, with an income to cover personal and family expenditure. By these means the financial provision for the Queen's person can be seen to be separate and distinct from the expenses of the Crown as an institution.
The Amendment, if the House saw fit to pass it, would pave the way to the
298
introduction of a scheme on these lines in the same way as the Motion proposed by the right hon. Gentleman paves the way to the introduction of the Bill next week.
The disadvantages of the present system are to be seen in the very task set to the Select Committee—a review only at long intervals when the fall in the value of money might call for such a big increase that there are large headlines which start public debate and generate discontent. That is what we get now. The right hon. Gentleman gave some examples of it. I warned him what would come, and it came. I subscribe to a Press cutting agency, which is nearly ruining me. Here is one example from the Western Daily Press of 3rd December:
"A million for the Queen. Her pay will be doubled in 1972."
I did not hear it myself, and I mention it with reserve, but I was told that in a television programme it was said that the Queen would get £1 for each of the million unemployed. That is a deeply offensive suggestion, and a most wounding one in present circumstances. I stress to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that presentation is all-important with the media that we have—the flashpoint, the Press, the television interviews, the street talks, which are all presented to millions of people. The existing arrangements lend themselves to that kind of misunderstanding and misrepresentation.
Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Will not that cause a great problem in the middle of next year, when we bring down the unemployment rate and the Queen gets only £1 per person?
Mr. Houghton: I do not think that is very helpful. I was dealing with what is offensive now.
The House knows that hidden in the appendices of the Select Committee Report are many of the true facts of the matter. I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is a good thing, though unique, to publish the whole of the evidence. Very little has been left out under what is known as the sidelining procedures.
Of the approximately £1 million a year which is to be provided under the Government Motion, nearly one-half is

299
paid out in staff wages and salaries, which is an increase from £175,000 a year in 1953. The figures are given on page 93. There was some ambivalence in the evidence of the Civil Service Union. It is there in the record and hon. Members may read it for themselves. The union said, first, that it wanted comparability with similar grades in the public services. It was acknowledged that there might be difficulty in getting comparability if the strain on the Royal finances was getting unduly heavy. After all, the position might conceivably be reached when Her Majesty might have to say, "I am sorry, I cannot pay".
The proposals we are now making are to enable the Crown always to have adequate remuneration for the staff. It seems to me that the staff of the Royal Household cannot have it all ways. If they wish to be part of the Royal Household, personal servants of Her Majesty, they cannot necessarily expect to be treated on the same lines as civil servants without some of the risks of their occupation. Under the proposals I put to the Committee, it would be possible to take most of the expenses of staff and officials off the Civil List and put them on the Vote of the Commissioners of the Crown.
In an appendix to my draft report I gave a specimen estimate of what should be put before the House of Commons. Instead of paying increases and other charges, like National Health contributions, and putting a heavier and heavier strain on the Civil List provision as years go by, these would be taken care of in the Annual Estimates. The advantages of transferring the bulk of the Civil List expenditure from the Consolidated Fund to the Annual Estimates is clear enough. In my view, this would be by far the better way of making sure of the money.
Furthermore, under my proposals there will be no need to make excess provision at the outset to build up an accumulated fund in the hands of trustees to be used against the deficit which might emerge later—in other words, anticipating the rise in expenditure and the fall in the value of money. Under my scheme that would not be necessary since this could be dealt with from year to year. I believe this would lead to a better
300
understanding of the institution of the Monarchy and the cost of upkeep than by personalising it all in the Queen's money. It would also get rid of a lot of curiosity and unfair comment.
I made this point of principle in the evidence I gave to the Boyle Committee. This is absolutely essential not only for presentational purposes but in terms of the truth of the matter—and truth is worth something in whatever we are doing. The truth of the matter is that neither the Queen nor Members of Parliament get the pay the public think we get because we have essential expenses which have to be borne out of the gross amount. I impressed on the Boyle Committee the need to identify well-established and unavoidable expenditure and to provide for it separately in order not to mix it up with the misconception of gross remuneration. In the case of Members of Parliament there is an evil which we do not find in relation to the Monarchy.
Members of Parliament are left in the position of contending with the Inland Revenue for the highest net income we can get by means of taxable deductions from our assessable income. That is not a desirable feature of the existing arrangements for payment of Members of the House of Commons, any more than it is a desirable feature of the remuneration of anybody else. We as Members of Parliament know what it feels like to be credited as Members of Parliament with income that we do not get. But, apart from presentation—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to think there was very little else in this—I stress that the truth of the matter is also important.
It also would provide proper and more certain provision for the staff pay and conditions and many other items of expenditure which are exposed to the consequences of inflation. It would relieve the Crown of a great worry about rising costs in maintaining the large palaces and the Monarchy. Secondly, it would bring about more control by Parliament. Is this, in 1971, a matter to be brushed aside? I stress that this is a more democratic way of proceeding, and I attach importance to democratic methods. It would also be a more efficient way of proceeding.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman is now contradicting himself since he suggests there should be greater control by Parliament, which obviously means more frequent control by Parliament. This would mean that the kind of bad publicity of which he complained a short while ago would be repeated more frequently. Would that not be a disservice to the Monarchy?
Mr. Houghton: I do not accept that judgment of the matter. Indeed, it would come to be regarded as a normal part of the provision of expenditure for public purposes. There are many things which appear in our Estimates which, if dealt with by this method, would attract adverse publicity—which does not happen in present circumstances. The more one allows people to have frequent access to facts and the more one allows freedom of comment, the greater the number of people who accept the underlying principles of what one is doing and much of their curiosity and ill-feeling is removed. This is the psychology of the matter, and I am sure we are right. If we were to accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, we should want to hive off far more public expenditure into 10-year slabs of forward provision, rather than to have them come before this House. What I propose is not only more democratic but would make for a healthier condition in regard to the position of the Monarchy.
What are the disadvantages of my proposals? I refer to some of them on page 88 of my memorandum, but I will dispose of one straight away. It suggested that there would be no saving of expense under the plan and that the Monarchy might cost more and not less. Saving is not the real purpose of the plan. Savings may come or they may not—and I do not want to appear to be indifferent to public expenditure—but I am saying that I do not know, and for my purposes at this moment I do not care, whether the expense would be greater or less. I am concerned with the principle of the matter. The point is that there should be better presentation, greater parliamentary control and, therefore, more democratic control and recognition of the Monarchy for what it truly is—namely, part of the institution of British Government. I do not think there are any objec-
302
tions to this scheme put forward in the Amendment from the point of view of Parliament. Certainly, if we are conscious of our duties and responsibilities as Members of Parliament, there is none.
What, then, are these objections, and how do they arise? One has to deal with great discretion with what might be supposed to be the view of what are sometimes called the Palace authorities. I can only rely on the evidence which has already been given. I should like to draw attention to the evidence of Lord Cobbold. When I first put this idea to him at Question 131, Lord Cobbold made a provisional observation, and then later, in reply to a question by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House at Question 180, Lord Cobbold said:
"Although Mr. Houghton was not asking for any immediate answer to his proposition, may I just make three observations on it. Although the Household is in one sense a Department of State, it is also a family administration and the two things are slightly intermingled and it is not a straightforward department. Secondly, the employees from top to bottom certainly think of themselves as Her Majesty's servants and Her Majesty certainly thinks of them as her servants."
Another comment is to be found on page 28, in reply to Question 214 by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). When Lord Cobbold was asked whether he had any objection in principle to the procedure of transferring expenses and salaries on to the votes, Lord Cobbold said:
"Yes, mainly from the point of view of efficiency. If you transfer them on to a vote, it is not clear whether this one is in your own service and that one in someone else's service. It appears to be very much easier to run a Household like the Royal one if you are precisely clear that everyone is working for you under your control."
That is all that I can trace or remember of the reactions of the Palace authorities to this proposal.
The central issue appears to be one of control. Who is to be in ultimate control of the Royal Household? Is it to be the Queen or Parliament? Here again, I speak with great respect. If the Monarch could manage without coming to Parliament, there could be only one answer. In other words, she would run her own Household and pay for it. But the Monarch is maintained by Parliament, and the Crown does not admit that the private resources of the Crown

303
are relevant to the discussion. I do not say that there is any real conception of the rate for the job. But I have no doubt that Her Majesty acquiesces in the view that the expenses of a constitutional Monarchy are the responsibility of the State. Certainly I accept that view and all that goes with it in terms of reasonable and responsible parliamentary control, and that is the substance of the matter.
Would such a system lead to difficulties or even to friction between the Crown and the Commissioners or between the Commissioners and Parliament? Would the detail of administration make for divided responsibility and inefficiency? If hon. Members will study the management chart in the appendix to my draft report, they will probably feel that there would be little difference in the form and substance of the running of the Household under the new conditions compared with the old.
The real issue and difference would be of ultimate control. Staff pay and negotiations, the principal feature of rising costs, would be dealt with on a more satisfactory footing where fair comparability could be fair and free from any element of strain on the Royal finances.
I do not anticipate any difficulty. Ministers in official residences who want double beds can usually get them. I have never heard of a case where a Minister has been told that he must have twin beds instead. I have never known cases where requirements are not met for the furnishing, decoration, and repair and maintenance of official premises.
I believe that we should get greater efficiency by the adoption of our proposal. It would give an opportunity to the Commissioners of the Crown to have a constant review of expenditure and not feel that they were inhibited from undertaking it in the interests of parliamentary scrutiny.
Captain Walter Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the Palace authorities. I think that he said that Lord Cobbold put forward the view that they looked upon themselves as the Monarch's servants and that the Monarch looked upon them as her servants. Surely, in those circumstances,
304
they have a responsibility to the Monarch. In what the right hon. Gentleman proposes, the Palace authorities, so called, would be under the authority of the Monarch's Government and the Government would exercise an influence on the Palace authorities.
Mr. Houghton: I do not think that that is a material point. In the circumstances, I think that we should find that authority for administration would rest where it rests now, in the hands of Palace officials. The ultimate control of expenditure would rest with the Commissioners of the Crown. I do not think that we in this House are conscious of having the Commissioners of the House of Commons looming and brooding over us in the expenditure in this House. The responsibility and immediate direction is in the hands—
Captain Elliot rose—
Mr. Houghton: No, I shall not give way again. I must finish my speech, because a large number of hon. Members wish to speak.
I was about to comment that I do not attach importance to the status of "servant" to the Monarch. In any case, I see little distinction between service to the Monarch and service in the Civil Service. Both are service to the Crown.
There are other items of expenditure with which we are all familiar. I have in mind garden parties, and the rest. I see no reason why they should not be transferred to the Commissioners of the Crown. The genius for smooth relationships and administration would prevail in the arrangements made under my proposals.
There is one matter with which I should deal. There could be a fear on the part of the Monarch that under my proposals and those of the Opposition some future Government more bent on reducing public expenditure than the present one might begin their economies within the Royal Household in order to set an example to everyone else. What is even worse, some anti-Monarchist Government might assail the Monarchy itself—
Mr. William Hamilton: Hear, hear.
Mr. Houghton: Perhaps a Government led by my hon. Friend the Member for

305
Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). I believe these to be groundless fears. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West ever became Prime Minister, I am sure that he would make a good one. I am sure, too, that he would soon be an Establishment figure and as devoted a Monarchist as many of the rest of us.
I believe that the Monarchy would be strengthened rather than weakened or even made less secure by the adoption of this plan. If the Monarchy were to be assailed, it would not be a matter of the financial provision that should be made for it. It would be a matter of whether it stayed or went. In democratic societies, Monarchies no longer tight; they go quietly. I have no doubt that the Monarchy is an established institution of State in Britain for as far ahead as anyone would care to see.
I believe that this scheme would be a gesture of confidence and of mutual trust. I believe that the Monarchy and its finances should be entrusted to the will of Parliament, like all our other institutions. Even our defence forces are entrusted to the annual Vote of the House of Commons. Who, then, is to say that the Monarchy must be enshrined in financial security for 10 years ahead when the House would be very willing to make provision year by year? Continuity and security rest upon approval and loyalty and not upon safeguards based on any sense of insecurity.
The acceptance of the Amendment would be a symbol of the unity of Crown and Parliament and would strengthen the institution of the Monarchy in the minds of the people.
5.28 p.m.
Dr. Alan Glyn: I am honoured to be called immediately after two very senior Privy Councillors and I feel duly humble in making my contribution. The House will know that I represent a constituency where the Monarch and many of her family spend a great deal of time. Windsor Castle lies within my constituency.
Perhaps I might take up one point made by the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who rather good naturedly referred to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and said that my right hon. Friend was
306
a little ahead in referring to what he had said during the Committee's proceedings. It is only fair that my right hon. Friend should have referred to what the right hon. Gentleman said in Appendix 3 of the Report of the Select Committee.
As I see it, the difference between my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman concerns the method of accountancy adopted by the right hon. Gentleman. It is one with which I cannot agree. However, there is some substance in what the right hon. Gentleman said about there being already Royal expenditure which is part of Government expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Royal yacht, the Queen's Flight and the postal charges.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to help in this extremely difficult and highly complex matter. I believe that the relationship between the Monarch and her staff is quite different. I will elaborate on this matter later. It is a friendly and close relationship. There is a mixture in this Household of a private family and the public duties which they perform. It is extremely difficult to make a clear-cut division between the two. This was brought out in the Committee's report. The close relationship between the Monarch and her staff should be maintained, and I will deal later with the question of financing the Monarchy.
One point which the Committee has very clearly brought out is the immense amount of travel and hard day-to-day work in which not only the Monarch but all members of the Royal Family have been engaged. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that since 1952—this was brought out in the report—the amount of work had increased enormously. Like many hon. Members, I spent the entire weekend reading the Select Committee's report. It is a comprehensive document about an extremely complicated constitutional matter. It has shown to the public that not only the Monarch but other members of the Royal Family perform enormous service for the country, both at home and abroad. My constituents are deeply conscious of the many favours which all members of the Royal Family show to the people of Windsor which is apparent on the many occasions when we see members of the Royal Family carrying out public duties.

307
I should now like to turn to a somewhat different point. My right hon. Friend explained that most of the expenditure was due to the increase in wages. Another important matter, which I am sure many hon. Members will want to take up, is that this country has a special relationship with the Monarch. As the right hon. Member for Sowerby said, there is no vote of money from the Commonwealth for the monarchy. Yet Her Majesty and members of the Royal Family have to enjoy visits to Commonwealth countries. I do not think that any taxpayer would grudge a single penny spent on tours not only to Commonwealth, but other countries.
The problem which arises—it is simple but difficult to resolve—is the necessity to give the Monarch adequate financial provision as foreseen in the 1952 Act. I should like to suggest how this can best be achieved without continuous reference to Parliament and embarrassment for both the Monarch and Parliament.
A very good suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-on-Thames (Mr. Boyd Carpenter)—I know that if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will elaborate—was for a method of combating inflation, as I saw it, and ensuring that we did not have to review continuously. The right hon. Member for Sowerby put forward another solution, namely, changing the method of accountancy. I should like to suggest a third solution. However, before doing so, it is appropriate to mention another matter to which so far reference has not been made.
I refer to the staff, from the equerries to the typing staff—everybody who works for the Royal Household. It is a great tribute to the work they do—the evidence given by Sir Michael Adeane was particularly interesting—that here is a department the workload of which has increased considerably but the staff of which has hardly increased at all. Furthermore, Sir Michael Adeane did not want an increase in staff. In other words, there is a special relationship of duty between the staff and the Monarch in that they are willing to undertake a great deal of work on the Monarch's behalf. No one can deny that it is a very efficient organisation.
308
I should like to refer to the Investiture of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales which was carried out under the auspices of the Earl Marshal and the Heralds. All those officers are members of the Royal Household. I was only privileged to be one of the Earl Marshal's very junior Green Staff Officers, but I was impressed by the amazing efficiency with which that operation was carried out by the small number of people employed to do it. The set-up may be illogical in some instances, but to me it is an extremely efficient organisation.
Those who work for Her Majesty are most approachable people to the public. They are not remote beings. They not only look after Her Majesty's interests but they carry out a number of difficult duties when demands are made on them by the public.
I tabled a Question on 8th June, which appears at column 297 of Written Answers, in which I asked my right hon. Friend exactly how much the Monarch gave up in exchange for the Civil List. Incidentally, that Question was put down before the Question in another place which was mentioned by the Select Committee. The answer was the immense sum of about £5½1 million which, if we take the evidence given to the Select Committee, is a rising sum annually. The country should know that this is what the Monarch surrenders voluntarily in exchange for a fixed income.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: How did she get it?
Dr. Glyn: If the hon. Gentleman has read the report he will have seen the evidence which was given. Specific questions were asked on this point. The hon. Member will appreciate that questions on extremely complex constitutional points are difficult to answer. The evidence which was given was the best available. There was no question of anyone trying to hide anything. I agree that there is a great division between the responsibilities, fiscal and others, and it is difficult in some instances to define the exact responsibilities.
Mr. Joel Barnett: The hon. Gentleman said that nobody tried to hide anything, but that was what they did. They would not answer the direct question of how much money was available.
Dr. Glyn: The hon. Gentleman is referring to something outside the scope of the report. There are two entirely different matters to consider. One is the Sovereign's personal wealth, which is a private matter, and the other is the amount which is used directly for the maintenance of her duties as Head of State. This was made quite plain in the evidence.
If the hereditary dues were set aside and used for the maintenance of the Monarchy, there would be considerable difficulties. One is that the Monarch could be put in the position of being a direct landlord—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because she would be the head of the Crown estates. But if a separate administration were set up and the Monarchy had no control, this would be better. I have a great deal to do with this type of property for constituents and have a large number of queries, and I have to point out to my constituents that the Monarchy is not the actual landlord. There is a constitutional difference.
Mr. Michael English: The hon. Member is puzzling me. He seems to assume that there are the Crown estates and the Queen's private income distinct from them. But he never mentions the Duchy of Lancaster. This is treated as if it is the Queen's private income. It is not subject to income tax but it is inherited by her as Queen—otherwise it would be a possession of the Duke of Windsor—and there she is a direct landlord.
Dr. Glyn: I was coming to that point. It was referred to in the Committee. I interpret the Select Committee's findings in this way. There is a special relationship, and it seemed to work. I accept the hon. Member's point that, in a very much larger estate, which runs into many millions of pounds a year, the obligations of being a direct landlord are very much greater. So far in the Duchy of Lancaster this has been overcome by a personal relationship. There has been no problem, but I would not say that those problems would not appear in Piccadilly or somewhere like that where valuable properties are involved. Therefore, they would have to be administered and the Sovereign would have at her disposal a sum of money which could be apportioned according to her needs.
310
There would be no necessity to come to Parliament.
The statistics and the graph of those dues show that they now stand at over £5 million and are likely to appreciate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames suggested using this as a yardstick, but it would be easier if we simply used that amount of the dues which was essential for expenses. We had this in 1952. We have it now and we will, no doubt, have it again. I would prefer a system which did not have to be continually reviewed by Parliament.
I pay a tribute not only to the work of the Select Committee and to those who gave evidence but to the day-to-day work done by all members of Her Majesty's staff which sometimes goes very ill-appreciated, the extraordinarily difficult position they occupy and the way in which they discharge their duties.
If the hereditary dues were allocated to the Soverign there would be the difficult question of how much money should be allotted to the various members of the Royal Family. It would be possible for Her Majesty's advisers to say how much each individual member of the Royal Family should get, and that amount should be in respect of the services and work which they do for the community.
I am very grateful to have been allowed to speak in this debate because it is something which is keenly felt by many members of Her Majesty's staff who live in my constituency and by my constituents who think it a very real and great privilege to have an increasing number of State visits at Windsor, to which the whole constituency looks forward. We are very grateful for the privileges which we enjoy.
5.44 p.m.
Mr. Richard Crossman: I hope that the hon. Member for Windsor (Dr. Glyn) will forgive me if I do not follow him in the tone which he has adopted in this debate. I am sure that he represented in it the attitude of many of his constituents who voted for him. I have to reflect those of Coventry, where we take a somewhat more abrasive attitude towards the Monarchy. That is to say, apart from some of my Irish voters who I suppose are republicans, most of us are honest-to-God monarchists,

311
in a strange sense. We believe in the institution and see its value but we see nothing lacking in respect if we deal with it in a matter-of-fact way, getting value for money, and if we require above all that, when we are discussing money, there shall be full disclosure of the necessary evidence.
My impression is that my constituents would not be grateful to me if I doffed my cap and said how grateful I was to the Select Committee. They share my view that it failed in its function—not owing to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) who is sitting beside me.
If my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) were present, I should like to say to him how much on this occasion I found myself not disagreeing with him. It is a pleasant moment for me in his absence to say that I read with great appreciation the delicacy of his attack and the deadliness with which the rapier was pressed home. I slightly regretted that it was withdrawn at the critical point when it was actually drawing blood and that it was not kept going round after round. Still, I congratulate my hon. Friends. They did a good job. They did enough to show the public how much was being concealed. As we all know, this was the essential thing.
I would say to the hon. Member for Windsor that there has been a considerable change in public opinion even over the last six months. A few months ago, when the Civil List was announced, I dared to publish in my journal an article headed "Royal Tax Avoiders". There was quite a stir and I got hundreds of letters. One-third of them were strongly in favour but two-thirds were strongly against, saying how terrible it was to suggest that there was anything wrong, that they did not pay their taxes or that we did not know the truth. Last week I published an article, quite a sharp, lively article, in much more detail. There was only one letter against. The public now accept, as a result of public education—
Mr. Thorpe: Or they have given up reading that paper.
Mr. Crossman: —with virtually no disagreement, what our side of the Com-
312
mittee was demanding—full disclosure and the transfer of the management of these affairs to a Government Department. No one can say that public opinion, outside Windsor, will be against this. Certainly, in the Midlands we should all welcome it.
I regretted that there was a deliberate censorship. We cannot even know the answers to the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett). They were suppressed. Even the little which was extracted had to be put aside because it touched on the one issue where there had been a deliberate and systematic mystification.
That mystification is on the subject of the Royal private fortune. We are told that the Crown has just told the Chancellor that this cannot be disclosed because it is irrelevant. But the Committee's report and the evidence given show that it is not irrelevant. It was not irrelevant to extract at least the truth about taxation. That proof was not known before the report was published, and even the gentlemen who, in the House of Commons Library, composed their excellent paper to enable us to make speeches got it all wrong. They gave us the best available evidence but it was wrong. They said that it might be £50 million. We now hear from the hon. Member that this is an hysterical or extravagant exaggeration.
Dr. Glyn: I have no knowledge whatever of these details. In my view the private life, private fortune and private possessions of the Crown have nothing to do with this debate. [Interruption.] This debate is about the Monarchy in relation to her public duties as distinct from her private duties.
Mr. Crossman: I am disappointed at that intervention because this is the sole issue with which I wish to deal. We on this side of the House believe that it has a great deal to do with the debate. It is a scandal, if a minor one, that owing to pressure on the part of the Crown this information was denied to the Select Committee.
I must make a contrast between the Civil List paper and the emolumentary paper—I must not refer to pay awards—relating to hon. Members and Ministers.

313
I have not found any refusal of disclosure on the part of hon. Members. In considering the whole question of awards to hon. Members, I find all the economic and financial background to enable me to discuss the whole issue. Of course it was known that when one filled up the necessary forms about one's life, one was giving details which were highly relevant, including details of one's private income.
I accept that it may be difficult to deal with a matter such as this but it is an extremely relevant factor. Indeed it is a basic factor. I am saying that it is just as relevant when dealing with the Royal Family and even more relevant when dealing with their private—
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Crossman: No.
Mr. Lewis: But—
Mr. Crossman: I want to explain the position to the hon. Gentleman before he tells me I am wrong. I am explaining why I think it is relevant. Surely he cannot interrupt me before I have finished telling him why I think it is relevant.
It is relevant because a huge, untaxed, increasing private income is bound to be brought into account in a case where, as the Committee discovered and as the Court officials agreed, no clear distinction can be made between the private and public duties of the Monarch—or, therefore, between her private and her public income. One cannot distinguish between them.
Consider, for example, the Royal pictures which can be regarded as public as distinct from the areas that can be regarded as private, e.g., Balmoral and Sandringham. Then we have the Royal Stamp collection, libraries and jewellery. We have been told that they must be considered public in the sense that they are not things that can be privately disposed of.
It is agreed that there is no clear and sharp distinction here and that, the life of the Monarch being what it is, it is impossible sharply to distinguish even between what clothes she buys for herself and those she buys for her public duties. Thus, if the expenditure of the Monarch, public and private, overlaps, and if the
314
incomes overlap, it is highly relevant also to know the extent to which not only what public capital she owns or what public property she has but also what private capital and property she has.
The whole thing is utterly illogical. Consider, for example, the Prince of Wales. The extent of his private property is not said to be a great disgrace. What is in the Duchy of Cornwall can be discovered. We know the amount. In the case of the Prince of Wales, it is possible to estimate, from the evidence provided by the Committee, the extent of his private fortune. In terms of real estate it is about £20 million, which is quite a formidable private fortune, tax-free. This comes out of the evidence because he is dependent on the Duchy of Cornwall, and that information cannot be concealed. It does not make sense that in a family such as this we can see, examine publicly and discuss the private fortune of the Prince of Wales, whereas part of the Queen's fortune can be disguised.
Are the finances in this context of the Duchess of Lancaster private or public? These matters should be discussed publicly because when she is short of cash she can ask for a £300,000 transfer from the Duchy of Lancaster to make up any shortfall. That is not reported to the Commons and is, therefore, not discovered or investigated until the Select Committee is appointed. These things can go on between one part of her fortune and another so as to make things go as they have gone in the last 10 years.
The evidence to the Committee was, therefore, overwhelming—overwhelming in the sense that this is a relevant factor. I welcome it, as I welcomed my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford pressing the point that it was ridiculous to have a situation in which all that Lord Cobbold could do was to guess and say that £50 million was not an extravagant sum. [Interruption.] I gather he said that that was a "wildly extravagant" guess. My right hon. Friend said that even if it were wildly exaggerated it might still produce an income twice as high as the total Civil List. It must be relevant to have this information in considering the needs of the Royal Family.
It is a great pity that this issue, which was raised tentatively on this occasion was not finally decided because, frankly,

315
it does not do the Royal Family any good if there are suspicious abroad that they do not want the truth known about how wealthy they are. It would have been very much wiser for the Palace to have allowed the Committee to have the information it felt it required.
It was a great mistake to force the Committee to divide on party lines so that only the Conservative side wanted to deny the information or to support the Crown in denying it, while the Labour side had to insist that the information should be given. For this reason I say that we shall be voting tonight largely on this issue. [Interruption.] I shall be voting not only on the technical issue of the Department of State.
I want that Department as a symbol of the transfer of responsibility so that there is no more concealment and to enable all these matters to be taken into account by the Department of State next time. It is important to go behind the Amendment. We need to have this one residual issue cleared up because this is the residual issue that is causing a great deal of comment.
Frankly, I was surprised when I read in the Committee's report that no tax had ever been paid and that since estate duties were established in 1894 the Royal Family had not paid a penny in estate duty, income tax or surtax and that even purchase tax can be reclaimed. I was also surprised to discover that Royals have very special treatment in that when they pay tax it is dealt with by the Treasury and not the Inland Revenue. The lavishness of the expense account grant is striking. It is done in a very different way from anything I have experienced.
In my view, we should be equal. When it comes to money we should, whether we are Royals or commoners, have common accounting systems. We should be willing to subject ourselves to full investigation and disclosure. The more royal we are and the wealthier we are, the more willing we should be to disclose. The reluctance to do so deeply disturbed me.
What disturbed me more was the failure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the right advice. As a monarchist, he should have used every pressure pos-
316
sible on the Crown and should have said "This is the time to do it. Let us clear the whole thing up, get it out into the open, transfer it to a Government Department and have no nonsense about refusing disclosure. It should be total. While there might be some disagreement, because not every detail should be disclosed, the position in future will be recognised and the wealthiest family in Britain will pay tax on its genuine private income, income which is left over, just as every other citizen pays."
I appreciate that the Royal Family probably strongly prefer not to pay tax and to retain the prerogative. I offer them this alternative. If they do not pay tax, let them support the whole lot of the Royals, or at least the cost of maintaining the Royals. Let them pay tax on their genuinely private income, but if they wish to support the Royals more lavishly than we would let them do so tax-free out of their income.
One could therefore offer an alternative to the Queen. One could say "If you feel that you would rather support the lot, we will let you off having to pay tax on that area of your private income." She knows their standards better than we do. It she wants to be more generous to Prince Philip or Princess Alexandra than we would, let her be more generous, tax-free. But what is genuinely private income, left over, cannot be allowed to accumulate without the payment of estate duty and so on.
It is ridiculous and it is undignified for the Royal Family to claim back purchase tax or to extract the right not to pay surtax or income tax. I repeat that it is undignified, and it was a gross mistake by the Government to have used all their influence on the Committee to prevent what the Committee would otherwise have done. I admit that it had clear indications from the Palace about what the Palace wanted, but it is the duty of Ministers to advise and I warn the Government that if this advice is not given fairly soon there will be suspicion among people about what is happening.
The whole matter could be cleared up by acceptance of the principle that, whether we are Members of Parliament, kings, queens or princes, we accept as part of our responsibility of public life that our private incomes after meeting

317
expenses, are taxed in the same way as the incomes of ordinary citizens, and that in order to get our emoluments we must make full disclosure of any facts about private incomes for which the Committee asks.
6.1 p.m.
Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): Like the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I can claim to have attended all the meetings of the Select Committee, and a further reason why I am particularly glad to be able to take part in this debate is that, although not a member of the Select Committee of 1952, as what was then colloquially described as Mr. Butler's under-butler I was very much concerned with its workings.
Before I seek to deal with the main issue posed by the Amendment, I should like to comment on one of two observations which the House has had the pleasure of listening to from the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). The right hon. Gentleman commenced his speech by saying that his constituents were all monarchists in a strange sort of sense, and in that sense at least they are very appropriately represented.
I thought, too, that the right hon. Gentleman showed a surprising ingenuousness in his account to the House of the reactions of his correspondents to the leaders he writes in the paper he edits. He seemed to suggest a shift in public opinion because his first outburst produced a lot of correspondence while his second produced only one letter in response.
Mr. Crossman: One negative letter.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He is, as always, helping me. Putting aside the incredible suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman's readers did not bother to read his second article at all having been bored sufficiently by the first, is it not possible that the reason for this diminution in protests was that it became apparent to his correspondents that the editor of this journal was wholly impervious to reason and it would be a waste of postage stamps, at the present high rate, to communicate with him?
318
I must take issue with the right hon. Gentleman on a more serious point. He suggested that the Select Committee had failed. The right hon. Gentleman charges us with failure for not doing what no other Select Committee on the Civil List has ever thought it its duty to do, and that is to use the position in which we were placed in the light of the Gracious Message to extract from the Monarch or her representatives details of her private fortune. In the distinguished language which the right hon. Gentleman always uses, he called it a deliberate and systematic mystification.
I put two points to the House. First, are we to accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement that this is relevant? It is not, I suggest to the House, regarded as relevant in respect of the expenses of office of any other office holder. It was not thought necessary by the Boyle Committee to inquire into the personal means of individual Ministers of the Crown, or of the Leader of the Opposition, or, indeed, of the Opposition Chief Whip, or of hon. Members. What Lord Boyle did, as those who know him would expect him to do, was to apply his considerable mind to the point at issue, which was: what are the necessary expenses of doing the job which Ministers of the Crown and hon. Members try to do in this place and in Whitehall? Nowhere in the Boyle Report, or, as far as I can recollect—and I speak subject to contradiction—in respect of any other public appointment, is it thought necessary that the incumbent of the office, or a future incumbent, should disclose publicly what his private resources may be. That is a privilege which the right hon. Gentleman, for whatever reason it may be, wishes to reserve solely to the Crown.
The relevancy or irrelevancy of the private fortune exists irrespective of what the tax arrangements may be. The right hon. Gentleman can if he wishes attack the tax arrangements as a separate issue. Historically it has been thought that, as taxes are raised in the name and, indeed, on the express recommendation of the Crown, there would be an element of the ludicrous in imposing them on the wearer of the Crown. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may not like it, but it is an argument which our predecessors in this House have accepted for 200 years. [Interruption.] Hon.

319
Gentlemen opposite say that it has happened under Tory Governments—
Mr. English rose—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, not at the moment.
As I was saying, hon. Gentlemen opposite may say that this has happened under Tory Governments, but the position was the same under Labour Governments. That was the position when the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) was Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has been accepted for 200 years.
On the right hon. Gentleman's other tax point, that of the treatment of other members of the Royal Family, the position as it was explained to us in the Select Committee is clear. The Permanent Secretary to the Treasury—not my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the highest permanent official—deals with the decision as to what percentage of the Civil List allowances should be treated as not being chargeable for tax because the expenditure involved is required for the performance of the very functions for which the Civil List is granted. The only difference is that this is done, in view of the peculiar delicacy of this case, by a very senior official in the Treasury, rather than by a more junior one in the Inland Revenue as in the case of the rest of us. That again is a provision which has lasted for many years under a variety of Chancellors of the Exchequer of all colours.
I must come back to the central point on which I quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that the Select Committee was right to follow the example of all its predecessors and not regard it as its duty to investigate the private fortune of the Monarch, any more than other Select Committees, or other Departments, or this House, have thought it necessary to investigate the private fortunes of other holders of public office who receive payments to enable them to discharge the duties of those offices. Therefore, on behalf of my colleagues on the Select Committee, at any rate the majority of us, I reject the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we have failed.
In the circumstances of this investigation, it would have been a peculiarly
320
wrong attitude for the Select Committee to have taken. This Committee was not making provision such as was made in 1952 when it was hoped to make it at the beginning of a reign for a whole reign. In 1952, as I explained to the House, I was in a subordinate capacity not unconnected with the discussion on that matter. It was hoped that a provision would be made which would cover the whole of the reign. Indeed, it was on that basis that Her Majesty surrendered the hereditary revenues of the Crown for the duration of the reign and six months thereafter. It was intended to be a reign-long arrangement. That we were not wholly unaware of the risks of inflation is shown by the provision made for making excess provision in the earlier years in order to constitute a reserve which would meet rising costs if inflation were to develop.
It is only because the degree of inflation has been far greater than we have ever faced in this country's history before that Her Majesty has had to come to Parliament to suggest a change in these arrangements—arrangements which have not been, on the whole, profitable for her. Under the 1952 Act she exchanged, in investment terms, an equity investment for a debenture, and all of those who have done that over the last 20 years know what has happened to them. Therefore, Her Majesty comes to Parliament in circumstances for which she has less personal responsibility than any of us in this House, and certainly less responsibility—and I remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Stechford that this applies to him and, to a lesser degree, to myself—than those of us who have served in the Treasury. To take advantage, in this situation, of the approach to Parliament which the Queen has been bound to make, in order to change the practice which was determined on in 1952 and intended to last for the reign would be grossly unfair.
This leads me to the Amendment. The right hon. Member for Sowerby proposes a basic change in the arrangements. Again, his only opportunity to propose such a change is due to the inflation and the situation in which it has placed the Monarch, as it has placed many other people. In these circumstances, I would be no party to such a fundamental

321
change unless I were positively convinced that it was agreeable to the wearer of the Crown. I do not have any more right than any other right hon. or hon. Member who sat on the Committee to make the judgment as to whether or not this would be agreeable to the Queen, but I do not believe that it would be.
The right hon. Gentleman quoted Question No. 215. He did not go on to quote Question No. 216, which goes as far on a delicate matter of this sort as anything could be expected to go. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) asked the then Lord Chamberlain:
"But it is only an objection in relation to efficiency—there are no other objections? If you could meet the efficiency argument would there be other ideological objections?"
Lord Cobbold replied:
"Whether or not there is an argument of principle it is almost an item of principle that the Queen regards these people as her own servants and they regard themselves as her servants. I think they have the idea of the dignity of the Monarchy, which is supported by the idea that the Queen is controlling her own Household. When foreign State visitors come to stay at Buckingham Palace the whole aura is one of, if not a private household, at any rate a family household welcoming the State visitors, and the same applies to large entertainments and official lunch parties."
The right hon. Gentleman has not discharged the onus, which rests upon him, of establishing that the change would be acceptable or agreeable to the Monarch. So far as we have evidence on that, the contrary seems to be the case.
There are two other arguments which seem to me to be decisive. The first is that on the evidence we have the right hon. Gentleman's proposal would cost more. He will recall that at one stage he was of the view that the new Department of the Crown should boast a deputy-secretary and a couple of undersecretaries. Obviously, the costs of a department like that would exceed those of the present Royal Household. He indicated today that he did not really mind that much; but from the point of view of the Queen it would be a matter of considerable significance. She would be made to appear, unfairly, to have her household set-up costing more than it really need to. The evidence to the Committee was that it was efficiently run. Sir Basil Smallpeice had inspected it from the efficiency point of view and said that
322
he was satisfied that it was efficient and economical. If, due to the sort of change proposed, the Royal Household were made more expensive and less efficient, it would be grossly unfair to the Monarch, quite apart from being unfair to the taxpayer.
Secondly, this proposal would involve annual Votes. Whether an annual Vote would be challenged annually would depend on the mood of the Opposition of the day. Apart from that the expenditure would, if I understand it rightly, be subject to Parliamentary Questions and investigation by the Public Accounts Committee and by the Expenditure Committee. I suppose we could, if anyone wanted to, have a great deal of detailed examination year by year of the minor points of what my right hon. Friend pointed out is not a very major element in the totality of our national expenditure.
The right hon. Member for Sowerby, in a passage with which I wholly agreed. emphasised the unfortunate reactions, based on complete misunderstanding of the position, which certain of the public media had adopted in the light of the Committee's Report. Do we really want to make that an annual event? Do we really want to present annual Estimates for a Department of the Crown which, like other annual Estimates, will rise and will cause those who wish to do so to say, "Another rise for the Queen. Royal expenditure 5 per cent. up"—or whatever it may be. Do we really want to give an annual opportunity so to do to people who, like the right hon. Member for Coventry, East, wish for one reason or another to raise particular issues on Royal finances?
My only criticism of the Government's proposals is that they will provide such an opportunity, in my view, far more frequently than is necessarily desirable. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Dr. Glyn), I would have preferred a system of index-linked Civil List arrangements which would have eliminated this risk, at any rate for a considerable number of years. I do not think that it would be good for the Monarch, and I doubt whether it would be good for the House, to have an annual inquest into this expenditure made possible. It would merely result in cross-examining the Monarchy about sums of money which the holy. Members concerned

323
would not be interested in if the expenditure were in any other direction.
I regret that my right hon. Friend did not adopt the idea which I suggested for an arrangement which would have lasted a good deal longer than I fear his arrangement will last. But I shall support the Government's proposals. It is essential that provision should be made, and quickly, for the Monarchy.
We are—and here I echo the right hon. Member for Sowerby again—singularly fortunate both in the institution of constitutional Monarchy and, if I may say so without presumption, in the personality of the wearer of the Crown. I have had impressed on me the advantage of a system in which the highest office, the personalised representation of a people, the ceromonial duties of Head of State, are placed in the hands of a person who is not the political or executive head. It was illustrated to me many years ago.
In 1945, when as president of a military government court in Rome I was presiding over the trial of some spies, President Roosevelt died. Two American officers were members of the court. When the news came of the President's sudden death, I said to my colleagues—we were sitting in the Palace of Justice in Rome—that we would go into court and stand in memory of the late President. Both my American colleagues objected, one of them in terms which I do not propose to repeat. We carried through this tribute only because, for about the only time in my military career, I pulled my rank and made it an order.
This is an illustration of the sort of situation which arises from confusing the highest office in the State with political controversy and politically controversial characters. It made me aware again of how fortunate we are to have inherited a system of constitutional Monarchy—and we are doubly fortunate in that this tremendous burden, a burden from which death alone can relieve her, is borne by a lady of such high character, hard working responsibility and gracious charm. Long may she reign!
6.20 p.m.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), as
324
one would have expected, has argued the case cogently. He and I had different formulae which we put forward, not always in agreement with each other, but each of us had the temerity to believe that we could improve on the Government's recommendations.
I rise to support, as I did with my vote in the Committee, the proposals put forward by the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). I must confess that the case which he put forward, both in the Committee and in the House today, has in no way been weakened by the arguments put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Chancellor said that in his view it was largely a question of presentation. Even if I were to accept that that be the case I believe that presentation in a democracy, both as far as Parliament is concerned and as far as the Monarchy is concerned, is of the very essence of the institution. We could no doubt get on perfectly well in this House if we no longer referred to each other as "the hon. Gentleman", "my hon. Friend" and "hon. Gentleman opposite". No doubt any other term would suffice, provided that it was within bounds. But the convention and the hope is that by formalising the method of address we shall perhaps address each other in a rather more civilised way than might otherwise be the case.
Likewise, I suppose we could survive without slamming the door in Black Rod's face, but we do so still, as a presentational matter, in order to assert the independence of this House from the Crown, so that the representative of the Crown is allowed in on sufferance. On each occasion we assert whether or not we wish to admit the representative of the Monarch; and no Monarch has entered this Chamber since Charles I tried to arrest certain of our colleagues. It may not be thought very important but it is presentational, and enshrined in it are certain principles to which we adhere and in which we believe.
I do not take the right hon. Gentleman's view that because inflation has caused Her Majesty to come to Parliament there is something wrong in discussing a revision in the 1952 Agreement, because I believe if an individual or a Government believes in the constitutional

325
Monarchy—and I personally do—as a system of government, as one of the three partners in government, then I believe it is the duty of that Government, as the logical corollary, for that Government to protect the holder of that office from all unfair criticism. I believe the present proposals are manifestly unfair and that the way in which they have been treated in the Press, which is not renowned always for the accuracy of its presentation, has been unfair to the Monarchy.
We in this House will no doubt be explaining to our constituents that the Boyle recommendations, as far as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are concerned, are not simply a salary increase but a means whereby we can meet the expenses which we have to meet, unlike almost any other profession, out of our own pocket, expenses which no business executive and almost no other profession has to meet in a similar way. The Chancellor at least got the point I was making in Committee that the sum which we are being asked to vote is less than the cost of running the British Embassy in Paris. But it is accepted that we must have an embassy in Paris and that if we are going to run it we must do so properly. But nobody pays £1 million to the ambassador to do it. If that was done there would be a banner headline: "£1 million ambassador. Highest paid diplomat in the world"; and when owing to some protracted strike in Paris the cost of indoor and outdoor staff went up by 15 per cent. and the ambassador found that the estimates had to be revised some Left-wing newspaper or weekly journal would ask, "Why does not the ambassador's wife sell her jewels, for he is the highest-paid diplomat in the world?" We would know that that would be unfair because here we are talking of the official expenses of the ambassador doing the job. That is why I do not believe the Government have made a convincing case that there should not be a Department of the Crown. I prophesy that it will come about, though perhaps not straightaway; but it is an inevitable move which will take place.
After all, it has been mentioned that £3 million of the Royal expenditure is on departmental Votes anyway. Is anyone suggesting that the captain of the "Britannia" or pilots of the Royal Flight are any less Her Majesty's servants or
326
have some impossible division of loyalty because their salaries happen to be met on departmental Votes? It is not as if this has not already happened. This is really an extension of it, and I do not accept the logic of the Government's case that by extending what is already the case for £3 million worth of expenditure we are in some way undermining the independence of the Sovereign.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to the commander of the Royal yacht or pilots of the Queen's Flight, is he not overlooking the fact that those distinguished officers serve in the capacity for a year or two and then pass on to other appointments in the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force? They are only in that special relationship with the Monarch for quite a short time. But many members of her Majesty's Household remain for life.
Mr. Thorpe: But even if that be so—and I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement—I really cannot accept that this is in some way going either to undermine their sense of loyalty or the Monarch's authority and control over those individuals. I was personally impressed by the efficiency with which the Royal Household is run. I believe it is run, and achieves what it achieves, for a very low input economically. I see no reason whatsoever why there should be any increase in the size or cost of staff, apart from perhaps some minimal increase. But it would immediately make apparent to the country that we were bearing the expenses which every country in the world has to bear, namely the expense of the rôle being discharged of the Head of State, whether it be a Monarch or a President; and experience is that Presidents are much more expensive and far less satisfactory. Therefore, I do not accept this argument.
As to the argument that the Commonwealth might object, already a Commonwealth country that happens to be a Monarchy has the advantage of a Monarch who is retained in that particular office financially by a Vote of the United Kingdom Parliament; therefore, I cannot see where the logic of that argument comes in, because it is a position that we have already. Frankly, so long as the Monarch and the Royal Family are held firmly in the affection and loyalty of the

327
people of this country, which I believe is the case today, I do not think they have anything to fear by the creation of a Department of State.
I believe it will relieve the Monarch and the Royal Family of the enormous amount of very unfair publicity which they have to suffer at the moment. Therefore, I am not convinced in the very slightest by this argument which the Government have put forward; nor do I believe the Monarch need feel any less a personal relationship with her own staff by reason of the creation of such a Department. If one wanted to be controversial there could be many arguments on the Royal yacht. I take certain views on that. That is already open to this House, but it is very seldom in this House that the defence Estimates are challenged. I believe the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) had the Whip withdrawn from him by his own Front Bench for voting against certain defence Estimates some years ago.
On this question I say merely that I believe that so long as we have a Royal Family which is respected and which enjoys the affection of the people of this country—which it does—it has nothing to fear from a loyal House of Commons ultimately creating a Department of State which will, I believe, in the ordinary course of events pass, almost "on the nod", the funds which are required to keep great Departments of State, of which the Monarchy is but one, sufficiently supplied with the finances required to run that operation. I believe that this is, perhaps, the modern move that is required for our Monarchy. There is no monarchy in the world which is more secure or which does a more effective job of work.
But I also believe that Monarchy, like Parliament, is a plant that has withered in many parts of the world. Monarchies and Parliaments have been under attack and both have, in many other countries, been successfully attacked. That being so, it is of the essence of our case that the Monarchy, just like Parliament should be protected from unfair publicity and unfair criticism.
This is the formula which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward, albeit it could be improved upon. This is the way in which we can protect the
328
Monarchy from attacks of that sort and make it even more secure in the position that it occupies in this country.
6.31 p.m.
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party will forgive me if I do not follow him in the first part of his speech, in which he seemed historically, to be fighting the civil war over again.
I turn instead to the most important speech that was made by the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). I say that not because I agree with the proposal that he is putting forward but because of the manner and the tone of his contribution. No greater disaster could befall this country than the Monarchy becoming a matter of party political dispute—if it was thought or represented, for example, that somehow the Conservative Party was the Royalist party and that the Labour Party was the opposite. On the Select Committee I did what I could to avoid a division precisely because I feared that as a possible outcome. Unfortunately, we could not reach all-party agreement, and we shall have a Division tonight. But the right hon. Member for Sowerby has drawn the sting out of this Division, and that has been not the least of his contributions to the political life of the country.
I turn to the very different contribution made by the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) on one of his bi-monthly visits to this Chamber. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It may be a shame, but that is the truth. I will add the word "brief".
Mr. Stanley Orme: You are away all the time.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Already we have—
Mr. Orme: Get back to Strasbourg.
An Hon Member: Rome.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Hon. Members must make up their minds on the city to which they wish me to depart.
I see that the right hon. Member for Coventry, East has entered the Chamber, so I amend "bi-monthly" to meaning twice a month and not once every two months, which was my original meaning.

329
What the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's contribution amounted to was that the Sovereign should pay out of his or her pocket for the privilege of serving the nation in the manner in which the nation wishes the duties of the Monarch to be undertaken. If that is not so, there is no relevance in considering the private fortune.
Mr. Crossman: I thought I made the point clear, first, that I thought that obviously we should pay the cost of the expenses of the Monarchy; second, I said that I thought a genuinely private income —if we can make that distinction—should be taxed in the normal way; third, I said that as long as the Queen did not pay tax on it, its size was highly relevant in estimating the costs of the Monarchy.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes, I accept that explanation, and I followed what the right hon. Gentleman was saying. But it does not invalidate my point that the size of the private fortune is quite irrelevant to the discharge of public functions. We must agree to disagree on that.
I pass to the standpoint of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) who has put into the report of the Select Committee a minority report in which he characterised the Gracious Message of last May as
"the most insensitive and brazen pay claim made in the last 200 years".
Those are words which are highly offensive and misleading. They have been given wide publicity and they were intended to receive wide publicity. The fact is, as was made abundantly clear by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in opening the debate, that there is no element of pay claim in the Civil List whatsoever. Quite the contrary, because the contributions from the Privy Purse were surrendered by Her Majesty as part of the Gracious Message.
I cannot think why the hon. Member for Fife, West, who is normally such a kindly and friendly person, should in this respect take up this untypical role of Gradgrind to Her Majesty.
Mr. William Hamilton: Flattery will get the hon. Member nowhere.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not know why that is so, but it is a particularly unsuitable attitude to adopt, in view, if I
330
may presume to say so, of the unselfishness and the devotion to duty and dedication of Her Majesty in the discharge of her duties. That is all I propose to say about the hon. Member for Fife, West. I might say de minimis non curat lex. [HON. MEMBERS: "Translate."] "We all know Willie's views." [HON. MEMBERS: "Which Willie?"] I do not know whether it is Willie I or II.
I turn away from what divides us to what unites us—the institution of the Monarchy. This is the essential background against which we have to consider the report. The truth—and we all know it, as has been stressed by the right hon. Member for Sowerby and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter)—is that the value of the Monarchy to Britain is incalculable. It provides us with a symbol above party politics and which epitomises both the contemporary life of the nation and its historic past. In Britain, however fierce the party strife may be, no citizen ever has to be against the country. That is an inestimable boon and advantage.
Second, the Monarchy not only promotes stability but paradoxically promotes change because it provides a stable focal point for society which enables the country to absorb radical changes in the social and political structure without rending the social fabric. So it is no exaggeration to say that liberty under law, which is the most precious fruit of government by discussion, while it is owed partly to the character of the people and partly to the traditions of Parliament, is owed also very largely to the Crown, to the existence of constitutional Monarchy. That should never be far from our minds when we are considering this question. [Interruption.] These are the realities of the situation, these are the principles of our constitution which are involved in the debate.
No price tag can be placed on those contributions to the life of the country any more than we can place a price tag on the prestige and influence of the ancient institution of the Crown throughout the world, of which we, living here, are the residual beneficiaries. This is symbolised by those who each year come to this country and throng the approaches to Buckingham Palace and who are fascinated by the mystery and the awe that

331
the Monarchy still arouses even in this utilitarian age.
But the Monarchy cannot survive in a vacuum. It needs both the moral and financial support of the nation. Those who will the end must also will the means. It was common ground on the Select Committee, the Member for Fife, West perhaps excepted, that we did not wish to change the character of the Monarchy. I think that that is right. There is something to be said for having no monarch, a republic, and there is something to be said for a splendid monarchy. But there is nothing to be said for a mean monarchy. If that is true in general it is true particularly in Britain. It is a mistake to think that a reserved people cannot also be a theatrical people. We in this country certainly care about the show, and it is the show which is provided by the dignified parts of our constitution.
That brings me to the point of division on the Committee, which was about means and not ends. The majority in the Committee supported the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide a reasonable competence, which is all it is, for Her Majesty to carry out her duties, subject to a decennial review. That is right, because it is undesirable and undignified to expect the Monarch continually to ask the House for money. We know from our own experience how distasteful it is for us to discuss our own salaries. If it is bad for us, it is much worse for the Crown.
The view held by the minority is that the best way out of the difficulty would be to convert the Royal Household into a Department of State. That is a reasonable view, and I do not dispute that it is sincerely held. But there are grave objections to that course, however much people may justify it on Benthamite principles of utility.
First, it would lead to a constant inquisition into the Sovereign's financial affairs, which is undesirable. Second, it would lead to greater inefficiency, not to greater efficiency; it would substitute for a small bureaucracy acting on the scene a larger bureaucracy away from it. Therefore, the operation would be more expensive, not less expensive. Third, it would be an unconstitutional innovation
332
in the sense that it would run counter to a fundamental principle of our constitution.
The right hon. Member for Sowerby announced that the Monarchy existed by the will and pleasure of the people. That is not true. No one who studies the constitution can possibly accept such a statement. There are three estates of the realm, not one. It is not this House that is sovereign. The constitutional Sovereign is the Queen in Parliament. That is the sovereign power under our constitution.
Mr. Ted Fletcher: We are on to theology now.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman shouts out "theology". As though that would be a point of reproach to me! But it is not in fact theology; it is good constitutional principle and law, accepted for many hundreds of years in our country and still accepted. The Queen is a co-ordinate estate of the realm. If the Commons comes first in efficiency, it is the Crown that comes first in dignity.
Therefore, the Monarch's Household is his or hers not by grace or favour of the Commons but as of right. As was made clear by the evidence given to the Committee by Lord Cobbold, that is how Her Majesty regards her Household and it is the way in which the Household has been regarded by every Monarch that has ever sat upon our Throne.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Then let her pay for it.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: So much for the Opposition scheme. I come now to another major point, a point of criticism made by some in the country at large. We heard echoes of it in our debate today. It is that while the provision made for the Queen is acceptable there should not be provision for other members of the Royal Family.
Mr. Orme: Hear, hear.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am glad that we are in agreement at any rate that the point is of substance and importance.
That criticism ignores an important point, that we do not have a single person on the Throne. In fact, a family occupies the Throne. Every member of the family

333
helps Her Majesty in the discharge of her duties. Without the aid of other members of the Royal Family, she would be overwhelmed by the demands and burdens placed upon her. That came out clearly from the evidence to the Committee. Hon. Members can see it in Sir Michael Adlane's memorandum, a most important document, showing the existing burden which Her Majesty carries. I remarked at the time that it was astonishing that any human being could undertake such a burden of ceremonial duties, but how much that would he increased if there were not others to help her with it. For example, a report that was made on Prince Philip's duties showed that he carried out 800 engagements a year.
Mr. William Hamilton: Cocktail parties.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: No. That is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. Those engagements include visits to establishments of every kind, such as educational and other institutions, and foreign visits, many of them intensely exacting and boring, undertaken out of a sense of duty. How many hon. Members could equal 800 engagements a year? The services of Prince Philip are not confined to public engagements. He has been the driving force behind the necessary modernisation of the Monarchy, retaining the best of its traditions but getting rid of the inessential accretions.
It was a century ago that Walter Bagehot wrote of the Prince Consort
"We shall never know, but when history is written our children may know what we owe to Prince Albert."
Those words are equally applicable today to the Duke of Edinburgh. As to the other members of the Royal Family who are prevented by propinquity to the Throne from the normal commercial and other relations—perfectly harmless in themselves but not acceptable in this context—it is necessary that public provision should be made for them. They all do their part, Princess Margaret, Princess Alexandra, the Duke of Kent, the Gloucester family. It is all in the report; their engagements are set out and every one of them has shouldered a fair share of the burden.
I believe that the proposals set out in the report are fair and reasonable. They are neither extravagant nor are they
334
mean. From them Her Majesty the Queen gains nothing. Such a consideration would be quite repugnant to one who has devoted her whole life to the service of other people. I trust today that hon. Members will be both realistic and generous as the Commons always is when important questions and considerations come before it. I hope that we will be sensible in appreciating the value of a constitutional Monarch and I hope to that we shall be generous to Her Majesty since she has been so generous to the country giving unstintingly both of her life and her person.
6.53 p.m.
Mr. Joel Barnett: I have heard the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) for many months on the Select Committee. He did not convince me then and he will not be surprised to know that he has not convinced me now. He said a moment ago that the Queen will have nothing for herself out of this and that this is not being extravagant. I would hope to argue that the hon. Member just does not know that. He certainly cannot prove it. He did not prove it in his speech and he was not able to prove it throughout the whole of our discussions in Committee.
I do not want to deal with the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) except to say that I agree with it and found the Chancellor's remarks even less rewarding than the ones we heard in our debates in Committee. One of the arguments that the Chancellor put forward today—that any change would be welcomed for example by 10 countries abroad—was a rather strange one. It was made to look rather silly when my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) asked him whether any of the 10 countries had been consulted and he had to answer that they had not. Those 10 countries are not terribly bothered about who pays, provided it is not them.
It has been argued that this debate is not about money but I say it is very much about money and it is about that which I wish to speak. I am not arguing about whether we should have a President or a Queen, although listening to the hon. Member for Chelmsford for months on end is enough to turn anyone into the most raging republican. When one listens

335
to the hon. Gentleman one realises that he does a very poor service to those whom he attempts to serve. The Monarchy would be much better served with less servile comments of the sort the hon. Gentleman makes.
But I am not making the republican case today—the hon. Member makes it only too well. Neither am I attacking the reduction in the work load for the cheaper-style running of the Monarchy. However, I must say that the Royal yacht, for instance, is an interesting case. The last figures for 1969–70 showed total expenditure of £943,723. In 1971 the Royal yacht did two trips, one to the Pacific for Prince Philip and one to British Columbia for the Queen. If we are talking about a cheaper style, do we know whether Prince Charles needs £105,000 a year tax-free? We have no information or evidence about that. It may well be that it is not enough and that he is using some of his own resources.
I start with the assumption that we retain broadly the existing system although on another occasion I would certainly wish to argue that the worst kind of snobbishness and the most class-ridden element in the structure of society depends to a considerable extent for its existence upon the Monarchy. That is not the case I am making now. I am talking about the amount of money in the report. The real figure is the total amount used by the Monarchy. This is not one person but several, and the total figure is £4,714,000. The Chancellor was telling us that the growth since 1952 was probably in the region of 150 per cent. Actual total expenditure on the Vote and on the Civil List in 1952–53 was £1,240.000.
That is the growth and it is absurd to argue as some have attempted that we should deduct from that the revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall or from the Crown estates. That should no more be considered the income of the Monarch than it should be considered the income of myself or my hon. Friend the Member for Fife. West (Mr. William Hamilton). That is the real cost, the real increase comparing like with like, although I accept that within that figure is the total cost of the Monarchy for all sorts of expenditure, much of which is not personal.
336
I am not arguing that it is necessarily too much. For a president it may well be higher but I am arguing that on the information we received, no figure can be justified because we do not have adequate information. I accept that any figure must inevitably be arbitrary and the hon. Member for Chelmsford is literally prepared to accept any figure. This House should not be prepared to do the same. If we have a Monarchy it should have sufficient, and more than sufficient, to do the job that we give to it. I do not believe in the mystique of the Crown like the hon. Gentleman and others although I can understand the argument of those who say "If it is an extra £1 million, it is a small price to pay." It is not a price which we in this House should be prepared to pay on behalf of the taxpayers. This is not in the interests of the Monarchy.
There is nothing personal in this; I am not making any personal case. It is not in the interests of Parliament, because any figure which we vote must be defensible and this figure is not. We do not know the extent to which the taxpayer is perhaps being subsidised by the Queen or the reverse. It is impossible to separate public and private expenditure. For example the whole of the expenditure for clothing of the Queen is clearly public expenditure and we should pay for it, but we do not. It is paid for by the Queen.
It is important to all hon. Members that when we vote funds we should know the total expenditure. We do not know that expenditure. When the Chancellor says that this is not a pay claim, I would submit that he cannot say that. He just does not know whether any element of this is a contribution to personal expenditure. We do not know, for example, how much of the £918,000 goes on private expenditure on food, wine, laundry, palaces, the yacht, holidays, travel, and so on.
Mrs. Peggy Fenner rose—
Mr. Barnett: If the hon. Lady disagrees with me, I shall be delighted to give way to her.
Mrs. Fenner: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he agrees that we know that £448,000 goes on staff wages

337
and salaries, and that that is more relevant than what we do not know?
Mr. Barnett: The hon. Lady has not answered the point I was making but has taken up another point, which I shall be delighted to deal with on another occasion. We do not even know to what extent staff expenditure might be on staff who are carrying out personal duties. There is almost certainly a personal element in that.
One could ague that all expenditure of the Monarchy is public and that it should be met by the taxpayer. As has been rightly said, the Queen is a totally public figure who has no private life. If we are to pay all the expenditure, apart from a few personal gifts, we cannot have a large private capital free from every form of taxation—income tax, surtax, capital gains tax and estate duty.
One consequence of that is that other members of the Royal Family also receive tax-free income, because any gift which they receive from the Queen towards their personal and public expenditure is not taxed. If an hon. Member makes a gift to his family, in the normal way it is not taxed because our income has already been subjected to tax, but the Queen's income has not.
If we are paying all the Queen's expenditure we are surely entitled to know the net result of that on the private capital. Has it been increased by £5 million or £10 million since 1952? We just do not know. We know that £50 million, according to Lord Cobbold, is a wildly exaggerated figure, but £20 million would be a reasonable figure and that may have been substantially increased since 1952. With the present substantial increase, that private capital may grow to an even greater extent.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said that the private capital is not relevant because Lord Boyle did not take it into account. Lord Boyle found it highly relevant to know what was the income of hon. Members. He made extensive inquiries about it and took it into account. It is a spurious argument to suggest that we as hon. Members should regard private income as irrelevant and that previous Select Committees did not inquire into the amount of the private income.
338
There are many things which previous Select Committees and previous hon. Members of the House did not do. There were not so many Labour Members then as there are now and Select Committees had a different rôle. It would be absurd for us to agree these or any other figures without having the faintest idea whether at the end of the reign the Queen will have increased or decreased her capital by £1 million or £10 million as a result of our Vote.
This is not just a matter of presentational effect. Of course it is offensive to say that this represents £1 for each of the 1 million unemployed. At such a time, however, when 1 million are unemployed and millions are having difficulty in living inside their incomes, it is vital that any figure we vote should be justified up to the hilt. It would be the height of irresponsibility to agree any amount without further information. Without that further information, I certainly cannot vote for any sum, whether it is a penny more or a penny less.
7.5 p.m.
Sir Robin Turton: I think the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) has Lord understood the Boyle Report. Lord Boyle was not looking at the "outside" salaries of hon. Members, and it is quite impertinent to ask what is the private income of the Monarch. We are being asked what Civil List expenses we recommend in view of the change in the value of money since 1952. I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it was very hard to make comparisons, but one has to do so. The public want to make this comparison to see whether the Select Committee, as the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton suggested, is being unduly generous, unduly mean or about right.
There are three ways of looking at this. First, we can look at it from the point of view of the Select Committee which examined the Civil List, and from the point of view of the Boyle Committee which examined the salaries of hon. Members. The Boyle Report increased the parliamentary allowance from £1,000 in 1952 to the equivalent of £5,800, by an increase in salary, an increase in the secretarial allowance and increased travel for wives. The Select Committe has recommended increasing the Civil List from

339
£475,000 to £980,000. In other words the Select Committee awarded an increase of 106 per cent. whereas the Boyle Report awarded an increase of 480 per cent. On the face of it, it would appear that the Select Committee was on the low side compared with the Boyle Report. There will be a debate on the Boyle Report on Monday, but this comparison is of interest today.
Mr. John D. Grant: Would not the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is grossly misleading to quote these percentages? It all depends on the base one starts from. An increase of 10 per cent. on £100 is rather different from an increase of 10 per cent. on £1,000.
Sir R. Turton: The allowance is for staff costs in the Royal Household; equally, the parliamentary allowance is for expenses. To my view they are strictly comparable, but I agree that each comparison by itself is insufficient and we must look at the others.
Let us compare what we recommend with the inflation that has taken place in the Crown Estates and the hereditary revenues. In 1952 our predecessors recommended £475,000 on the Civil List. The Crown Estates and hereditary revenues had an annual income of £1,529,000. In other words, it was recommended that the Civil List should be 31 per cent. of the income of the Crown Estates. Today the Crown Estates and hereditary revenues income is £5,777,000 and we are recommending an amount of £980,000, which is only 16 per cent. of the Crown Estates and hereditary revenues. Therefore it would look as if this were a less generous award for expenses than was recommended by the 1952 Committee.
The salaries and expenses, of which the Committee was given full details, account for more than two-thirds of the recommended amounts. If we consider that £475,000 was provided for in the 1952 recommendations and realise that the £ is worth only 51p today as compared with its purchasing value in 1952, then it can be seen that our recommendation in 1952 values of £499,800 is virtually the same as was recommended in 1952.
340
On those three tests my great worry is whether we have not made a mistake, at this time of great inflation, by setting the level for expenses in the Royal Household at too low a level. My only justification for agreeing to the report is that we have provided for a review to take place at least once in the decade, and, indeed, it can take place more frequently.
It is vitally important that the Royal Household should be properly provided for. The evidence which was given to the Committee convinced me that the finances were being managed in a scrupulously economical way. Having heard the evidence of Lord Cobbold and Sir Michael Adeane, I felt that it was dangerous not to award a larger amount. Indeed, very little has been said about the amount, and there would appear to be general agreement in the House.
I come to the much more interesting proposal put forward by the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) on the means by which the Royal Household should be managed. There was a certain attraction in the idea of having it put on a departmental Vote. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party said it was a novel idea. It is not. It is the normal habit of the Middle Eastern Monarchs to have a Department of the Palace and for it to run the Palace with a Ministerial head. In the Middle Eastern Monarchies this leads to intrigue and gross extravagance. The right hon. Member for Sowerby is well aware of this danger and altered his proposals in the course of our deliberations to avoid some of the pitfalls which might have come from too close an analogy with what happens in that area between Asia and Europe.
As I listened to the evidence, I became convinced that this was not the best way to deal with the situation. I feel that there is no real party difference between us. I consider that the right hon. Member for Sowerby did not make out his case for running the Royal Household as a Department of State. The first consideration—and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer alluded to this point—is that if one is to make such a change, whatever may be the advantages for Parliament, it is vital that the change should be appreciated by those who work for the Royal

341
Household and by those who represent those workers in the trade unions.
The Committee heard evidence from Mr. Vickers and Miss Edwards. Mr. Vickers said:
"There are special questions … about employment in the Royal Household which call for a degree of flexibility and understanding on the part of the staff and its union as well as on the part of the management and the Crown. We are very happy to go along with this …".
It was thought that to make these staff civil servants would not be the answer, and this was brought out quite clearly in the evidence of Miss Edwards, which is to be found at the bottom of page 80:
"It is the fact that working for the Monarch requires a little bit more flexibility on the part of employees because they know there are special problems and if they are required to take a little time off in the middle of the day and perhaps work a little longer in the evening, they will do that for the Monarch, whereas for the Civil Service Department they might expect something more hard and fast."
Clearly the evidence of the unions and employees was against the change recommended by the right hon. Member.
I was not present throughout the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech since I had to attend a meeting of the Comonwealth Parliamentary Association executive, but I do not think he stressed in his speech the danger of getting the Monarch mixed up in parliamentary controversy. This to me is the vital matter; namely, that the Monarchy should be above the clash of party politics. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Sowerby is as keen on this aspect as I am.
We see in paragraph 10 of the draft report of the right hon. Member for Sowerby the following:
"Thus, it would be necessary to establish ministerial responsibility for the new Vote; this would presumably fall either to the Prime Minister or to the Chancellor of the Exchequer."
This would avoid the difficulty involved in my Middle Eastern analogy which would involve having a Palace Minister. Could the House imagine what would happen during Prime Minister's Questions on Tuesdays and Thursdays if the Prime Minister were responsible for the Royal Household Vote. No longer would there be Questions about whether the Prime Minister intended to visit a cer-
342
tain place. This is one great objection to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
Mr. John Mendelson: There would be more inspired Questions.
Sir R. Turton: It is vital to keep the Royal Household out of the parliamentary battle. If there were to be Ministerial responsibility for this expenditure, it would be subject to parliamentary Questions. If the Prime Minister were put in charge of them, obviously, whether it be the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) or my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), the Prime Minister must be the chief target of parliamentary controversy.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: No. The right hon. Gentleman would get them transferred as he does now.
Sir R. Turton: To my mind, this is the worst solution, for that very reason. Unless some way round this problem of parliamentary questioning can be found, I do not see how the Royal Household can be placed on a departmental Vote.
If we could ensure that the Royal Household salaries and expenses were dealt with efficiently, as they are now under the Lord Chamberlain, and were subject to a periodic review, as they will be under the suggestions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I believe that the ordinary man and woman in the street would say, "I would prefer it to be done in this way to having it done under the more bureaucratic system of a Department for the Royal Household."
For that reason, I hope very much that we shall not have a Division tonight on what is not a matter of party difference. I do not believe that those of us who say that the system should not be changed are any more keen on the Monarchy than those like the right hon. Member for Sowerby who asked for this change. I except the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), but I always regard him as the chief traditionalist in this House. Having succeeded Willie Gallacher, the hon. Gentleman has to go on as Willie used to. To that extent, he is Willie II. I realise that, with his constituency history and tradition, he has to take that view. But here is a matter which does not really divide the rest of us, and I appeal to the right hon. Mem-

343
ber for Sowerby not to press the Amendment to a Division.
There would be very great parliamentary procedural difficulties in what the right hon. Gentleman suggests. The people realise that they have a wonderful system of Monarchy. It is one of which we can be proud. It is economical, and there is no waste or extravagance of the sort that one finds elsewhere in the presidencies of the world.
7.23 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: Strangely enough, I agree with the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir R. Turton) about the undesirability of having a Department of State for the Crown. Although my name appears on the Amendment, with my agreement and consent, I think that it was simply to give it an aura of respectability. I think that it was to get hon. Members into the Division Lobby that my name was added. I may say that some of us intend to vote twice tonight, once officially and once free-booting. We are doing so for reasons which I shall try to explain.
Up till now, this has been a very quiet debate. No feathers have been ruffled. There is not a hair out of place anywhere.
Quite clearly, my own plan was the best one that was put to the Committee. I do not think that it is widely recognised in the House or in the country that I was the only member of the Committee to recommend a substantial wage increase for Her Majesty the Queen. I did not get a single supporter for that proposition. I said that she ought to have the rate for the job. I estimated that, if the rate for the job was £60,000 a year tax free in 1952, it was worth something like £100,000 now. That was the figure that I recommended. To some degree, it was an arbitrary figure, but it was generous. Sometimes I am appalled at my own generosity. It was £160,000 more than the Queen expected. She had volunteered to give up the £60,000. I said not only that she should not be allowed to give it up but that I proposed to give her £100,000 in addition. I was proposing to give Her Majesty, as the rate for the job, £160,000 as her wages. That is the wage element in the Civil List. I am still waiting for a letter of gratitude from the Palace for my proposition. I wait in vain.
344
The Government propose to take away this salary element. When I asked Sir Michael Adeane why the Queen had volunteered to give this up, he said that he believed that she had been born into the job and was just resigned to doing it. That is one way of looking at it, and one does not know why Her Majesty chose voluntarily to make this gesture before the Committee had started its inquiry. This is one of the very many unknowns which we sought to unfurl, unsuccessfully as it happens, and which made my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) take the view that he did. I was less persuaded than he, although, illogically, I supported him. But logic is not my strong line in the matters. I have often been called a republican, but I think that I have shown that in my opinion the Queen does a good job, because I was the one who recommended the increase.
What disturbs me, first of all, is the proposition that the Government have put up in their recommendation that if the proposals in the report are accepted Parliament will have even less control over Royal expenditure than it has now, and, heaven knows, it has little enough.
We had this Select Committee. It will be the last Select Committee on the Civil List that we shall ever have if the Government's proposals are accepted. That is what the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) want. They want a minimum of parliamentary control. As the hon. Member for Chelmsford has returned to the Chamber, I might say that he was the most diligent sycophant on the Committee. He never missed a chance of getting on his knees. He was bettered in that exercise only by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. This is one of the most undesirable aspects of the Monarchy. We have a right to criticise our institutions. If they cannot stand criticism or if they are too weak to stand it, they are not worth preserving.
I return to the point which disturbs me. This bit of public expenditure, small as it is in the content of the whole national expenditure, nevertheless is a very important element. It is out of all proportion to its absolute size. But we are to have no more inquisition by Select Committee. Any future supplementary

345
benefit required by the Royal Family will be granted—I quote from page xiv of the Report—
"by an Order laid before Parliament by Treasury Ministers and would not involve the appointment of a Select Committee."
No doubt pressure for that has come from the Palace because it has clearly been embarrassed by the probing of inquisitive nosey Members of Parliament like myself. In effect, the Monarchy has said: "The role of Parliament is to provide us with the cash we need, and no questions asked." My answer to that is: "Not on your Nellie". Or should it be: "Not on your Margaret"?
The Select Committee broke new ground in certain important ways. For the first time, the evidence was taken down and reported to the House. This is the first time in history that this House has got such facts as are contained in the report. A lot more evidence and time was taken on the inquiry than ever before. We had unique evidence from the Treasury and the Inland Revenue which revealed for the first time the fabulously privileged tax position of members of the Royal Family. This has never been revealed in such great detail before.
The shortcomings of our procedure were as follows. First, I thought that they should and could have been held in public. There was and is great interest in the matter not only among the Press but among the general public and even Members of Parliament. Hon Members were excluded from the Committee's proceedings.
The second shortcoming, which has already been mentioned, and I pass over it quickly, though I shall return to it later, was the refusal of the Crown to disclose what my hon. Friends and I think is vital information about their private wealth.
The third shortcoming was the one-sided nature of the evidence. All the evidence was from paid nominees of the Crown, all living in tied cottages—grace and favour houses—and all no doubt comfortably salaried, so hardly likely to be objective in their evidence. One was even called Lord Tryon.
In the event, the Monarchy has survived its frisking by the parliamentary
346
plebs. It has got away with the loot. By a mixture of Bank of England charm and Trappist monk silence the Select Committee was denied information which it most required; namely, what the Queen and her family are worth privately. In my view, it was useless and naїve to try to fob us off by saying that estimates of private fortunes of up to £50 million were widely exaggerated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton said, £50 million would have been wildly exaggerated if their private wealth were £20 million. We do not know whether it is £10 million, £20 million or £30 million. The difference between the Royal Family disclosing their private wealth and Members of Parliament disclosing it is that we are taxed. The Royal wealth has been built up not so much by the diligence of members of the Royal Family, but by the unique tax preference which they get: not paying a penny of tax from birth to death. We must know the wealth that has accumulated or it must be taxed.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: That applies only to the Queen, not the whole Royal Family.
Mr. Hamilton: I will come specifically to other members of the Royal Family, because I am getting shoals of letters, 95 per cent. of which agree with me.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: How many?
Mr. Hamilton: I will show any hon. Member the letters. I have had more letters on this subject during my 21 years in this House than on any other, and 95 per cent. of them—I will quote some—say: "Of course the Queen does a good job and she ought to get the pay for it, but the hangers on"—what some of them call the parasites—"ought not to get what they are getting."
We are proposing to give the Queen Mother £95,000 a year. Some time ago, when the Labour Government were in power, I tabled a Question asking what is the estimate of the annual taxable income required to yield a net income of £100,000 a year. Bearing in mind that that £95,000 will be tax free, the annual income required, assuming it is all earned, to give a net income of £100,000 is £1,079,014. That is the taxable income

347
we would be giving to the Queen Mother to give her £95,000 a year.
We were told in evidence that that is not income; it all goes on expenses. Sir Douglas Allen, in reply to Question No. 398 on page 50, said:
"at the moment, according to our knowledge, the expenditures of all these households vastly exceed their annuities".
I took the trouble to look up the Queen Mother's Household. It is in the Imperial Calendar and can be checked in the Library. I will run through it. Lord Chamberlain, the Earl of Dalhousie. Comptroller, Lord Adam Gordon. Private Secretary and Equerry, LieutenantColonel—note the pleb titles—Sir Martin Gilliat. Treasurer and Equerry, Major Sir Ralph Anstruther. Press Secretary, and Equerry. Major John Griffin. Assistant Private Secretary and Extra Equerry, Captain Alastair S. Aird. We are getting down the pecking order. Equerries, Major the Hon. Sir Francis Legh and Captain Ian Farquhar. He is temporary. Extra Equerries, Major Raymond Seymour and the Lord Sinclair. Apothecary, Ralph Southward. Surgeon-Apothecary to the Household at Royal Lodge, Windsor, J. Clayton.
Mistress of the Robes, Duchess of Abercorn. Ladies of the Bedchamber: Dowager Viscountess Hambleden and Countess Spencer. Extra Ladies of the Bedchamber: Dowager Countess of Halifax, Dowager Lady Harlech, Dowager Countess of Scarborough. Women of the Bedchamber: the Dowager Lady Fermoy, the Hon. Mrs. John Mulholland, Mrs. Patrick Campbell-Preston and Lady Jean Rankin. Extra Women of the Bedchamber: Lady Elizabeth Basset, the Hon. Mrs. Geoffrey Bowlby, Lady Hyde, Lady Delia Peel, Lady Katherine Seymour and Lady Victoria Wemyss.
Clerk Comptroller, Malcolm Blanch. Clerk Accountant, J. P. Kyle. Clerks: Mrs. D. C. Beattie, Mrs. L. A. Gosling and Mrs. A. M. Sheppard.
That is a total household of 33. I ask the House: what the blazes do they all do? What do the Ladies of the Bedchamber do that the Women of the Bedchamber do not do? Why all the extras? Why all the reserves? No football team has so many reserves—three
348
extra ladies of the bedchamber, six extra women of the bedchamber. What size of bedchamber is this? How many of them are paid? I look at the engagements—
Dr. Glyn rose—
Mr. Hamilton: No, I am in the middle of my discourse.
The Queen Mother had 211 official engagements in 1970, including 25 luncheons, 47 what are called "audiences"—I do not know what they are—seven dinners and six films or concerts. Assuming that she does the same number in 1972, that is an average of £450 per engagement. Georgie Best would do it for less than that. [Laughter.] My hon. Friends are laughing, but old-age pensioners are not laughing at this. The Queen Mother is an old-age pensioner and we say, "Oh, she always has a pleasant smile on her face." If my wife had that pay, she would never stop laughing.
It is obscene that this House should be spending its time voting on giving an old lady £95,000 a year, when I will be going up to my constituency on Friday to an old folks' treat where they will be asking me why we are not giving them an extra couple of quid a week to prevent them from dying from cold and starvation this winter. This is one of the obscenities of what we are discussing—
Sir Harmar Nicholls: And this is an obscene speech.
Mr. Hamilton: From the hon. Gentleman, that remark is a compliment.
I now turn to Princess Margaret. She does even less than her old Mum. On average last year she did about three or four engagements a week, including luncheons, dinners and London shows. For that we, the taxpayers, give her free housing, free lighting and heating. The house alone has cost us, up to now, more than £80,000. That is what it costs the taxpayer to house one family, when we have thousands of homeless in this very city. She gets £15,000 a year tax-free. We are proposing to give her £35,000 a year tax-free. That is an increase of 133 per cent. Why, oh why, are we giving this expensive kept woman that kind of salary increase for what she is doing —£700 a week tax-free?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to page 415 of Erskine May—
Hon. Members: Oh, no.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes, because we have had enough.
This page says:
"… disrespectful use of Her Majesty's name would normally give offence outside of Parliament; and it is only consistent with decency, that a member of the legislature should not be permitted openly to use such language in his place in Parliament."
Does not that rule, by analogy, apply to the former Queen of this country and to the Queen's sister?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): The Chair is watching order very carefully. I think that the hon. Member was trying quite hard, and I hope that he will not stray further along the path of his last sentence.
Mr. Hamilton: I am obliged. I understand the sensitivity of the hon. Member for Chelmsford. I watched his behaviour on the Committee. I was appalled by it. I did not think that a Member of this House could behave in that kind of sycophantic way. His views are radically different from mine—thank goodness for that. He must accept that if we are paying individuals these salaries—this is what they are—they must accept criticism from us as guardians of the taxpayers' money. The hon. Gentleman made snide remarks about Members' salaries. We will have to defend those in our constituencies and in this House, and if our constituents do not like it, they will kick us out. But that does not apply to these people whom we are talking about. [Interruption.] If they do not like it, they can give up the money which we are proposing to give them. But so long as they are a charge on public funds, we have the right to criticise them. That is the whole purpose of this House.
I turn now to the Gloucesters. The Duke of Gloucester is now in receipt of £35,000 a year tax-free. The recommendation is £45,000 a year, tax-free. And what do they do? Last year there were 147 engagements by the Duchess, for private reasons of which we are all aware. Very few of them have any significance or importance. That is less
350
than three a week, yet the proposed untaxed rate would be £900 a week—for a family remote from the Throne who can and should be encouraged to earn their own living. Is it not the principle of this Government that we should all stand on our own feet? I thought that that was the sentiment paraded around the country 18 months ago and ever since.
We go further. We provide for any future wife of a youngest son of the Royal Family. In 1952, when Prince Charles was four years old, we provided for his widow. My God—that was long-term planning, was it not? Now, we are going even further and we will provide for the others as well. The incomes of youngest sons after marriage will go up to £50,000, for youngest sons at age 18 and before marriage from £10,000 to £20,000, and for youngest sons after marriage from £25,000 to £50,000.
Then there is the provision for the widows of young princes who are aged, I think, 11 and 12. We are also providing an income of about £60,000 for the widow of Prince Charles—a fellow who is not yet married. We should scrap that kind of absurdity. When that becomes applicable, with the rate of inflation going at its present rate, those figures will be meaningless.
I come now to possibly the worst example of all, and that is the strange story of Prince Charles. He has been left out in the cold in this report. He is not even mentioned. At least, he is mentioned, but we make no provision for him. But he is not likely to starve. By the age of four he was already earning £10,000 a year—the greatest genius in the country. By 1970, still in his early twenties, he was up to £105,000. That was what he got last year, tax-free, which, according to the table that I quoted, was worth a taxable income of more than £1 million.
He could double that at the drop of a hat. Just the year before he had said to the Chancellor, "I take only half of what I am entitled to." Half of the net revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall were £105,000. But at any time he could write to the Chancellor—he could phone tonight—and say, "I want the whole revenue", and immediately, overnight, his non-taxable income would go up to £210,000. I have calculated that between 1953 and 1970 Prince Charles had

351
received £413,021, completely tax-free—nearly half a million.
If the Queen reigns another 20 years, Prince Charles will have amassed a private fortune of no less than £5 million, excluding all inherited or investment income—and it could easily be double that. Yet we are asked in these proposals to make separate provision of £60,000 a year for his widow.
All this and a lot I have not had time to mention is presumed to arise from the fact that the Queen has not had a rise since 1952—that her income has remained static for 20 years. That is just not so. Payments to the Privy Purse from the Duchy of Lancaster went up from £110,000 in 1952–53 to £300,000 in 1970. It is no good saying that these are private estates. The Duchy of Cornwall is run as a public estate and presents annual details to this House. The Chancellor of the Duchy is answerable in this House.
We received evidence to this effect. I elicited the information. This is a public estate and should be recognised as such. At present it is just a charade that is being performed. By this charade the Queen is presumed to give it back, along with the revenues from it, at the beginning of the reign, but this is simply a nonsense designed for the apologists of the Monarchy. They have always produced this argument, but it does not stand up.
Many facts and figures have been bandied about, but the debate does not revolve around facts and figures. Some hon. Members have said that the Monarchy should be above party, but it is not. [Interruption.] I mentioned in evidence an incident shortly after the 1970 General Election. The present Prime Minister went to Chequers and arranged for President Nixon to visit him there. He also arranged for the Queen to be there at the same time. They had a photograph taken outside Chequers, and a week or two later that photograph appeared in an official Tory magazine. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I have no doubt that it will feature in the American elections next November and perhaps in our next General Election as well.
My objection to the Monarchy is that it is at the apex of the class structure
352
of our society. It is the top of the pecking order in our society, with everybody knowing his or her place in the order of things. It is indefensible in a democratic society in an age when we are increasingly approaching egalitarianism—we have a long way to go but it is the inevitable trend—for us to spend our time bolstering up a pinnacle of society in which we do not believe, which it ill-becomes my party to support and which I for one, whatever anybody else does, will vote against on every possible occasion in opposition to these provisions.
7.55 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The speech of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) was entirely predictable and if there was anything calculated to convert one into a monarchist, it was his remarks.
I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman represents anyone but himself on this subject or that the majority of people in even his own constituency share his views, because he was clearly calling for a complete demolition of the Monarchy —[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—the Queen and the Royal Family. It flowed from his desire to refuse them finance, that they would be unable to carry out the duties of a Monarchy.
The right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) refused to give way to me when he was trying to equate what was being proposed here with the increases proposed for hon. Members. He said that whereas hon. Members had been asked to give information about their outside incomes and had done so, the Queen when asked to do so had refused.
The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that hon. Members were not asked to reveal their outside incomes. I filled in one of the forms about which he spoke. Hon. Members were asked on a voluntary basis to state what incomes they were getting from other professions. They were not asked what private incomes they had. There is, therefore, no analogy between hon. Members being asked to declare their professional incomes to a private Committee—which this was not, now that it has reported—and the details which the right hon. Gentleman wanted to have disclosed. Neither hon. Members nor people outside

353
know what we answered on the forms that were supplied to hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman was, therefore, being misleading in his remarks on this subject.
Mr. Charles Pannell: Every witness before the Committee was warned that the evidence would be taken down but the Chairman agreed that if there was anything to which a witness took objection that would be sidelined and his agreement to this course would not be unreasonably withheld. Certain matters were withheld and anyone, including the Queen herself, could have reported to the Committee in the utmost privacy.
Mr. Lewis: I accept that. The fact remains that the evidence put on paper by hon. Members for submission to the Boyle Committee was not subject to public scrutiny or the scrutiny of this House.
I was interested in what the hon. Member for Fife, West said about the Select Committee being closed and not open to the public or to hon. Members. That is only half correct. It was open to hon. Members and I attended the Committee's first sitting. I sat and listened although there were not any witnesses present. The Chairman of the Committee was extremely courteous, and, after certain discussions with his clerk and others, he left me alone to enjoy the first meeting, which I did.
I went to the second meeting and was accompanied by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). By that time the Chairman and members of the Committee had obviously discussed what they would do. We had quoted at us a passage from page 635 of Erskine May about the admission of strangers. We were told by the Chairman in the friendliest manner that we were perfectly entitled, as hon. Members, to be there—that hon. Members could attend a meeting of that kind; it seemed that there were no rules against our being present, unless the Government laid an order before the House saying that hon. Members should not attend.
We were asked if we would leave because one of two things would happen if we stayed; either the Committee would adjourn, which I gathered would
354
be the result of our staying, or we would be allowed to stay but there would be a great deal of embarrassment. Having been treated in such a civilised manner, and not wishing to create any embarrassment, we left.
I do not regret having attended the Committee's deliberations because it was made clear that unless the Executive states its wish that hon. Members should be debarred we are entitled to attend. While there may not be similar occasions involving the Civil List, I hope that in future the Executive will lay such orders before the House if it does not want hon. Members to attend such meetings.
Mr. Barber: My hon. Friend has been fair in the way that he has put his case, but I must correct him on one matter. It was not the wish of the Executive that my hon. Friend should leave. It was the wish of the majority of an all-party Committee that he should do so.
Mr. Lewis: Perhaps instead of referring to the Executive I should have referred to the usual channels. Certainly I enjoyed seeing the usual channels sitting together and displaying a certain amount of amity, which may not always be reflected on the Floor of the House.
I believe that most people are in favour of the Monarchy and of providing the money that it requires to do its job. The question is whether the Monarchy is expensive. I do not believe that it is. I believe that it is cheap at the price. Earlier today the Chancellor announced that he is to give away about £130 million in post-war credits.
Hon. Members: Give away?
Mr. Lewis: Yes. It is even more of a give-away operation than most tax concessions, because it is a repayment of money that was paid in tax many years ago. Usually when the Chancellor reduces taxes the reduction relates to future levels of tax. The money now to be paid out was obtained from taxes paid many years ago. I shall be a beneficiary, and I thank my right hon. Friend for paying these post-war credits, but if we relate that sum to the sum that we are being asked to agree to today, £1 million, we realise that the Monarchy is cheap at the price.
The hon. Member for Fife, West said that the money we are providing for the

355
Monarchy ought to be given instead to old-age pensioners. He knows that next week Members are to receive an increase in salary. The increase may be justified for many hon. Members who have no other income. I, for one, could do without it, but I believe that there are hon. Members who need the extra money. I shall pay tax on the extra money.
The hon. Gentleman could argue that nobody should receive any more money because old-age pensioners need more. We all know that these old people need more money, particularly at Christmas time. It could be argued that Members' salaries should not be increased because old-age pensioners need the money. The hon. Gentleman has an easy remedy to back his argument. He can refuse to accept the increase when it is proffered to him. He can offer it to the Chancellor and ask him to distribute it to old-age pensioners, or he can distribute it himself.
I do not believe that the Monarchy is an expensive institution. Is it justified? If there were not a Monarchy, there would be a republic. That would mean changing our constitution, and it would lead to increased costs, because no large republic of which I know is as cheap as the British Monarchy.
What we are really debating is the question asked by the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton): is the existing method the right one for dealing with the Royal Household? I think that the right hon. Gentleman has a point, but I do not altogether agree with him, and I shall tell him why in a moment. The Royal Household is run as cheaply as possible, and if there were a Department of State it would do two things. First, it would upset the existing relationship between the people, Parliament and the Monarch, which might be described as a kind of friendly remoteness. Second, there would be a continuous debate in the House on any proposals for increasing the amount of money to meet increases in wages and the rising costs of other items in the Royal Household. Indeed, I hesitate to think what it would be like if the hon. Member for Fife, West were able to debate this matter nearly every year.
It is interesting to note from the Report of the Select Committee the increases that
356
have taken place in all those items that are not in the Civil List but have been transferred to various Departments. I shall not itemise them, but the increase in the cost of several of those items is much greater than that of many items in the Civil List. Costs in respect of the Royal yacht, the maintenance of palaces, and so on, have increased to a greater extent than those provided for in the Civil List. If the Civil List were brought under a Department of State—if the Queen were nationalised, as it were—costs would escalate even more.
Most hon. Members have referred to the Queen's wealth. I take a rather different view from that expressed by some of my hon. Friends. As this matter has been raised by the Committee, and as there is obviously some mystery about it, perhaps I should make my position clear. I take the view that there should continue to be privacy in this matter. I do not think that the Queen should be asked to disclose her private wealth. It must be accepted, however, that if a sizeable sum is involved it will grow at a considerable rate if no taxes are paid on it.
I do not think that the constitution should be changed so that the Queen pays tax. I do not think that she should pay estate duty, either. But I wonder whether the Queen and her advisers would consider putting some of the income from investments into some form of trust for the Commonwealth, or for the benefit of public, rather than give it back to the Treasury in the form of tax.
Now that the matter has been raised, I think that it would be in the interests of the Monarchy as a whole to add to the answer given to the Committte and, if possible, to do something to dispel the disquiet which has been expressed in this House and in the Press, and which can, I think, fairly be said to be felt by not only those who express themselves, as the hon. Member for Fife, West does, as Republicans, but by many people who certainly would not want to change the Monarchy.
I believe that this institution has provided great benefits for this country and for the Commonwealth. It is very highly regarded. In days when there are more republics than monarchies, it stands out as an example of permanence, and I think that the present holder of the office,

357
having regard to the way in which she suddenly found herself the Queen of this realm, is to be congratulated upon the way in which she has carried out her duties. I hope, therefore, that we shall do what the Government are asking and that she will be able to carry out these duties in future feeling that she is not in any way financially embarrassed.
8.10 p.m.
Mr. Charles Pannell: I thought I had better say a word about this because I have been asked in correspondence why my signature was not on the end of the Select Committee's Report. The fact is that the Committee was set up early in the year and the Chancellor of the Exchequer optimistically thought that he could get the matter out of the way by the time the House rose in July. He went through a period of disenchantment, not only because of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), but because of others as well.
There is no doubt that when the Committee started it did so on the assumption that this would be 1952 all over again. There was a feeling in the Committee that, of course, the evidence would not be published; that decision was left to the end. The feeling was, "It was not done in 1952, so why do it now?" Of course, it seemed to me that the official Treasury thinking was that we could simply take the figure for 1952, allow for inflationary escalation and fill in an appropriate figure for 1970 or 1971, and that would settle the matter. It did not happen that way. The Committee was a very good committee on both sides. There was a great deal of cross-examination.
I want to say something now about my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West. He may resent what is said by hon. Members opposite, but I do not think that he will find anything I say unwelcome. I ask hon. Members opposite to remember, when he speaks, that he was for six years the Chairman of the Estimates Committee. To a degree we all live on public funds, so we should not be too sensitive. I do not think that royalty should be too sensitive either. My hon. Friend has put in a terriffic amount of work on this. No one can doubt the degree of scholarship he has brought to bear on the subject. His type
358
of person in the history of this House has always fulfilled a function.
Let us look back over the history of the Monarchy itself. Even the view taken by Earl Attlee about the Monarchy was a rather stuffy view, which would not be tolerated now, not even, I believe, by the Royal Family. Or let us recall 1910 and the goings-on then. The behaviour of royalty of those days would not be accepted by the public today. In effect royalty yields to the passing scene and to the changing climate.
I want now to come to the proposal for having Royal Commissioners. The idea was taken completely from the set-up of having Commissioners of the House. These Commissioners were appointed between 1812 and 1847 and—believe it or not—prior to the insttiution of the Services Committee those Ministers whose offices were extant in 1812 were Commissioners of the House. Their appointments reflected changing climates.
In those days, Mr. Speaker used to sell the gold plate back to himself and also had a share in private litigation—things which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not tolerate today. Yet they reflected the climate of the day. It was this sort of thing which brought about the appointment of Commissioners of the House. It seems to me that if we were to set up a body of Crown Commissioners to whom the whole knowledge of royalty would be given, it would be far better to give give such a body, which would be a trustee body, some of the Queen's private wealth. This would have been an effective answer to my hon. Friend.
But, of course, this sort of thing applies to everything that we touch. We all yield to changing climate all the time. It so happens that I had accepted in the expectation that the Select Committee deliberations would be over by last July, an assignment to go on a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association visit to New Zealand—and even that had to be put back for the Common Market vote, so eventually I arrived a day too late to take part in the voting. But at least I speak with a little extra authority because I have listened to the evidence.
Because I am interested in this matter I, too, have had a fan mail. Although not as large as that of my hon. Friend, it reflects what lie has said. No one is grumbling about the Queen but there is

359
considerable grumbling and alarm about what has occurred with regard to the other members of the Royal Family. The figures are set out on page XV. These are some of the categories:
"Younger sons at age 18 and before marriage…
Younger sons after marriage…
Daughters at age 18 and before marriage…
Daughters after marriage…"
There is almost a Gilbert and Sullivan quality about this. People think that this is quite ridiculous. That view is shared by a number of journals, including the Spectator, which is not left-wing. It had this to say:
"But much more questionable than the Queen's Civil List are the state pensions dished out to the other royals. The amounts are peculiar, and large—in most cases sums excessively greater than salaries paid to the Prime Minister, or to heads of nationalised industries, are proposed. A great deal of the public activity of these royals is opening things and eating things. Much publicity and commercial value is attached to functions where royalty is present. I do not see why the organisers of such functions should not pay the royal dukes and duchesses, princes and princesses, earls and so forth appropriate fees."
I do not go as far as that, but that indicates that the Spectator can use language on this issue not dissimilar from that used by my hon. Friend, which shows that there is a degree of alarm.
Royalty will only prosper to the degree at which it enjoys the increasing respect of all of us here, and when there is an element of charade, which is what we have here, then the feeling of respect for royalty itself will fall.
I am grateful for the opportunity to serve on the Select Committee. I only got up tonight to justify how necessary I think it is to have a body of Crown Commissioners to look after this sort of thing. I think that the Government have made a great mistake by standing on the same old rampart. Presumably the Chancellor said that he had been convinced by Her Majesty or the people close to her and they refused this quite reasonable request.
If we divide at the end of the debate, it is because we must, because it is fundamental within our party itself that we do not just give out largesse like this with no effective check. I think that Parliament is a respecting and respectable institution. We should remember also that
360
the whole truth was not told before the Select Committee. Nothing was said about the continual transfers to Votes since 1952. The situation has been represented as though nothing had been done since 1952. I am all in favour of Her Majesty being given what my hon. Friend called "the rate for the job", and I would not have the office played down at all, but I do not think that this report, taken as a whole, is sensible unless we agree to the Amendment.
8.20 p.m.
Mr. John Stokes: I am glad indeed to have been called after listening for over four hours to other hon. Members, because I am one of those Englishmen who like the Monarchy very dearly. I was somewhat puzzled, after reading the excellent report and in view of the care that had been taken, to hear many of the remarks made today by hon. Member's opposite.
We were treated earlier to what I can only call a dazzling display in psychological warfare by the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). I listened particularly carefully to his words because I know he is an exceedingly clever man and a very good writer, and he is editor of a magazine. In the course of his remarks he said that he represented a large number of car workers. I also, in my constituency, represent a large number of car workers. It was the votes of those people and of many other working people who sent me here. I take the trouble, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does also, to see those people regularly both at their places of work and at their leisure on Friday and Saturday evenings, and all I can say is that in my experience the royalism of car workers in my constituency is a good deal warmer than apparently is the royalism of some of the workers in Coventry.
There have been occasions in this debate when I felt that if such a detailed scrutiny had been made 100 years or so ago, there would have been something of a bedchamber crisis. There certainly would have been if some hon. Members opposite had been in the Government. I appeal to those moderate hon. Members opposite who must still have a spark of chivalry in their hearts that will, I hope, prevent them from prying too deeply into the control of the Royal Household. [Laughter] An hon. Member laughs.

361
Let me bring it down to a much humbler plane. Let us imagine that he and I were to submit our wives to the same kind of public scrutiny about how they used their housekeeping money.
I believe that one of the least attractive traits in the British people is that they can get public service on the cheap, whether from the Monarchy, from noble Lords in another place or from us, the faithful Commons; and I know that many hon. Members dread the debate on their own emoluments next week.
Mr. Albert Booth rose—
Mr. Stokes: I have waited a long time and many other hon. Members want to speak.
Mr. Booth: So have some hon. Members on this side.
Mr. Stokes: These things are ordered differently in other countries, where usually much more generous provision is made for public service. The prime purpose of the Civil List, as I understand it, is to pay for the upkeep of the Monarchy; and I believe I share the view of most other people in this country in that I do not want there to be one penny less provided in order that we may maintain those ceremonies and that order which for so long have been the hallmark of English monarchy. I was privileged to witness the recent State visit of a foreign potentate. I believe hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree that there is not another country in the world that can hold a candle to us in Royal ceremonies of that kind.
We have heard before that our Monarchy is much cheaper than a presidency, and its cost is much less than the revenue which the State receives from the Crown lands. One cannot read the report all through, as I have done, without being overwhelmed by the dedication to duty shown by the Queen. My immediate reaction on reading that long report was that the Royal Family was cheap at the price and marvellous value for money. I find it very hard that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) with whom I have served on Committees and who is, I believe, at heart a kindly man, should have made such a vile attack against certain Royal personages who are unable to defend them
362
selves. That can only leave a very nasty taste in the mouth.
Of course, the Monarchy is not just matter of money or hard cash. It represents a vital strand in our national life, an imperishable link with the past and something which I believe is of incalculable benefit to the nation. I am glad to see that we have a distinguished historian on the Opposition Front Bench at the moment, but I believe a fearful struggle may be taking place in the breasts of some hon. Members opposite, because they are faced with an awful dilemma as a result of their Socialist and egalitarian principles. On the one hand they are bound to dislike the hereditary principle, privilege, tradition and the archaic nature of much of the ceremony. But on the other hand they know that the Monarchy and everything for which it stands is extremely popular with the public at large. I am certainly glad that I do not have that conflict within my breast and I shall vote, if there is a vote tonight, for the Motion without any trimming or equivocation.
8.25 p.m.
Mr. Michael English: I hope that hon. Members opposite will get it clear that we are not really arguing about the Monarchy versus a republic president. I do not believe even my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) said that he wanted to get rid of the Queen. On the contrary, he was quite proud of the fact that he was offering her a pay increase. Let us be quite clear what we are arguing about. I thought at the beginning that this was to be a debate in which the Front Benches were putting us in the position of arguing a narrow point. The great difference between my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman opposite appeared to be whether we should decide on the amount the Queen is to cost every year or every 10 years. I began to think we would spend the whole day's debate on a very narrow point because that, technically, is what will be before the House when my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) moves his Amendment.
Fortunately, as sometimes happens in this House, back benchers on both sides who have spoken seems to have rescued the debate from the possibility that it

363
would be confined within that channel; but something else I expected has occurred. We have had a lot of strange, distorted history from back benchers on both sides and we have had a lot of strange arguments.
The hon. Member for Windsor (Dr. Glyn) mentioned the Crown estates. People often mention things like the Crown estates and they assume that they are something the Monarchy voluntarily gives away every reign. There are many things that we do by precedent in the House which could be argued to be voluntary, but we have been doing them for a long time. There is nothing which says that we should have a Chaplain to come to Prayers, save that in 1558, when Queen Elizabeth I came to the Throne, Parliament wanted to demonstrate, contrary to the law, that it was going to be Protestant, although Parliament had not passed the Act in that Parliament.
Let us get it clear that the Queen does not give up the Crown estates. If she gives anything up, she gives up lands which have come to be called the Crown estate. She does not give up the Duchy of Lancaster. Some £300,000 was paid from it into the Privy Purse—not the part of the Civil List; that relates to the payment of employees—free of tax in the last period for which accounts are available. The Queen has not given that up. To whom has she given it? It is not a piece of personal estate, because the personal estate of the Monarchy is not published. If it were personal estate, it would have been retained, presumably, by the Duke of Windsor when he abdicated. Furthermore, in the absence of a will, it would have eventually descended not to the Queen alone but to the Queen and her sister, such are the inheritance laws of the country.
We have here a piece of public land that goes with the Crown. It is not inherited by a private person.
Dr. Glyn: The hon. Member is quite wrong. I refer to a Question I put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 8th June, in which I asked what was the income from all the hereditary revenue surrendered by the Sovereign in exchange for the Civil List. The answer was given that it was in the neighbourhood of £5½ million. That is
364
surrendered for the Civil List and it has been for a very long time. All that I was wishing to show the House was that if the Monarch took that amount of money she would be far better off than under the Civil List arrangements.
Mr. English: One could say the same thing about Customs. At one time Customs were granted to the Crown for life, but we stopped doing that in the reign of Charles I. In the reign of George III we stopped doing what the hon. Gentleman was talking about and stopped leaving the Crown with certain lands.
Another point about it is that if the hon. Member deliberately limits his question to lands which were surrendered instead of including those which were not, the only legal distinction between what is called Crown estate and what is called the Duchy of Lancaster is that one is not being kept by the Queen and the other is. That is the difference between them in this context.
The debate has come to centre upon the basic point of whether the Queen and members of the Royal Family can have their cake and eat it. Do they want to be treated for official purposes as officials, for which I agree entirely that they should not pay a penny out of their private sources? Do they want to be treated for private purposes as private persons? If so, I agree that no one should inquire what they do with their money, any more than people inquire what we do with ours. But they should pay tax on it.
The basic point of the debate is whether the Royal Family are to have all the benefits of being Royals and none of the disadvantages. That is what it amounts to. For example, we do not know what the Queen's fortune is. I do not particularly want to know, nor do I want to know the personal wealth of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I am satisfied that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister pay tax on their wealth. I am satisfied that when it is inherited by a person other than a Monarch, tax is paid upon it. Estate duty is not paid upon it in the case of the Monarchy. We do not even know what it is. No Royal will has been published since the reign of George III. That is carrying secrecy a little far.

365
I do not see why we should not know about Queen Victoria's will for example. I imagine that every possible recipient or legatee under it is now dead. We now have a 30-year rule for publication of most documents. We should come around to publications of this character. This is an application of the principle. The principle is that Royal wills will not be published because they are Royal wills. The Royal estates will not be taxed because they are Royal estates. But Royal servants will not be paid for by the Monarch because they are Royal servants. They will be paid for by the taxpayer. That is where the provision goes too far.
The Monarchy should be treated as what it is, the official, ancient, highly respected by all parties and all persons, Head of State of the community in which we live, which, by a historical process, although it was once elected, has come to be an hereditary Monarchy, and which should have all its expenses paid for in the ordinary way by the taxpayer. But, since private persons hold offices, be they ancient or modern, the holders of those offices should be treated as private persons whose private fortunes and private income should not be inquired into, provided they accept the same obligations as everyone else in the community and pay the taxation imposed upon the whole community by the Parliament of which the Queen as well as ourselves is a part.
8.35 p.m.
Mrs. Peggy Fenner: I am very pleased to catch the eye of the Chair. I had wondered with some diffidence whether it was fair that yet another member of the Select Committee should speak in the debate. I was privileged to serve on the Committee with distinguished hon. Members who were in the House in 1952, when the Civil List Act determined the level of provision contained in paragraph 2 of our Report.
I began my service in the Select Committee with no preconceived notion beyond what I estimated to be a good, cross-section view of the majority of people—admiration for the job done by the Monarch and the Royal Family. It is always a presumption to make guesses about the majority view. Even the opinion polls have failed from time to
366
time to make accurate predictions. But I have been confirmed in my assumptions today by the comments of the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who said that many of his supporters were monarchists, and by the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man), who said that his supporters, too, are monarchists, even if he added "in a strange sense".
It seemed to me, as I took my part in the Select Committee, that I required to be satisfied by the evidence on three criteria. First, I needed to be satisfied that there was a sustained and increasing wish of the Parliament and people for royal attendance at and participation in a wide range of events and functions at home and abroad. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has referred to the weight of evidence of the burden placed upon the Monarchy and the Royal Family, and that criterion was fully met by the weight of evidence set out in paragraph 17 and at length and in detail in Annex III, which also shows the great support for the Queen given by other members of the Royal Family. Clearly, a Monarch could not sustain the enormous number of engagements without the support and participation of other members of the Royal Family. It would not be humanly possible. I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) for putting the matter in the context of history and reminding us that we have not merely a Monarch but a constitutional Royal Family.
The wide and democratic range of those engagements I accept as clear evidence of the wish of Parliament and people for the sustained and increasing rôle of the Monarchy. Since 1952 while that rôle has been performed there has been an increase of 126 per cent. in average wage rates and an increase of 74 per cent. in consumer prices. Although it was obviously the intention of the Civil List Act, 1952, to provide wholly for the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, as far as could be seen, the range and scope of the role of the Monarch and her family, combined with the extraordinarily inflationary spiral, has inevitably rendered the provision inadequate. This is graphically demonstrated by Statement II. The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett)—and I am

367
sorry to have to refer to him when he is not present—would argue with me that the scale of increase in staff applies only to the work done as it were in the rôle of the Monarchy in respect of State occasions and so on. I regard the case as being clearly made with a rise from £196.000 in respect of salary scales to £448,000 in 1971.
I accept that the mere proof of expenditure is not of necessity proof that the expenditure is necessary. Again I required another criteria and that was to be assured that the organisation was run with business efficiency. There was clear evidence from Sir Basil Smallpeice on page 19 that the Organisation and Methods Division at the Treasury had been at work inside the Palace and that the implementation of its recommendations had assured budgetary control and cost effectiveness. It seems that the criteria of the rôle, sustained and increasing, of the Monarchy has been made and that business efficiency and cost effectiveness have been applied to the organisation in the Palace.
The rate of inflation cannot be gainsaid, and I will not be drawn into any arguments about whose fault it is. It is clear that since 1952 there has been an extraordinary inflationary spiral. Given the rôle that the job demands, given the rate of inflation, given the business efficiency and cost effectiveness, all of which I find well proven, the provision is inadequate and requires to be increased. This inadequacy was accepted by the majority of the Committee and the point at issue was how adequate provision could be made. Much of our debate has turned on the proposals put forward by the Chancellor and the counter-proposals put forward by the right hon. Member for Sowerby.
I could not accept the solution of the right hon. Gentleman. At first sight it seems a reasonable idea. After all, as has been pointed out, £2,500,000 plus the £50,000 from the Post Office already come on the Vote, and what we are seeking is that the last £980,000 recommended by the Committee should not come on to the Vote in this House. To me that last £980,000 is granted because therein lies the difference between the Monarchy and all that our traditional and historical
368
Monarchy stands for and a mere Head of State.
The proposal for a Department of the Crown, while I understand it and accept the sincere way in which it has been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, would emasculate and diminish the rôle of the Monarchy. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to do that, but I would not say that some of his supporters behind him do not. I recognise only too well that he had to put forward a proposal which meets the views of the fringe republicans in his party, and he has my sympathy there.
I make this point particularly because during the Divisions that arose on the proposals of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) I noted with interest that the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members on his Front Bench registered a "No vote". I cannot believe that some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Fife, West find an echo in their hearts. I believe that what I detect in the comments of the right hon. Gentleman is a sincere wish that we should continue with our constitutional Monarchy and a sincere searching for the best way in which this should be done. In my view such emasculation and diminution of the rôle of the Monarchy as would follow the setting-up of such a Department of the Crown is not the majority wish of the people and it is certainly not mine.
8.45 p.m.
Mr. Richard Crawshaw: It is true to say that as many institutions have been destroyed by those who sought to support them as by those who opposed them. That is why I make my contribution tonight. I do not want to vie with hon. Members in professing loyalty to the Monarch, I hope that goes without saying, but there is justifiable criticism at the present time. Some Ministers have not done their job properly, either because they were over-ruled by the Monarch or were not sensitive to public opinion.
If anyone were to ask me whether I thought the Monarchy was worth £1 million or £5 million, I should say that if it costs £10 million it is worth £10 million. But we must show that the system under which the Monarchy operates is a fair system, and that is why I cannot support

369
what has been put forward by so many hon. Gentlemen on the Government side of the House. They fail to appreciate that a person with a private source of income which is not taxed is in a different position altogether from the rest of the population. If it is the belief that the Monarchy will continue whilst this archaic rule continues, I can understand them supporting it, but I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) that in the foreseeable future there is no alternative to a Monarchy, and I hope that there will never be an alternative.
I am not so complacent about that, because members of the public are appalled that there should be a source of income which is not disclosed, even to a Committee. I say that that is all right if that is the way the Monarchy requires it, but there should also be an obligation on the Monarch to provide funds out of that source of income. That source of income should be disclosed, and I believe that it will be disclosed in the next few years. I hope Ministers will pay regard to this, because it is essential that the public should see that the system is being run fairly whether it applies to the ordinary individual or to the Monarch.
Hon. Members are deceiving themselves if they think that what has been disclosed by the Committee has not brought considerable criticism from many members of the public which they are entitled to have expressed in the House. I hope that I am helping in that way.
The second point with which I wish to deal refers to the other members of the Royal Family. I make no personal issue on this. There are many members of the Royal Family for whom I have the highest regard and who have carried out, as Her Majesty has done, a difficult task in a way which is a credit not only to themselves personally but to the institution they represent. We have listened to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) giving details of the people who are maintained by the Royal Households, but we are living in 1971, and people are questioning these things.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) will know that it is not only about the Monarchy that questions
370
are being asked when formerly there was none. He will know that the Church of which he is a member is also in these modern times subjected to questions. People are not prepared today to support ad lib either a Monarchy or the Church without question. I intend to put certain questions because the Monarchy means as much to me as it does to hon. Members opposite.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am following the hon. Member's argument closely, but he should know that the various officials mentioned by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) are honorary positions. They may be archaic, but they are not costing anybody anything.
Mr. Crawshaw: I would like to accept what the hon. Gentleman said, and, of course, many are honorary positions, but others are not. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to suggest that they are all honorary positions, then why are we now allocating this amount of money? I think I am entitled to an answer.
I was about to refer to other members of the Royal Family. I believe the days have gone when whole retinues of royal families were supported at public expense. It does no credit to the Royal Family. I do not believe many of them wish it to happen to them. We know that there are members of the Royal Family who have made their mark in the outside world. If members of the Royal Family are not entitled to involve themselves in industry, and so on, it seems rather remarkable that one or two of them do so. With the greatest respect to them, I should have thought that, with all their advantages from the point of view of social upbringing, education, and their association with people in industry, if they cannot make their mark in the outside world, then nobody can. I do not say this out of disrespect to any of them. I say this because this system which most of us wish to support will be destroyed not by people like my hon. Friend for Fife, West, but by people who have a sense of loyalty which is completely misplaced and which allows of no criticism of the Royal Family.
My sense of loyalty means that, if I have a criticism of somebody, then I feel I have a right to say he is wrong. I believe that Her Majesty is wrong on this

371
particular issue. I believe that it will bring discredit to the Monarchy, and I feel that, unless this matter is rectified, it will ultimately destroy the Monarchy. I believe that this is an important issue because the Monarchy is important to this country. This debate is important because things have been said which I believe ought to have been said many years ago. I only hope that sufficient regard will be paid to what has been said in this debate today.
8.54 p.m.
Captain Walter Elliot: Those of us who support a democratic system must agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) that proper criticism, made in a reasonable manner, can do nothing but strengthen any institution at which it is directed, including the Monarchy. The hon. Gentleman's manner was persuasive simply because he put his arguments reasonably.
I wish to look at another aspect of the debate which is set out in paragraph 16 on page XXXV of the Committee's report dealing with the Queen's official duties. Paragraph 17 goes into those in a little more detail. It refers, for example, to the burden of reading papers, receiving large numbers of important people, Privy Councillors, investitures, and so on. Those are important and arduous duties, but they represent only a part of the institution of the Monarchy.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
"The Royal Household is quite different from a Government Department. It is part of our history, our constitution and way of life."
I agree entirely.
The right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said that there was nothing personal to the Monarch in his proposals. I accept that, of course. But the importance in his proposals is not the extent to which they affect the Monarch but the extent to which they affect the institution of the Monarchy.
Having said that, the right hon. Gentleman went on to ask
"What sort of Monarchy should it be?"
That is the real point of his proposals. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say, immediately afterwards:
372
"The degree of glamour that we give to the Monarch is to be decided by the House of Commons."
I wondered why he should use the word "glamour" immediately after asking what sort of Monarchy it should be.
What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by that? If he meant the style in which the Monarch lives or the duties set out in paragraph 17 of the report, there is some truth in saying that the House of Commons decides the amount of glamour. But that is only part of the Monarchy. As we know, there is an aura, an influence and a respect built round the Monarch. I shall not go into the reasons why that should be so. It is the case, and it is important. As a result, the Monarchy tends to unify and form a rallying point for the nation. It exerts a persuasive and pervasive influence.
Was the right hon. Gentleman referring to that influence when he used the word "glamour"? I suspect that he was. If he was, I must tell him that that is not decided by the House of Commons. In the past, there has been criticism of the way in which this influence has been exerted. By that, I do not necessarily mean criticism of the present Monarchy. I mean criticism of others. The criticism has been directed at the Palace authorities, as the right hon. Gentleman called them. Constitutionally these people are called irresponsible because they are not elected, and it may be that that criticism was justified in the past.
It has been suggested many times that the Palace authorities, again to use the right hon. Gentleman's expression, should come from a cross-section of the nation. I confess that that suggestion seems reasonable. The obvious purpose is for people from different sections of the nation to exert differing influences on the Monarch and the Monarchy. However, the right hon. Gentleman's proposal was not to do that. It was to bring all the Palace authorities under the control of the Government of the day. In my opinion, undoubtedly that would change the character of our Monarchy. It would tie the Monarchy much too tightly to the Government of the day and that, I believe, would be wrong. It could damage the Monarchy and in certain circumstances it could be dangerous for the nation.

373
For those reasons, I shall oppose the Opposition Amendment.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. John D. Grant: Unlike so many right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken I am not a Privy Councillor, nor was I a member of the Select Committee. I do not have the personal and intimate knowledge which others have been able to display, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) with his knowledge of the Royal Bedchamber. However, I think I can bring to the debate what I should call a clean, fresh, untarnished brand of prejudice.
I intend to support the Amendment although I do not do so with any real enthusiasm. I also intend to go into the Lobby with those of my hon. Friends who described themselves as freebooters to oppose the Motion.
I am not enthusiastic about the Amendment because it does not satisfy me. Although I accept the logic of the argument advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) about the need for a Department of State which would at least make the Monarchy more directly accountable to this House, the Amendment does not really go far enough for me.
Fundamentally I believe in democracy, which means that I cannot accept the hereditary principle; but I accept that the future of the Monarchy is not in any way at issue at this point. The vast majority of people are either content with the system or possibly disinterested in it, although there are the minority views of the enthusiastic loyalists and people who would like to see the system abolished.
Much of the ground that I would have covered has already been covered. I was the first Member to be called after the Chancellor made the announcement about the appointment of the Select Committee, and I posed two questions to him. I asked, first, whether in view of the fog surrounding the Royal finances it would be possible for the Committee to sit in public and, secondly, whether the vast private income of the Royal Family would be examined by the Committee. On the first point we have already heard that despite the efforts of hon. Members from this side of the House in the Select Committee, the majority party demurred.
374
One result is that running through the report we have those rather irritating gaps where witnesses presumably requested that certain items should be kept secret.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. I think that he exaggerates the position very much indeed. The evidence has been published and remarkably few parts have been taken out. That has been generally accepted by Members who served on the Committee.
Mr. Grant: That may be so. If the Committee had sat in public, these misgivings would not have arisen in the minds of hon. Members.
On the second point which I raised, concerning an examination of the whole of the Royal income, the Chancellor was unsympathetic. In my view the Committee subsequently failed to secure anything worthwhile—that has been amply demonstrated tonight—in terms of knowledge of the size and extent of the private fortune. In that respect the fog remains.
For the hon. Member for Windsor (Dr. Glyn) to call the report a comprehensive document was, to put it mildly, somewhat misleading. All that we know with certainty, where the fog has been lifted, is that this large private fortune rests to a considerable degree on tax concessions. Those of us who argued that way have been fully vindicated because we have learned—this is the most valuable piece of information to come from the inquiry —that the Queen pays no income tax, surtax, capital gains tax or estate duty. The whole of her income is tax-free. Many people go abroad to get that kind of benefit. What that has meant in cash terms to the Royal fortune over the years we are in no position to know.
The Lord Chamberlain talked about "wild exaggeration" of the Royal fortune. I should have thought that the best way to deal with exaggeration and rumour on any occasion is to tell the truth about it, otherwise people are bound to conclude that there is something that somebody wants to hide. In the circumstances, the Lord Chamberlain's reply to the Committee was more than simply unsatisfactory. In my view, it was nothing short of insulting to people who, after all,

375
had been elected to do a job for this House and were trying to do that job to the best of their ability.
The point was probably most succinctly put by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) —who in a letter to The Times said that, without the relevant information,
"a responsible Parliament should not approve one penny more or less".
I am sure that he was right anyway about not providing a penny more in those circumstances. I accept that if the nation wants a Queen—I believe that the nation does—she should be properly provided for. But it is surely reasonable that the full cost to the taxpayer, including these tax concessions, should be fully known.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said that this was totally irrelevant because it had gone on for 200 years. If that is the basis on which the House operates, the sooner that hon. Members with that kind of view take off to other occupations—I take this opportunity to wish the right hon. Gentleman well—the better, because this is the kind of attitude which we should get away from.
We have yet to know why these tax concessions are allowed anyway. What is the principle behind it? I have not heard it explained tonight. What is the cause of them other than outdated tradition and custom? It is regrettable that the Chancellor failed to deal with this and I hope that the Leader of the House will do so.
There is something else that we must get straight. Talk of a million-pound monarchy is sheer baloney. Hon Members on both sides agree with that although for different reasons. The Civil List, of course, is just one very small part of the cost of the Monarchy. We have heard about the real bill in direct costs being another £3 million or so on things like the Royal yacht, free post and telephones, maintenance of palaces, and so on. But there are additional costs which have to be borne either by the taxpayer or by the ratepayer. Every time that a member of the Royal Family pays an official visit, heavy costs are incurred. There is all the paint, all the "bull" all the red carpet treatment—and it all costs public money.
376
Whatever the affection for the Queen in the country, I do not think that people go along with all the trappings and trimmings which go with the Monarchy on the present grand British scale or see them as necessary or either socially or economically desirable in the 1970s—any more than I accept what the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Capt. W. Elliot) said about the reading of State papers, which is in the evidence of Sir Michael Adeane.
I do not see what possible difference it makes to the nation whether the Queen reads State papers daily or not. I do not know what decisions are made as a result. If, as we are told, she has to do this, she has my sympathy. But it is very hard to understand why it matters a jot whether she reads them or not. She would be better off with a quick précis of the morning papers, which might give her a better idea of what people were doing and thinking in the country that day.
The more I look at the report the more I wonder what it is all about. I accept that overseas visits, trips to hospitals and charity work are important, but so much of what goes on at the centre seems to centre around the same kind of people who attend garden parties—the diplomats, the civic dignitaries, and so on. We are told that this is all part of the necessary glamour and mystique, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West that much of this simply provides for an exercise in sycophancy.
Certainly much of what we have heard tonight from hon. Gentlemen opposite matches up to that. Indeed, at one point I thought that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) would burst into the National Anthem. It is said that this sort of sycophantic exercise is harmless, but I doubt whether it is. It is too costly and it is not simply a question of the cost of the Queen, which brings us back to the subject of the cost of the whole Royal Family.
I am sure that some hon. Members have been right to draw the conclusion that members of the public are dissatisfied with the present arrangement. They cannot see the need for the extra cash for all these members of the Royal Family, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West rightly described as

377
hangers-on. When people look at these substantial increases for the Queen Mother, Princess Margaret, the Duke of Gloucester and so on, they must feel that somebody is taking them for a ride, and perhaps it is the Keeper of the Privy Purse, Lord Tryon.
In all of this I prefer the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West although I have reservations about some of the proposals which he made in his customary over-generous way. Lacking something more positive, I shall support the Amendment as a step in the right direction, albeit a small step. It should be said that it is a step which apparently the Queen herself has seen fit to oppose, and this is regrettable.
9.12 p.m.
Mr. J. Selwyn Gummer: It has been noticeable that hon. Members on both sides have felt a sense of unease in discussing this subject.
Some have felt that, because of their principles, being rather more republican than monarchist, yet holding democratic views and recognising the popularity of the Monarchy, they are in a dilemma. Others, supporting the Monarchy wholeheartedly, find that in discussing the subject they must make comments about individual members of the Royal Family, thus making this not the sort of discussion in which they would wish to engage.
These last views have obviously been at the back of the minds of most hon. Members who have spoken, and their moderathe comments have, therefore, been particularly persuasive.
This basic unease leads one to believe that the Amendment has a major disadvantage. It must be agreed that anything which brings the Monarchy into the ambit of the party political change of Government which must arise should it become in any greater sense a Department of State is to be deplored for it would only mean our having this type of discussion more frequently.
While that may have been the general point to be made in speeches the point on which I wish to concentrate is about the Royal Family. Our Monarchy is unique in the sense that we have always believed it to be comprised not just of the Monarch but the Royal Family. One reason for its great popularity is that there
378
is within this family a number of people who in different ways serve the nation.
One advantage of a Monarchy over the presidential system is that with a Royal Family one has a number of people with different interests and appeals. It is easy to make points about particular members of the Royal Family who are not as popular as others, in general, it is right to say that if someone believes that a Monarchy is valuable he must believe that a Monarchy which presents a Royal Family is considerably more valuable; and if that is so the Royal Family cannot be divided. It cannot be said that some members of it are suitable for jobs which arise while some are not. That is one of the drawbacks of the hereditary system. It means that provision must be made for all members of the Royal Family.
It was suggested by one moderate speaker on the benches opposite that some members of the Royal Family would be able to make their way in the world because they were the kind of people who had established considerable associations. I think that was the phrase used by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw). I believe that that is one reason why it is important to protect the Monarch and the Royal Family from a situation in which associations which many feel ought not to be used would be used by them in the course of the business in which they would have to engage were they not provided for by the Civil List.
I do not believe that in the context of this debate it would have been necessary to discuss in such detail the position of the Royal Family had it not been for the fact that it is on this aspect that so much of the criticism of the proposals before the House has been concentrated. The concentration of that criticism arises partly because of a misunderstanding of how the Monarchy works, and partly because some hon. Members do not wish to criticise the Monarch but wish to go some way towards criticising the institution.
Just as we must not be led astray into arguing the principle for and against the Monarchy, so we must not be led astray into suggesting that the Monarchy can be stripped of its mystique without losing something of the glamour which it clearly has. I cannot believe that a regular public searchlight on the details of

379
the way in which the Royal finances are organised is a satisfactory means of going about things, and it is important that we should not feel it necessary to bring into the public light all that the Royal Family has from hereditary and historical revenue.
I cannot see the argument which suggests that there is a connection between the way in which we changed our Customs arrangements and the direct and straight deal that was done by the Monarch with the people whereby the Monarch exchanged hereditary lands for a regular sum of money. It may be that some people wish it had not happened, but it did.
In these circumstances it is wrong to criticise the concept of dealing with the Royal Family as a family, and not just as a Monarchy, and it is wrong to suggest that we should in some way make the Royal Family a political Department of State and thus bring it more clearly and directly into association with what must be party political Government.
9.19 p.m.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) began by saying that there was some sense of unease about the debate, and I agree with him to the extent that I do not find this an enjoyable or exhilarating debate in which to take part, and the same comment applies to my experience of the sittings of the Select Committee as a whole. I prefer exchanging views with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the broader and wider issues of national finance rather than on personal finance as we have to do on this occasion. Nonetheless, the matter has been raised, and is before us, and we therefore have to put forward the views which we respectively hold with conviction as legislators who have to pronounce upon this matter.
There is, I suspect, some regret that this should in any way be a matter of party controversy, which it is to some extent, because there will be a Division on the Amendment, but in my view the blame for that rests upon the Government.
The drawings from the Duchy of Lancaster are up from £100,000 at the begin-
380
ning of the reign to £300,000 at the present time, and I understand they will probably continue at that rate. The drawings from the Duchy of Cornwall, owing to the coming-of-age of the Prince of Wales but none the less substantially increasing the resources available to the family as a whole, are up from £10,000 at the beginning of the reign to £105,000.
Thus, so far the increase will not be from £475,000 to £980,000 but from £812,000 to £1,640,000. That is allowing for the other annunities as well as the Civil List and also for increased drawings from the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. But beyond this there has, of course, since 1952 been a really enormous increase in the amount of Royal expenditure borne on Votes. In some cases, as I understand it, this represents new or expanded services which did not exist previounsly and in other cases a transfer of the cost of things which were there previously, and to this extent there has been a relief to the Civil List itself as time has gone on. In any event, expenditure borne on the Votes has increased from £343,000 in 1952–53 to £2,932,000 today and will continue at this level or higher in the future.
Looked at in this way, the increase in the total cost of the Monarchy from 1952 to next year under the proposed scheme will not be from £475,000 to £980,000 or even from £812,000 to £1,640,000, but from £1,240,000 to £4,714,000, an increase not of 106 per cent. but of 280 per cent. This compares with an increase in prices of about 100 per cent. during the same period and rises in wages and salaries of around about 200 per cent.
In fairness, I should say that I think this presentation slightly overrates the development of cost because travel costs in the widest sense of the word are the biggest item and have gone up from £87,000 to £1,789,000. I think that some proportion of the costs of the Queen's Flight, and possibly the Royal yacht too. would be there and would have to be provided for in some form, whatever the arrangements here.
Looking at costs—which broadly is the true way to do it subject to the reservation I have just made—on this basis shows three things: first, that the rise

381
proposed is really, at the very least, generously proportionate to the rise in price level and cost which has gone on during the period of the reign, and probably quite a bit more; secondly, that transfers to Votes, which is the essence of my right hon. Friend's scheme, has been done, and done on a big scale, without disaster; and thirdly, that the maintenance of the Monarchy is now a fairly substantial item and a fairly substantial cost.
Comparisons made with the cost of the White House are not valid because the White House is part of the executive apparatus of the most powerful country in the world and involves a great deal else. The valid issue is not whether the Queen is cheaper than a president but whether the Queen is more suitable and preferable to the people of this country. On the whole, I believe that to be so. But there has been a substantial increase in cost and this may well mean that we should not assume that the informal and personal methods of control which have been appropriate in the past will necessarily be so in the future.
The Chancellor referred to the courtesy and good humour which prevailed throughout the Committee. I must say to him that he showed these two qualities himself to an outstanding degree. He was, in my view, a remarkably good-tempered Chairman. But at the same time at a fairly early stage, at any rate during the Summer Recess, he clearly decided that he was not going to get an agreed report and therefore he had better go for an imposed result. It was not his first draft but his second which he changed; but, having changed it, altered it and produced a second draft, he decided to stick pretty rigidly to that draft.
The Committee, as the House knows, divided very narrowly indeed, on the Second Reading proposal, for the alternate report of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). It was defeated by only one vote; and had my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds. West (Mr. C. Pannell) not been fulfilling a long-standing Commonwealth engagement, the Chancellor would have had to use his casting vote in order to defeat my right hon. Friend's proposal; so it could not have been much narrower.
382
If agreement was desired, the Government ought surely to have paused at this stage and to have considered very hard whether the basis of their arrangement should not be reconsidered. But they did nothing of the kind. They pressed firmly ahead and got the Chancellor's report through by the use of their party majority on the Committee; and at this stage they preferred Divisions to arguments. I am bound to say Divisions had this to be said for them: they were quicker than argument although by their very nature they were, and were bound to be, divisive. The result was that there was very little change in the substance of the Chancellor's draft report although such changes as there were were in a direction which made it somewhat less acceptable to some of us.
Of course it cannot be denied, as my right hon. Friend pointed out with quotation and example this afternoon, that the report has aroused considerable public controversy and criticism outside. It is not the least surprising that this should be reflected in the House this afternoon. Indeed, in many ways the House has been more moderate and restrained than much of the criticism that there has been in the Press and much of the reaction from the public.
The size of the increase compared with the beginning of the reign is large. It is much larger than the £505,000 increase from £475,000 to £980,000, which is the superficial figure, or the 106 per cent. which has been widely mentioned. It is bigger because this only allows for the increase in the Civil List itself, but, in addition, there are three other factors which have to be taken into account. First, and by far the least important of the three factors, is the other Royal annuities apart from the Queen herself, which make only a small difference, although I feel some of the individual increases here are very hard to justify, particularly as they are, as we now know, automatically 80 per cent. tax-free. They amount to a further £28 million above the 1952 figure, which is small, although it is £89 million above the current position, because some members of the Royal Family have died between 1952 and the present time.
Much more important, however, in considering the overall financial position

383
is not that first point but the second, and after that the third point. The second relates to increased drawings from the two Duchies. I am not necessarily arguing that the costs are too high. We are all always in favour of economy in general, but I am not in favour of a cut-price Monarchy. The institution demands a certain amount of display, and display costs money. It also involves the receiving and entertaining of a great number of people. I have no doubt that that is on the whole widely appreciated.
The one occasion during the Select Committee on which I felt constrained, with my right hon. Friend, to vote directly against my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) was when he proposed that the Queen should give up the physical bestowal of decorations and awards and the receiving of those departing for appointments or those retiring. Probably this sort of national cement is an essential part of the work of any Head of State and is probably better performed in a constitutional Monarchy than in most if not all other forms of Government. The acceptance and the appreciation of the Monarchical function does not preclude proper consideration by this House of how financial provision should be made.
I must turn briefly to the question of the private fortune. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Grossman) complimented me on my use of the rapier. I am always nervous about compliments from him, particularly when they come from behind, and particularly when rapiers are mentioned. But he fairly quickly reassured me by at least half withdrawing the compliment, by accusing me of half withdrawing in my pursuit of Lord Cobbold. So, indeed, I did. In the Committee, having informally given notice beforehand, I said that I thought it would be desirable if he could give us a substantially greater degree of precision than saying that the £50 million sometimes quoted was wildly exaggerated. Lord Cobbold did not feel able to answer further. I regretted that. I do not feel any prurience about this matter, which would certainly be a very undesirable feeling. But this is a legitimate part of the whole picture. It is so partly for reasons which some of my hon. Friends have given, though I would
384
put it in that way and in a slightly different way.
The tax position of the Sovereign is unique, and so has that of her forebears been, since death duties were first introduced—this is the relevant date—in 1894. There is no liability to death duties, to income tax, to surtax or to capital gains tax. This clearly makes a very substantial difference to the size of the fortune today and to its income-producing value. It makes a difference precisely because Her Majesty and her forebears are or have been Sovereigns of this country. If their job and rôle were different, the private fortune would be much smaller. Even if it were the same size, its value in tax terms would be enormously less. Therefore, quite unlike the position of any other individual, it is not possible or reasonable wholly to detach it from a consideration of the whole financial picture and of the Queen and the Royal Family, and to work out balancing advantages and disadvantages over the period of the reign and how likely this is to develop in the future.
I therefore think that it would have been better if Lord Cobbold had been authorised to give the whole picture. He was not. I regret it. It leaves me a little in the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett). It certainly makes me, without that full information, less enthusiastic for voting an increase. I think that that goes, too, for quite a considerable part of public opinion. An error of judgment was made here, but I do not pursue the matter any further.
I return to the plan of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby and the Amendment which I shall move at the end of my speech, which is now very near, the Leader of the House will be glad to hear.
Mr. Whitelaw: No.
Mr. Jenkins: Perhaps the right hon Gentleman would rather I went on.
It is a little paradoxical that I should move the Amendment, whereas my right hon. Friend naturally devoted more of his speech to arguments in favour of it, but I thought it desirable to raise one or two wider questions. It is necessary that I should move it because if my right hon. Friend had done so that would

385
have restricted the debate. I understand that the Leader of the House will not be so restricted, as he, replying, is in a special position.
We have heard some fairly doubtful arguments against my right hon. Friend's scheme. The Chancellor raised the question of great Commonwealth difficulty—indeed, possible great resentment at having, not exactly a Government Department, but machinery of government interposed between the Sovereign and the Commonwealth countries. But when my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) questioned him it was obvious that he had made no inquiries and had had no representations of any kind made to him, and that it was pure surmise on his part.
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) thought that the proposed scheme would be less efficient. I do not believe that any of us in the Select Committee are in the position to make a judgment about that. We were told that it was less efficient, but we were told that by devoted servants of the present arrangement, who want to stick to it. They put forward their views fairly and modestly, and I am sure, honestly, but it is natural that those who like an existing arrangement and work within it, if asked whether they think that it is more efficient than another scheme, should answer that on the whole they do. That is a reasonable point of view for them to put forward, but it cannot be conclusive evidence.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) replied strongly to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East. Like the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), the right hon. Gentleman is to some extent a Jacobite defending a Hanovarian monarchy. I am not always sure how welcome their defence will be. The right hon. Gentleman took the view that there was no room for choice by the House because of the position into which we have forced the Queen by the inflation we have engendered. I can see some basis for that argument, but I do not think that I can accept the conclusion, because if the House is powerless the Select Committee should not have had 20 sittings and we should not have been having this debate. If the right
386
hon. Gentleman argues that there is no possible freedom of choice—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I argued that there was freedom of choice. I advocated the scheme I put to the Select Committee, which would have been even better than my right hon. Friend's.
Mr. Jenkins: It is, as a general proposition, always true that it is easy to suggest that anyone is welcome to freedom of choice in adopting a scheme which one has put forward, which is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman did. I do not think that detracts from the point I have been making.
My right hon. Friend's scheme, and it is very much his scheme although I support it fully, has great merit. It is appropriately respectful of the Monarchy as well as of the legitimate rights of the House of Commons. It would protect the Monarchy from a great deal of criticism, and I strongly suspect that we shall do something very near to this when we next have to make arrangements in this area. My right hon. Friend is often ahead of his time, and I shall certainly vote with him, and I urge my hon. Friends to do so.
Accordingly, I beg to move to leave out 'charged on the Consolidated Fund' and to add:
"payable out of moneys provided by Parliament".
9.42 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): We all know in this House that Select Committees and even Standing Committees, with their inevitable party divisions, achieve a form of corporate spirit when their members come on to the Floor of the House to rehearse their arguments. Today's debate has been no exception, and I am the 12th member of the Select Committee on the Civil List to take part in the debate.
I hope that I may be able to start with a comment which will have universal acceptance: I believe that the decision to publish the evidence taken before the Select Committee has been proved to be the right one. This has been shown by the frequency with which the evidence has been used in the debate. This was a wise and right decision. As one of the members of the Committee I would like to agree with the right hon. Member for

387
Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). He knows, and the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) knows, that most of us on the Committee genuinely wanted as near a unanimous solution as was possible.
We all appreciate that we were unlikely to gain the support of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), to whose speech I will return later. My main thought in preparing for the debate has been one of regret that, on a subject affecting the relationship between the Queen and Parliament when many hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the House would have liked to agree, we have not succeeded in doing so. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said, the right hon. Member for Sowerby, in what if I may say so without any presumption was an extremely powerful and amusing speech, did much to compensate for this feeling of mine. He appealed first to the House that the debate should be conducted in the same manner and tone. There have been a few minor exceptions to this but in general it is true to say that that has been the case. I particularly regret that I did not hear the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), who was on the Committee, and whose moderate tone in these matters I have always greatly appreciated. I am sure he will understand the reasons for my absence.
That has been the tone of the debate, and I will do my best to follow that tone and respond to that feeling which the right hon. Members for Sowerby and Stechford so clearly set out.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Say something!
Mr. Whitelaw: In the first instance I would like to concentrate on those areas where there is a wide measure of agreement before coming to those matters on which we disagree.
It has been widely agreed on both sides of the House that our Monarchy is a great and unique asset. I agree with the right hon. Member for Sowerby in his eloquent testimony to the value of the work done by Her Majesty the Queen and, indeed, her complete dedication to the task. That same sentiment was echoed
388
by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), the Leader of the Liberal Party. This shows that there is a wide measure of agreement throughout the House.
The right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) described himself as an honest to God monarchist of a sort. The hon. Member for Fife, West said that the Queen did a good job and should get the pay for it. We can therefore say that there is a substantial measure of agreement that our Monarchy is a great and unique asset which we are extremely lucky to have.
It was also widely agreed that this provision was in no sense a pay claim. There is necessary expenditure in carrying out the duties required of a Head of State, and my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Dr. Glyn) pointed to the increased amount of work that the Queen carries out and has carried out over recent years.
There was also broad acceptance in the Select Committee, which has been endorsed in the House today, of the evidence that the Palace administration was economically run, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir R. Turton) so clearly pointed out. The evidence for that came from Sir Michael Adeane and Sir Basil Smallpeice and from the memorandum on the staff submitted by the Palace which appears on page 93 of the Select Committee Report, part of which reads as follows:
"A comparison of the number of full-time Members of the Household, Officials, Clerks and Staff in 1953 with those employed in 1970 shows an overall reduction of 72 or 13½ per cent., from 530 in 1953 to 458 in 1970."
I should be interested to hear of many organisations either in public life or outside who could say the same. Certainly it cannot be said of the administration of the House of Commons.
If that is agreed, as I believe it is, it follows from that same evidence that the extra provision required is to ensure that the staff of the Royal Household are properly rewarded. I have no doubt that the House as a whole would be unanimous in supporting that proposition. So it is reasonable to claim that there is a wide measure of agreement on what is required. I noted that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) pointed out that a

389
Monarchy was cheaper than a Republic, and I suspect he is right.
The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) has maintained an absolutely consistent position. As perhaps befits an accountant, from what I know of them, he pointed out that he had not enough information on which to found a judgment one way or the other. I respect his argument but I do not agree with it.
The right hon. Member for Coventry, East talked about disclosing details of the Queen's private money. For many years the House has become accustomed to exceptionally powerful debating exchanges between my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and one of my predecessors as Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Coventry, East. Today was no exception. They had a high-powered exchange on the subject of disclosing the Queen's private money. Sometimes the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Heffer: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman answer the debate?
Mr. Whitelaw: —has described me as a ponderous and slow sheepdog, which seems to be the view taken of me at this moment. At any rate we witnessed a fight between two Alsatians in the debate; that is to say, between the right hon. Gentlemen concerned. Suffice it to say that, so far as I am concerned, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames effectively answered the points put forward by the right hon. Member for Coventry, East and I do not think there is any need for me to say anything further.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks there is no need to reply to the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) because his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) spoke afterwards, perhaps he could reply to my argument since I spoke after the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames.
Mr. Heffer: It would be nice if he would reply to anybody's argument.
Mr. Whitelaw: I think this particular case has been argued throughout the debate on the Select Committee's Report, and I appreciate the points put forward by the right hon. Member for Stechford.
390
The right hon. Member for Sowerby fairly said that there was no real argument about what is required in this case. I believe that goes a long way to answer what was said by the right hon. Member for Stechford.
Mr. R. T. Paget rose—
Mr. Whitelaw: I am sorry but I must get on.
I turn to what I believe to be the main argument which has been put forward today, not about ends but about means. The right hon. Member for Sowerby, as always, argued his case persuasively for a Department of the Crown He was powerfully reinforced by the right hon. Member for Stechford. I accept at once the conviction with which this proposal is put forward, but I wish to say why I believe it is wrong and I believe this as genuinely as other hon. Gentlemen hold their views. I believe that this is not a proposal which would commend itself to this House.
Mr. Heffer: Then tell us why.
Mr. Whitelaw: I will certainly now tell the House why I believe that to be so. In the first case I am certain it would be more expensive than the present arrangements, and I cannot believe that there can be any sense deliberately to increase the cost of the Monarchy.
Mr. Paget: Then what are we doing?
Mr. Whitelaw: It is no disrespect to our Government organisation and the Civil Service to say that it has some inbuilt tendency to expansion. I feel certain that before long a Department of the Crown would be a large organisation. Secondly, I believe that if a Department of the Crown were set up, much of the valuable personal and family nature of the Monarchy would be lost. [Interruption.] I know this argument is disputed but I am entitled to put forward my view. I believe that if that were to happen, the nature of the Palace as a family home could easily be changed. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. J. Selwyn Gummer) about the family nature of the Monarchy which I believe to be extremely important. In this regard, the evidence of the wishes of the staff as expressed by the Civil Service Union is valuable. I do not wish to overstress it—in fact, I wish to be

391
careful not to do so—but my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton quoted some of the relevant extracts from the evidence, and I think that they are very powerful and important.
Thirdly, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, we have to remember that Her Majesty is not only Queen of this country. She is also Head of the Commonwealth. I believe that Commonwealth countries, on occasions, like to have the chance of dealing with her and her staff direct rather than through the British Government. If there were a Department of the Crown, I believe that such exchanges would not be as free as they are today.
Fourthly, I am convinced that whatever efforts were made to prevent it, the Monarchy, serviced by a Department of the Crown with a Minister answerable to Parliament on detailed questions, might well become increasingly involved in party politics. Not only would the Monarchy find it much more difficult to maintain a position outside party politics if there were a Department of the Crown; over the years the danger would arise of the Monarchy being subjected to the control of the Government of the day in quite unnecessary detail and in a way which we have never thought appropriate hitherto. I think that the right hon. Member for Sowerby accepted that in some of his comments.
For these reasons, I also argue that if right hon. and hon. Members conclude that there is even the possibility of a Department of the Crown having some of the consequences which I fear, it would be wrong for us, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames said, to take that risk and to make such a significant constitutional change.
I believe that the proposals put forward by the report of the majority in the Select Committee continue in a modified form the arrangements which have worked well over the last 20 years. Equally I claim, in answer to the hon. Member for Fife, West, that they give more parliamentary control than hitherto, because any Treasury Order which was brought for-
ward for an increase would be subject to the normal scrutiny of the House.
In concluding this debate, which I think has been conducted in the tone which the right hon. Member for Sowerby requested that it should be, it is right to stress again the broad areas of agreement amongst many hon. Members in all parts of the House. It is clear that most hon. Members believe that we should have a Monarchy broadly on the present basis. It is agreed further, if that is accepted, that more money is required after nearly 20 years when costs have risen considerably. It is also accepted, as is shown by the evidence, that the extra money required is needed to ensure that the staff who serve the Monarchy are rewarded properly.
The basic argument in the debate has been about the best method of providing the necessary finance. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite believe that this should be done through a Department of the Crown. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have argued that such a proposal would be more expensive, that it would remove the personal and family nature of our Monarchy, and that it would in some ways be inconsistent with the position of the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth.
There is a perfectly fair area of disagreement amongst those who join together in seeking to make proper provision for the Monarchy which we all admire and value. As I understand it, it is on this comparatively narrow basis of means as opposed to ends on which the House is now about to divide. While I welcome the broad area of agreement on the nature of the Monarchy, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the Amendment seeking a Department of the Crown and to support the proposals of the majority of the Select Committee as the best way, in all the circumstances, of making the necessary finance available.
Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 300.

Division No. 29.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Beaney, Alan

Allen, Scholefield

Barnes, Michael

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Armstrong, Ernest

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Asliton, Joe

Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

Bidwell, Sydney

Atkinson, Norman

Baxter, William

Bishop, E. S.

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Hattersley, Roy

O'Malley, Brian

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Oram, Bert

Booth, Albert

Heffer, Eric S.

Orbach, Maurice

Boitomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Hooson, Emiyn

Orme, Stanley

Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

Horam, John

Oswald, Thomas

Bradley, Tom

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sulton)

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Paget, R. T.

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

Huckfield, Leslie

Palmer, Arthur

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

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Broivn,Ronald(Shoredltch & F'bury)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Buchan, Norman

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchanges)

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

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Pavitt, Laurie

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Hunter, Adam

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

Pendry, Tom

Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Janner, Greville

Pentland, Norman

Cant, R. B.

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Perry, Ernest G.

Carmichael, Nell

Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfleld)

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Prescott, John

Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

John, Brynmor

Price J. T. (Westhoughton)

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Price, William (Rugby)

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

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

Probert, Arthur

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

Rankin, John

Cohen, Stanley

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Concannon, J. D.

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Conlan, Bernard

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworin, C.)

Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham.S. I

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Crawshaw, Richard

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Richard, Ivor

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Judd, Frank

Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

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

Kaufman, Gerald

Robertson, John (Palsley)

Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

Kelley, Richard

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

Dalyell, Tam

Kerr, Russell

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Kinnock, Neil

Roper, John

Davidson, Arthur

Lambie, David

Rose, Paul B.

Oavias, Denzil (Llanelly)

Lamond, James

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Latham, Arthur

Sandelson, Neville

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Lawson, George

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Leonard, Dick

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

Deakins, Eric

Lestor, Miss Joan

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deplford)

Delargy, Hugh

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Sillars, James

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

Lipton, Marcus

Silverman, Julius

Dsmpsey, James

Lomas, Kenneth

Skinner, Dennis

Doig, Peter

Dormand, J. D.

Loughlin, Charles

Small, William

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire. E.)

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Spearing, Nigel

Driberg, Tom

Mabon, Or. J. Dickson

Spriggs, Leslie

Duffy, A. E. P.

McBride, Neil

Stallard, A. W.

Dunn, James A.

Dunnett, Jack

McCann, John

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Eadle, Alex

McCartney, Hugh

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Edelman, Maurice

McElhone, Frank

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

McGuire, Michael

Strang, Gavin

Ellis, Tom

Mackenzie, Gregor

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

English, Michael

Mackie, John

Summerskill, Hn. Or. Shirley

Evans, Fred

Maclennan, Robert

Taverne, Dick

Ewing, Henry

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

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

Faulds, Andrew

McNamara, J. Kevin

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

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

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Tinn, James

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Mallaileu, J. P. W. (Huddersfieid. E.)

Torney, Frank

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Marks, Kenneth

Torney, Tom

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Marquand, David

Tuck, Raphael

Foley, Maurice

Marsden, F.

Urwin, T. W.

Foot, Michael

Marshall, Dr. Edmund

Varley, Eric G.

Forrester, John

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Wainwright, Edwin

Freeson, Reginald

Meacher, Michael

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Galpern, Sir Myer

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Wallace, George

Garrett, W. E.

Mendelson, John

Watkins, David

Gilbert, Dr. John

Mikardo, Ian

Weitzman, David

Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

Millan, Bruce

Wellbeloved, James

Golding, John

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Milne, Edward

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Gourlay, Harry

Mitchell, R. .C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

Whitehead, Phillip

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Molloy, William

Whitlock, William

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Griinths, Will (Exchange)

Morris, Alfred (Wylhenshawe)

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Moyle, Roland

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

Murray, Ronald King

Woof, Robert

Hardy, Peter

Oakes, Gordon

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Ogden, Eric

Mr, William Hamling and Mr. Joseph Harper.

Hart. Rt. Hn. Judith

O'Halloran, Michael

394

395

NOES

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Fry, Peter

MacArthur, Ian

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

McCrindle, R. A.

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Gardner, Edward

McLaren, Martin

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Gibson-Watt, David

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Astor, John

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk. C.)

McMaster, Stanley

Atkins, Humphrey

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife E.)

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Awdry, Daniel

Glyn, Dr. Alan

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Balier, Kenneth {St. Marylebone)

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Goodhart, Philip

Maddan, Martin

Balniel, Lord

Goodhew, Victor

Madel, David

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Gorst, John

Maginnis, John E.

Batstord, Brian

Gower, Raymond

Marples, Kt. Hn. Ernest

Bell, Ronald

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

Marten, Neil

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Gray, Hamish

Mather, Carol

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Green, Alan

Maude, Angus

Benyon, W.

Grieve Percy

Mawby, Ray

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Biffen, John

Grylls, Michael

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Blaker, Peter

Gummer, Selwyn

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Gurden, Harold

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Body, Richard

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Miscampbell, Norman

Boscawen, Robert

Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

Bossom, Sir Clive

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Moate, Roger

Bray, Ronald

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Molyneaux, James

Brewis, John

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Money, Ernie

Brinton, Sir Tatlon

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Haselhurst, Alan

Monro, Hector

Brown Sir Edward (Bath)

Hastings, Stephen

Montgomery, Fergus

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Havers, Michael

More, Jasper

Bryan, Paul

Hawkins, Paul

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

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

Hay, John

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Buck, Antony

Hayhoe, Barney

Morrison, Charles

Burden. F. A.

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Mudd, David

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Heseltine, Michael

Murton, Oscar

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

Hicks, Robert

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Carlisle, Mark

Higgins, Terence L

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Channon, Paul

Hiley, Joseph

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Chapman, Sydney

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

Normanton, Tom

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Nott, John

Churchill, W. S.

Holland, Philip

Onslow, Cranley

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

Holt, Miss Mary

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hordern, Peter

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Clegg, Walter

Hornby, Richard

Osborn, John

Cockeram, Eric

Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Cooke, Robert

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Coombs, Derek

Howell, David (Guildford)

Parkinson, Cecil

Cooper, A. E.

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Peel, John

Cordle, John

Corlield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Hunt, John

Percival, Ian

Cormack, Patrick

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Costain, A. P.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Pink, R. Bonner

Critchley, Julian

James, David

Pounder, Rafton

Crouch, David

Jonkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Crowder, F. P.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Jessel, Toby

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Quennell. Miss J. M.

d'Ayigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. James

Jopling, Michael

Raison, Timothy

Dean, Paul

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Deedes. Rt. Hn. W. F.

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

Redmond, Robert

Dixon. Piers

Kershaw, Anthony

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Kilfedder, James

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Kimball, Marcus

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Drayson, G. B.

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Dykes, Hugh

Kinsey, J. R.

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Eden, Sir John

Kirk, Peter

Ridsdale, Julian

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Kitson, Timothy

Rippon, Rt. Hn. GeoHrey

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

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

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Farr, John

Knox, David

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Fell, Anthony

Lambton, Antony

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Lane, David

Rost, Peter

Fidier, Michael

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Russell, Sir Ronald

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Leggc-Bourke, Sir Harry

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Le Marchant, Spencer

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Scott, Nicholas

Fortescue, Tim

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

Sharples, Richard

Foster, Sir John

Longden, Gilbert

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

Fowler, Norman

Loveridge, John

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Fox, Marcus

Luce, R. N.

Simeons, Charles

Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Sinclair, Sir George

396

397

Skeet, T. H. H.

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Ward, Dame Irene

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

Tebbit, Norman

Warren, Kenneth

Soret, Harold

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Speed, Keith

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Spence, John

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

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Sproat, Iain

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Wiggin, Jerry

Stainton, Keith

Tilney, John

Wilkinson, John

Stanbrook, Ivor

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Winterton, Nicholas

Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

Trew, Peter

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Stodarl, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Tugendhat, Christopher

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Stokes, John

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Woodnutt, Mark

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Vickers, Dame Joan

Worsley, Marcus

Sutcliffe, John

Waddington, David

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Tapsell, Peter

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Younger, Hon. George

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Waiters, Dennis

Mr. Reginald Eyre and Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 27.

Division No. 30.

AYES

[10.12 p.m.

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Hay, John

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmld,Maj.-Gen.James

Hayhoe, Barney

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Dean, Paul

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Heseltine, Michael

Astor, John

Digby, Simon Wingfleld

Hicks, Robert

Atkins, Humphrey

Dixon, Piers

Higgins, Terence L,

Awdry, Daniel

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Hiley, Joseph

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

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

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Drayson, G. B.

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Balniel, Lord

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Holland, Philip

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Dykes, Hugh

Holt, Miss Mary

Batsford, Brian

Eden, Sir John

Hordern, Peter

Bell, Ronald

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Hornby, Richard

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

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

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Benyon, W.

Farr, John

Howell, David (Guildford)

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Fell, Anthony

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Biffen, John

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Hunt, John

Blaker, Peter

Fidler, Michael

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Boardman, Tom (Leicester. S.W.)

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hempstead)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Body, Richard

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

James, David

Boscawen, Robert

Fookes, Miss Janet

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Bossom, Sir Clive

Fortescue, Tim

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Foster, Sir John

Jessel, Toby

Bray, Ronald

Fowler, Norman

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Brawis, John

Fox, Marcus

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

Jopling, Michael

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Gardner, Edward

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Gibson-Watt, David

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Bryan, Paul

Gllmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

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

Gllmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Kershaw, Anthony

Buck, Antony

Glyn, Dr. Alan

Kilfedder, James

Burden, F. A.

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Kimball, Marcus

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Goodhart, Philip

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

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

Goodhew, Victor

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Carlisle, Mark

Gorst, John

Kinsey, J. R.

Channon, Paul

Gower, Raymond

Kirk, Peter

Chapman, Sydney

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

Kitson, Timothy

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Gray, Hamish

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Churchill, W. S.

Green, Alan

Knox, David

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

Grieve, Percy

Lambton, Antony

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Lane, David

Clegg, Walter

Grylls, Michael

Langlord-Holt, Sir John

Cockeram, Eric

Gummer, Selwyn

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Cooke, Robert

Gurden, Harold

Le Merchant, Spencer

Coombs, Derek

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Cooper, A. E.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Lloyd.Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sul'nC'dfield)

Cordle, John

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Longden, Gilbert

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Loveridge, John

Cormack, Patrick

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Luce, R. N.

CoMain, A. P.

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Critchley, Julian

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

MacArthur, Ian

Crouch, David

Haselhurst, Alan

McCrlndle, R. A.

Crowder, F. P.

Hastings, Stephen

McLaren, Martin

Dalkeith, Earl of

Havers, Michael

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

Hawkins, Paul

McMaster, Stanley

399

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Pounder, Rafton

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Sutcliffe, John

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Tapsell, Peter

Maddan, Martin

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Madel, David

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)

Maginnis, John E.

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Raison, Timothy

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Marten, Neil

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Tebbit, Norman

Mather, Carol

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Maude, Angus

Redmond, Robert

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Mawby, Ray

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

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

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon. S.)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Tilney, John

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Trew, Peter

Miscampbell, Norman

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Tugendhat, Christopher

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

Ridsdale, Julian

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Moate, Roger

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Vickers, Dame Joan

Molyneaux, James

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Waddington, David

Money, Ernie

Kodgers. Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Monro, Hector

Rost, Peter

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Montgomery, Fergus

Russell, Sir Ronald

Walters, Dennis

More, Jasper

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Ward, Dame Irene

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

Warren, Kenneth

Morrison, Charles

Scott, Nicholas

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Mudd, David

Sharpies, Richard

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Murton, Oscar

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

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Wiggin, Jerry

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Simeons, Charles

Wilkinson, John

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Sinclair, Sir George

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Normanton, Tom

Skeet, T. H. H.

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Nott, John

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

Woodhouse, Hn, Christopher

Onslow, Cranley

Soref, Harold

Woodnutt, Mark

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Speed, Keith

Worsley, Marcus

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Spence, John

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Osborn, John

Sproat, Iain

Younger, Hn. George

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Stainton, Keith

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Mr. Reginald Eyre and Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Parkinson, Cecil

Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

Peel, John

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Percival, Ian

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Stokes, John

Pink, R. Bonner

NOES

Bidwell, Sydney

John, Brynmor

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

Kerr, Russell

Prescott, John

Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

Lambie, David

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Latham, Arthur

Skinner, Dennis

Davidson, Arthur

Leonard, Dick

Stallard. A. W.

Delargy, Hugh

Lestor, Miss Joan

Torney, Tom

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Loughlin, Charles

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Duffy, A. E. P.

McElhone, Frank

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

McNamara, J. Kevin

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Huckfield, Leslie

Paget, R. T.

Mr. William Hamilton and Mr. Robert Hushes.

Resolved,
That further provision be made for Her Majesty's Civil List, for the members of the Royal Family for whom provision has been made by the Civil List Acts of 1937 and 1952 and for the payment of certain pensions and allowances, and that provision should be now made for Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester and any future wife of a younger son of Her Majesty in the event of any of them surviving her husband; and that sums payable in pursuance of provision so made should be charged on the Consolidated Fund.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of
400
the Exchequer, the Prime Minister, Mr. Maudling, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, Mr. William Whitelaw, Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, Mr. Gordon Campbell, Mr. Peter Thomas and Mr. Patrick Jenkin.

CIVIL LIST
Bill to make provision for the honour and dignity of the Crown and the Royal Family, and for the payment of certain allowances and pensions, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 51.]

TEXTILE COUNCIL (DISSOLUTION)
10.26 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move,
That the Textile Council (Dissolution) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.
It would be easier if I were to deal with the order briefly and, with the leave of the House, reply to any questions raised in debate. I hope that the House will excuse me, therefore, if I confine myself initially to the dissolution of the council.
I suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it would be appropriate to discuss at the same time the second Motion,
That the Textile Council Committee (Discharge) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.
It deals with the dissolution of the Textile Committee. Although it is a separate order, it would be appropriate for both orders to be discussed together.
The council was set up in 1948 under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, and originally named the Cotton Board. It has had, therefore, a history of 24 years of distinguished service. I am sure that the House will bear with me if I mention one or two of the salient features of the council's history.
In 1959 the council was concerned with the reorganisation of the cotton industry, through the medium of the committee which is the subject of the second order. It would be appropriate to say that that major reorganisation of the industry, entailing the scrapping of machinery and compensation for redundant workers in the industry, was carried through with great success and great expedition. It is right to pay tribute to Lord Rochdale, who was chairman at that time, and Sir Anthony Burney, who was the executive, the person who put the scheme into effect at that time.
A sum of £38.9 million was spent on the reorganisation of the cotton industry, of which the Government of the time contributed £24.7 million. It did not, I fear, come up to the full expectation and did
402
not go as far as the council had hoped in reorganising the industry. But I feel that undoubtedly the verdict of history will be that this was a successful operation in adaptation, for which the council should be given full credit.
In 1967 it brought into its ambit the man-made fibres and extended its title to be that of the Textile Council. From 1966 to 1969 the council was concerned with a major inquiry into the productivity and efficiency of the textile industry. All who have read the report which it produced will agree that it was a most comprehensive, penetrating and full document, which earned the commendation of all concerned with the cotton textile industry.
Sir Frank Rostron was then Chairman. He was succeeded by Sir James Steel in 1968. The Director-General is Mr. T. D. F. Powell. I should also pay tribute to Mrs. C. M. Miles, who was the independent member of the council who did a great deal of work preparing the report and was responsible for drafting a considerable amount of it. That document was the basis of the reorganisation of the industry which has been taking place, and it led to the suggestion that the tariff should be imposed upon cotton imports from the Commonwealth, a suggestion which was accepted by the Government of the day and confirmed by this Government.
It is now thought appropriate by the council and the vast majority of people in the industry that it should give way to the British Textile Confederation, which will be a wider body embracing further sections of the industry. It is the council itself that has suggested that it should be wound up. The industry believes that it is not suited to present needs, and wishes to have a body covering a wider spread of the industry. This is particularly appropriate now that there are three large firms in the industry which cover a third of production, and the Government approved the suggestion by the council that it should give way to the wider body.
This is a suitable occasion to pay tribute to the council's achievements. I do not believe that it is very controversial that it should now end. During the council's time there have been excellent labour relations in the industry and a

403
commendable common approach to the industry's problems by management and unions sitting together on it. It has, through its handling of the reorganisation by the committee, carried through a major act of restructuring. The comprehensive study leading to the tariff was one of the best studies of that sort into an industry.
I should say a word about the method of dissolution of the council. The plan is that it should cease normal operations on 29th February next year. That is not a common date in our calendar, but it is the date by which the council believes that it can complete its business. My Department will continue to wind up any loose ends of business which remain after that date.
It is expected that there will be a surplus of about £150,000 of the council's revenue at the time of winding up, and it has provisionally allocated about £53,000 for its productivity centre, which will be run by a new company to be formed. In addition, £20,000 is to be provided for the British Textile Employers Association, which will enable it to carry on the useful statistical services performed by the council; £11,000 for the British Textile Confederation; and £5,000 for the Cotton and Allied Trades Joint Federation. It has also made provision for £135,000 to be made available to the Shirley Research Institution, with the possible addition of up to £50,000 later if funds permit.
I think that the House will agree that those arrangements are satisfactory and will welcome the new British Textile Confederation. The Department looks forward to happy, congenial and close relationships with that new body, representing as it will the wider industrial grouping which is now thought desirable. It is commendable that this new organisation can launch itself as an independent body and without a statutory basis. I hope that it will achieve all that has been achieved by the Textile Council, and even more.
I am sure that the House would like me to take this opportunity of paying tribute to those who have worked in the old Textile Council and made it the success it has been, and saying that, although we look forward to an equally successful future, we are not slow to
404
recognise what has been a successful experiment in industrial reorganisation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I take it that it would be for the convenience of the House if we discussed both orders together.
10.36 p.m.
Mr. James Lamond: I wish to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the Under-Secretary about the Textile Council and also join in the welcome given to the new body.
I would like to emphasise a little more strongly the part played by the trade union movement in the reorganisation of which we have heard. While it is a popular pastime today to suggest that trade unions have dragged their heels and not been co-operative in assisting in reorganising industry, this could not be said of the trade unions in the textile industry, particularly cotton, because, although they were aware of the serious consequences for the decline in their membership, they have nevertheless co-operated in every way in shift-working and the introduction of new and much more expensive machinery, which has meant fewer workers.
The movement has played its part in trying to save what was at one time the most important industry in Lancashire. Although the percentage of employees in Lancashire who are involved in textiles now is a mere—and I use that word advisedly—6·5 per cent. and therefore we should not over-emphasise the industry as being the only one in Lancashire, it is still of tremendous importance and is probably the biggest single employer of workers in the area. I share the view expressed to me by an important textile union official the other day that we want to see as much diversity as possible in the area and not try to retain textiles simply because they are textiles. We want work there of a diversified kind, so that people are able to withstand an onslaught on any industry.
I know that the Minister does not think that the problems of the industry have been solved but the demise of the Textile Council should not suggest to anyone outside the House that there are no longer problems. The welcome announcement about the decision to run quotas and tariffs together for some time is one which will assist the industry

405
but it will only give a breathing space. The decline will continue, perhaps not in such a headlong fashion as in the last few months, but the danger is still there.
I would like to draw attention to another point I made recently in an Adjournment debate about marking the countries of origin of imports to this country. Two Private Members' Bills are listed, one of which is to be introduced by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton). This Bill is narrower than the Bill which I hope to introduce, but mine is much further down the list. The hon. Member for Cheadle concerns himself with the false markings of goods. If one studies the answers which have been given—
Mr. Ridley: May I point out that the hon. Gentleman should have referred to the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel), not the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton).
Mr. Lomond: I am sorry.
The Bill seeks to prevent the importation of goods, particularly textiles, which are marked either falsely or with names which would indicate to most people that they were manufactured here. The industry welcomes this Bill, and so do I, particularly as there is a good chance of it progressing satisfactorily through the House because the Government are prepared to give it backing. But I should have preferred the Government to have backed my Bill, which is much wider in concept and seeks to restore the position which was lost at the end of November.
Although I was thinking of textiles when I brought my Bill forward, I have received many letters about the dangers which face other industries, particularly cutlery in Sheffield, and brush-making. People involved in these industries are objecting strongly to the present position. I hope that the Government, while not withdrawing their support from the Bill of the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel), will favourably consider my Bill, which is wider in its application and will give the industry more protection.
10.42 p.m.
Mr. Tom Normanton: It would be churlish were anything that came from this debate to be construed as a graveside homily or an epitaph, but it is
406
essential that certain things should be said, on this last occasion when views can be recorded, of the past experience of the Textile Council and its predecessor the Cotton Board.
I regard it as a great privilege to be able to express views on this subject in my capacity as the President of the British Textile Employers' Association, a body which, like its predecessor and its counterpart on the trade union side, has at quinquennial reviews been consulted by Governments on every occasion as to the usefulness of the Textile Council or the Cotton Board and as to the desirability of the organisation's further extension for another five years.
Clearly, the Textile Council has run its natural course and it is therefore logical that the Government of the day should, on hearing from all parties consulted, accede to the view of the industry —trade unions, employers and independents alike—that the Textile Council should be brought to an end. In doing so, the services of certain individuals should be placed on record. I am sure the House would include on that list the names of Sir Raymond Streat, Lord Rochdale, Sir Frank Rostron and the present Chairman of the Textile Council, Sir James Steel, all of whom. under conditions which varied considerably over the 24 years of the life of the Textile Council, have fulfilled a great rôle for which the industry is deeply indebted to them.
As spokesman for the employers' side, I also wish to pay my tribute to the part played throughout this long period by the trade union members. They have acted in a statesmanlike manner and they are to be strongly commended and honoured for their rôle.
The industry has gone through years of great trials and tribulations. Perhaps in these conditions it would not be surprising for the ranks to be closed but, even though we have our arguments and discussions, at the end of the day the contributions by the trade union members of the Textile Council and its predecessor the Cotton Board have always been mature and statesmanlike. I only wish this sort of attitude towards industrial collaboration had been reflected on a wider national plane, because industry would be the richer for it and certainly

407
the country's economy would be more prosperous.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said he hoped that there would not be a void when the Textile Council was wound up. I assure him there will not be a void because of the collaboration between the two sides which has characterised the activities of the Textile Council and which is to be perpetuated in the two new organisations. One organisation will be restricted solely and exclusively to the industrial sector for which the Textile Council has for so long been responsible. I refer to the Cotton and Allied Textile Industry Joint Committee. This is made up equally by trade union leaders and employers under the chairmanship of Mr. Henniker Heaton, who for many years has played an active part in this industry.
Secondly—and far more importantly—the experience of our industry on the western side of the Pennine chain has at last rubbed off in the willingness of the woollen industry and the man-made fibre producers' section of the textile industry to recognise the importance of collaboration at a national level. It will be welcome news that within some five or six weeks a British Textile Confederation will be formally constituted. Perhaps there will then be an opportunity to discuss, or to make known to industry as a whole, the basic thinking which has underlain the establishment of the body which will cover the whole of this great industry. It must be remembered that the textile industry is the third, if not the fourth, largest single major industry in the country.
It should be noted that the Textile Council has made available considerable sums of money to the British Textile Confederation and those institutions which will continue after the demise of the Textile Council, including the Shirley Institute, the reputation of which has spread far beyond our own shores. The statistical services, which have been invaluable in the past to both industry and Government, will be continued but strictly on a voluntary basis. The productivity centre, which has played a valuable role, is to be expanded and will have the full collaboration of our trade union colleagues.
I am certain that the example set in the past by the Textile Council and by
408
the Cotton Board will in the new climate of textiles nationally be a great encouragement and a first-class foundation on which the new voluntary formation of the British Textile Council will be based.
10.50 p.m.
Mr. Frank Judd: The Minster has rightly paid tribute to the work of the Textile Council and its staff and members. If we are paying honest tribute to a body of this kind, it is perhaps appropriate in this debate to look in a little detail at one of the recent experiences of the council before its demise. I refer to its report in 1969 entitled "Cotton and Allied Textiles: A Report on Present Performance and Future Prospects". That report proposed that a 15 per cent. tariff should be imposed on all cotton imports and that the present quota system should be continued until the mid-1970s while the industry adjusted itself to reliance on tariff protection alone.
As hon. Members will be aware, the real object of these proposals was to achieve a reorganised and revitalised textile industry able to provide secure and well-paid jobs for all those working in it. It was recognised that the industry required re-equipping and a multi-shift system to become more productive and that production and marketing needed rationalising to achieve greater profitability. It was argued that if this was to be achieved certain inhibiting factors had to be overcome, especially the lack of confidence in the future of the United Kingdom industry exacerbated by the rapid increase in imports and their disruptive effects on prices.
In answer to that last major report, the Government of the day announced that the present quota system would end on 1st January, 1972, and that a 6.5 per cent. tariff would be imposed on imports of yarn, a 15 per cent. tariff on imports of cotton fabrics and a 17 per cent. tariff on garments from Commonwealth countries, which was 85 per cent. of the full tariff. Tariffs against other producers except E.F.T.A. countries were to remain. Better depreciation allowances against taxation were agreed for new machinery.
To summarise the position of the Government of the day, in effect they were giving the industry 30 months in which to reorganise itself to compete with tariff protection. However, it is wise to look

409
at an even more recent roduct of the council. In the final edition of its Textile Council Review, in June and July of this year, it indicated that the industry is, despite all this, now in grave danger because of its failure to respond to the incentives offered to it to re-equip and to restructure to meet projected productivity requirements.
In the report to which I have referred, an improvement in net trade was expected during 1970 by a modest increase in exports and a reduction in imports. Quotas were nevertheless only 70 per cent. filled in 1970. However, in the current year quotas are being filled completely and the improvement in the trade balance has proved in the end to be a flash in the pan. This has had an inevitable effect on employment. In the report, a reduction in the labour force of 8·5 per cent. per annum until 1975 was forecast. Until May, 1971, the reduction in fact had taken place only at the rate of 6 per cent. though more recently considerable redundancies have been reported.
At a time when unemployment in some textile towns is between 5 and 7 per cent., anticipated redundancies for which no special provision has been made are being made now to appear to be the consequence of rising imports when this is not the root cause.
I suggest that the new British Textile Confederation will be confronted with a real challenge as a result of certain ambivalences and contradictions in existing Government policy which have not been overcome in the past.
I hope that it is in order to refer briefly, in the context of these remarks, to a matter that we debated last week. I refer to the very enlightened policy of the Government in their Import Duties (Developing Countries) Order. The objective of that order, as we were clearly told by the Government, was to facilitate the development of the economies of the developing countries by encouraging them to develop the industries and exports which they were particularly well suited to develop.
We know when we look at the unemployment crisis in the Third World that it is no good doling out charity if we are denying the developing countries the opportunity to develop their production where they can do so. Nowhere is this
410
more true than in the production of cotton textiles which involves fairly simple manufacturing techniques and skills. But although the Government introduced their other order last week, and although the Cotton Textile Council is going out of existence, new machinery is being introduced in a situation in which the Government are determined to protect the British industry with both tariffs and quotas although by doing this they may only delay its death.
If we accept this challegene of the consistency logically demanded by the Government's measures last week, we and the new machinery should be concerned to establish a coherent and consistent policy which will create alternative, viable industry in the areas which are dependent to such a large extent on the cotton industry in this country.
I was very encouraged to hear the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) say that trade union leaders in Lancashire believed that the answer lay in a diversity of industry in that area and not in delaying tactics which are bound to be self-defeating in the long run. Will the Under-Secretary therefore give an assurance that together with the new machinery there will be a real attempt not simply to replace old machinery with new but to ensure that a thorough policy is worked out with a long-term prospect rather than just buying a little more time on the basis of short-term improvisation?
10.58 p.m.
Mr. Joel Barnett: I should like to join in the commendations to the Textile Council and agree with the tributes to those who did so much to make it the success it was. I endorse all that the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) said about the co-operation that the trade union movement has always shown in the industry.
When the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) was speaking about the statesmanlike approach of the trade union movement and how he would have liked to have seen this practised on a wider scale, I could not help reflecting that many trade unionists in the industry and elsewhere might wonder whether their statesmanship had got them low wages and massive unemployment. Irrespective of whether it is in the national

411
good, they are entitled to ask whether it has been for their particular good. One can go too far at times in this statesmanlike approach and the textile workers have not had a fair return for the statesmanship they and their leaders have shown over a long time.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will reply to a number of questions I shall ask him tonight, unlike his right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade a few nights ago who made no effective replies to a number of questions I asked. To receive proper answers, perhaps one needs to plant Questions. Perhaps I should have given the hon. Gentleman notice of my questions.
In the context of the dissolution of the Textile Council, it is clearly impossible not to refer to the position of the Lancashire textile industry. On a previous occasion I welcomed the Government's acceptance of the council's recommendation that the tariffs and the quotas should operate side by side. In Lancashire the position has been and is appalling, with mills closing every week and with unemployment and short-time working at a terrible level, not only in textile mills but in other industries, making it virtually impossible for many women thrown out of work in this industry to find other employment. It helps nobody, certainly not the developing countries, to destroy Lancashire's textile industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) referred to the industry's failure to respond to incentives. If my hon. Friend were to talk to some of the owners of both single-unit mills and of groups in Lancashire, he would find that it is not too surprising that they have not responded, since they have had to sell their products at literally below cost because of the disruptive effect of many of the imports from the developing countries, in which I include Portugal.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the need for alternative industries in Lancashire. There has been considerable diversification but many parts of Lancashire—certainly my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East—have, and are likely to have for a considerable time, great dependence on the textile industry.
412
I am sure that the Under-Secretary has the answer to these questions because they are clearly relevant and must be troubling the Government. First, what will happen about the voluntary quota system? It was a system operated by arrangement between ourselves and the Commonwealth countries; there was no law enforcing it.
For how long do the Government propose to retain the existing system? Do they propose to accept entirely the recommendations of the Textile Council? Will the quota system be retained until the mid-1970s or is it only an arrangement of an even more temporary nature? It is understandable that countries such as India and Hong Kong are disturbed that this is introduced at the very last moment, when they thought that they would be able to start the new system on 1st January. I see that the Minister is smiling.
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): The hon. Gentleman had the courtesy to say that I did not answer the questions he asked last week. That is not true. We were then discussing every Customs duty. I promised to write and answer the questions which had been raised and I do not think that more than one question remained unanswered after that. The hon. Gentleman is now asking a lot of questions which are totally irrelevant to the order we are discussing tonight.
Mr. Barnett: On the last occasion I was asking about the new system. However, if we are to get an answer now I will leave it at that.
Mr. Noble: It has nothing to do with this order.
Mr. Barnett: We are talking about the dissolution of the Textile Council. The council made some important recommendations which are, apparently, now being accepted by the Government.
Mr. Noble: It has nothing to do with the order.
Mr. Barnett: It is no use the right hon. Gentleman saying that it has nothing to do with the order. If, when my constituents ask me what will happen about the imports of textiles into Lancashire, I say "The Minister of State in this Government says that it has

413
nothing to do with a particular order"—
Mr. Noble: Will the hon. Gentleman remember that I am not the Minister of State in this Government? Will he also remember that if hon. Members want to ask questions, there are right and wrong times for doing so?
Mr. Barnett: I accept that the Government are experts at knowing how and when to put down the right kind of Questions and how to get the right kind of answers. If the Textile Council and its dissolution is not concerned with textiles, very well, my hon. Friends and I will go back to Lancashire and tell our constituents that that is the situation. But if Ministers come to the House when we are discussing the dissolution of the Textile Council and they do not have answers to questions which are of vital concern to our constituents, I am sure that those constituents will be very surprised.
Mr. Noble: It depends what we are debating.
Mr. Barnett: I am concerned with the textile industry. The right hon. Gentleman says that we are discussing only the dissolution of the Textile Council, but that body was concerned with the textile industry. It is not good enough, after this, to have to go back to Lancashire and say that we shall have to wait for some other occasion to get the answers to the questions which our constituents are asking us.
Mr. David Waddington: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that there are only two hon. Members, besides himself, on the Opposition benches? If he is suggesting that this is the right moment to debate the important question of the future of the textile industry, he seems to have chosen a most remarkable forum.
Mr. Barnett: I do not know what that is supposed to mean. If the hon. and learned Gentleman cares to come to my constituency, as he did on another occasion when he found that he was unable to get himself elected, and tell my constituents that this is not the appropriate occasion to get answers to the questions they want answered and that they should
414
wait for some future occasion, I should be happy for him to do so. We have the opportunity now. I should have thought that the Government were aware of the answers to the questions which I am putting. If so, whether it is the appropriate occasion or not is totally irrelevant. If they have the answers to the questions, which they should have, there is no reason for not giving them, even if there are only a few Members in the House.
Mr. Waddington: There are not many on the Opposition side.
Mr. Barnett: If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to make that sort of sedentary remark, he would be better doing so in the place from whence he has come. He is not helping the people of Lancashire by making such comments.
What representations has the Minister had from the developing countries, India and Hong Kong, and what has he told them? What is happening about Portuguese imports which have been so disruptive in many parts of the textile industry? Does the hon. Gentleman still expect that, given a continuation of the quota system, we will still be importing, 55 per cent. of home consumption next year and beyond? We have imported that percentage even with quotas. What co-ordination and discussion is he having with the Common Market countries? Will they increase their quotas whilst we come down with ours so that gradually we come together on the level of imports? Will this happen during the transitional period if we enter the Community? In other words, will we all come down to a level of, say, 25 per cent. of our home consumption? This would be more beneficial to the developing countries than the present situation and much more beneficial to the workers in Lancashire.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East said that quotas would not solve the problem. With the present quotas we still have 55 per cent. imports, We in Lancashire have always accepted the inevitable rundown of the industry and in this respect the trade unions have been very helpful. Now, however, with a very high level of unemployment in other industries in the area, it is vital that the rundown should not be as fast as it has been recently. It is important

415
for Lancashire and the developing countries to have clarification of the Government's policy. We must know what is to happen from now onwards. Will we continue with 55 per cent. imports or, as I hope, will there be a movement—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the debate on the order is acknowledged to be fairly wide, but to discuss the general policy on imports is perhaps going a little wider still.
Mr. Barnett: I was coming to a close, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the Textile Council referred to these matters in its reports. If Ministers have come unprepared to deal with these questions, we will know what to do when we return to our constituencies. I hope that we will have this clarification.
11.12 p.m.
Mr. Ridley: I endorse what has been said about the rôle of the trade unions in the textile industry. As I acknowledged in my opening speech, I entirely accept that their co-operation has led to a much more orderly industry than would otherwise have been the case, although, as the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) said, those concerned might not be completely happy with the present outcome of that co-operative approach. But it has nevertheless contributed to the strength of the industry.
This figure can be overplayed, but 11,500 people have left the Lancashire textile industry in the last year. We think that about 7,000 of them have already found jobs or have retired from the labour market. That shows the extent to which there is still a certain buoyancy in the Lancashire industry.
Mr. Lamond: Is there not also a very serious position over short-time working? Are not many women now completely out of work? Will not almost all the people who work in textiles in the Oldham area be out of work because they will be laid off over the Christmas period?
Mr. Ridley: This is not the occasion to debate employment in Lancashire. I wish to confine myself to the textile industry and the Textile Council. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can raise these matters another time.
416
There is a dilemma between the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) and that of his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth. West (Mr. Judd). The latter was saying that the decline should continue because this commodity could be produced by under-developed countries. He pleaded for greater penetration from overseas, which would have resulted in more short-time working or more unemployment in the textile areas. More openings for trade can be carried to a certain point and then no further, and our record as an importer of textiles from the underdeveloped countries is better than that of any other industrialised country. I therefore believe that what the Government must do, faced with these two dilemmas, is to try to get the balance right. That is why my right hon. Friend felt inclined to continue the quotas after the end of this year.
Mr. Judd: The Minister has not summarised my position unfairly, although I was at pains to point out that the industry had been unable to take the opportunity presented to it as a result of the last main report of the council. I also made a strong plea for more direct Government policies designed to introduce a greater diversity of industry in areas at present reliant on textiles.
Mr. Ridley: No Government have tried to get more diversity of industry into the regions than we have, but in a period of low industrial activity it may not be wise to pursue one's desire to see imports come in to the point at which one does real damage to the industry, and that is why the Government felt it right to extend the quotas at least for a further year. I will return to this point shortly.
The hon. Member for Oldham, East put in a plug for his Bill on origin marking. Perhaps he will get in a corner with his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West and argue it out with him as to whether, as well as a tariff and quota, they wish to use compulsory marking in the interests of manufacturers as a non-tariff barrier to trade.
Instead of always trying to strike a balance between the two obviously wrong extremes in this matter, I suggest that the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) is about right in that it is a defence against

417
deception by importers or retailers in this country. That Measure is perfectly justified in the interests of consumers and is not one further Measure of protection, which seems to be the motive of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Oldham. East.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) for his generous words about the council in the past and I support him in his hopes for the future. Of the speeches that have been made tonight, his was the only one directed to the past and future of the representation of the industry. Nevertheless, I do not wish to evade answering the questions of the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton because I appreciate the concern that is felt in Lancashire on this subject.
The hon. Gentleman first asked about the basis of the existing quotas and their extension. Each country's exports of textiles to the United Kingdom are subject to individual licences and if they were to refuse to co-operate in keeping within the quota it would be possible ultimately for us to control their exports to this country by this means. It is to be hoped, however, that voluntary agreements can be reached, but there is this licensing power underlying the voluntary agreements.
The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton then asked for how long the quotas would run. We have provisionally extended them for one year from the end of this year. He will recognise that by that time we shall be deeply involved in the European Economic Community's common policy and that collective solutions will be worked out within the E.E.C. for the textile industries of Europe. I think it is only right, therefore, that this should be regarded as a holding operation between the present time and such time as we know a little more about what can be agreed with our partners in Europe for the protection of the textile industries.
Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman asked about the reaction from India and Hong Kong. It has been generally recognised as being in the interests of our major supplies—India and Hong Kong included—that the quotas should be extended for a further year and I think the hon. Gentleman will find that what I have said is borne out in those two countries.
418
I am sure that it would be wrong for me to be drawn into a long discussion about the future of the textile industry. I have tried to answer the specific questions that have been put to me and I think it right that I should have taken this opportunity to try to help the hon. Gentleman. We must, however, remember that the occasion tonight is the dissolution of the Textile Council. I hope that the House will share my feelings that it has been a successful council which has done great good, with the good will of all concerned, for the textile industry. I hope equally that the House will feel that the auguries for textiles are perhaps a little brighter than one has been wont to think in the past and that the industry will go forward in prosperity and with success from now on.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Textile Council (Dissolution) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Textile Council Committee (Discharge) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.—[Mr. Ridley.]

ADJOURNMENT
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

HEALTH SERVICES, LEICESTER
11.21 p.m.
Mr. John Farr: I am grateful for the opportunity of raising tonight the question of waiting time in Leicester and Leicestershire for a consultation under the National Health Service. I hope that the concern which I shall express in my few words will result in some improvement for my constituents in the service which they now have in Leicester and district.
I remind my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that on 30th November I asked him why a wait of three months was necessary in Leicester before someone could have a consultation under the National Health Service. He replied that whilst he conceded that a wait of 12

419
weeks or even longer might be necessary in certain circumstances, he stressed that the delay was caused by a
"shortage of facilities due to be remedied." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1971; Vol. 827, c. 232.]
I further remind my hon. Friend of the case of Mrs. M., about whom I have written to him. This lady, a constituent of mine, was forced to have a private consultation because of her worry, and I here come to the first point that I wish to make to my hon. Friend. In his reply to me at Question Time on 30th November my hon. Friend said that urgent cases always received immediate attention. One could assume from that reply that Mrs. M., who had to wait three months, was regarded as a non-urgent case.
Mrs. M. was not prepared to wait that long, because her complaint was very painful, and she was worried about exactly what was the cause of it, so she managed to obtain enough money to have an immediate consultation privately, which cost her £7·50. At that consultation her condition was found to be so serious that she was admitted to the list for a priority National Health Service operation on a date well before the date offered to her for a consultation under the National Health Service. Indeed, if she had not had that private consultation, she would not have been seen under the National Health Service until the date after which the operation actually took place.
I am sure that my hon. Friend in his reply on 30th November gave his answer in good faith, but I ask him to re-check his system of vetting when a case is serious and when it is not, because it seems to me that there should be no chance of a priority case being delayed in any way for a Health Service consultation. This is the gist of the answer he gave, and yet it can be seen clearly from the case I have quoted that the lady in question needed a priority consultation and that her condition necessitated a priority National Health Service operation. Yet she had not been so classified. It therefore appears to me that as she had particularly unpleasant lumps which might well have been cancerous, in her case as in all such cases a priority consultation under the National Health Service should have been arranged at once.
420
I would not have raised this question of the long wait for consultation in Leicester for just one case, but from time to time I have had lengthy correspondence with my hon. Friend on the long wait for N.H.S. operations and in addition to this case other cases have been brought to my attention by constituents. One of them again serves to illustrate my reason for concern at the service my constituents receive at the moment. It concerns a Mrs. H., whose husband applied for a consultation in July 1971, and was given the date of 25th October —a wait of nearly four months. Her husband was then put on the waiting list for an N.H.S. operation and told that he might have to wait for up to two years for it. Mrs. H. herself applied for an appointment to see an orthopaedic consultant on 7th October last and was given an N.H.S. consultation date in the distant future-31st January, 1972, a wait of more than four months for a consultation on a condition which was very painful.
My hon. Friend told me on 30th November that things would be better soon. I am sure that he does not accept that 12 weeks is a reasonable time to wail. I would be glad of his assurance on this point. I am certain that lie does not feel that just because one goes to the N.H.S. one should be expected to wait in a queue for three or four months before a consultation. If any hon. Friend has the figure, I would be grateful if he could give it to me as I would like to know how the wait of three or four months in Leicester and district compares with waiting times for N.H.S. consultations in the rest of the country and how it compares with what he regards as a reasonable time to wait.
I believe that a wait of three or four months for an N.H.S. consultation and of two to three years for an N.H.S. operation, as still applies to many of my constituents, is a wholly unreasonable state of affairs, and I think that a service which risks giving its patients this sort of treatment can be classed only as second rate.
The fear amongst many of my constituents can be summed up in a letter from yet another person who has written to me. This lady, to whom I will refer as Mrs. R., writes that she recently discovered a lump in her breast and immediately visited her

421
doctor, who arranged for her to see a surgeon privately. She states:
"He suggested it would be a long wait for a National Health appointment, though I was not denied the choice. I visited the surgeon and was told I needed an operation as quickly as possible—and I quote: 'There should not be any lumps in a woman's breast, for it could mean cancer.' Again it was emphasised it would be a long wait under the National Health scheme and so he booked me in a hospital privately within three weeks of visiting him. I did have a blood test and X-ray on the National Health arranged for me by the surgeon who realised the great expense involved. He also made arrangements for me to enter the hospital at 8 a.m. in the morning and I had a very skilful operation at 9 a.m.
I was allowed home the following day as it was far too expensive to stay, but I was more or less immobile and still in some pain, and really needing hospitalisation for a whole week. I went back to the hospital one week later to have the stitches removed. I was lucky—I had a non-malignant cyst removed—and did not have cancer, otherwise I would have had to have had my breast off with further investigation surgery. I cannot imagine how much that would have cost. I feel I must impress upon you that I was so terribly worried at the time this lump was discovered, and I was convinced I had cancer, that I had not the fight in me to find out all about the National Health scheme. I was only too glad to have this operation completed as early as possible.
It is a vary worrying time for a mother thinking perhaps she has not many years to live! Cancer is a terrible thing to worry about. I was not told I could not have this operation under the National Health Service, but all along the line the theme was that things must be dealt with immediately and there is always a long wait under the National Health scheme."
I apologise for reading from that letter at some length but it is a very significant letter and sums up rather poignantly the case I seek to make. Quite simply, the letter illustrates how in many parts of my constituency, in Leicester and in the county the National Health Service is regarded. It is regarded in a very poor light, with a long wait for overcrowded facilities which are to be used only if one has to use them. To some people its public image is the same as that of British Railways after the war.
I believe in the National Health Service and I know that my hon. Friend does. I hope that he will give an assurance tonight which will convince me that we as a party in Government mean to make the Health Service work and provide a service to the nation of which we can all be proud. Will my hon. Friend give a date when the service will be
422
better in Leicester, and will he say how much better?
11.34 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has provided the opportunity for me to deal rather more fully than was possible during Question Time on 30th November with the matter of the time which some patients have to wait for an out-patient consultation in hospitals in Leicester. In the few words I shall be able to say in reply I shall cover the case of Mrs. M., about whom we both have details. I shall leave that until later and fill in the general picture first.
Regarding Mrs. H. and Mrs. R., I ask my hon. Friend kindly to let me have more particulars about them. I would not with to make ex cathedra statements without a little more background information.
I accept that the hospital services in some parts of the Sheffield region are under pressure and that much remains to be done in the way of new provision and increased resources in order to enable the region to cope with the growing demand made on its hospital services. It is also clear that in Leicester particularly hospital provision must be increased both to cater for service needs and to meet the teaching requirements of the new medical school which it has been decided to open in Leicester. Since the city is the natural centre for much of the surrounding county, these needs must be met largely by hospitals in the city centre.
Patients with urgent conditions are always given a consultation without delay. I stress this to my hon. Friend because it bears particularly, I think, on the case of Mrs. H., the last lady he mentioned. I stress again that patients with urgent conditions are always given a consultation without delay, and non-urgent cases can always have their appointment dates brought forward if their general practitioner considers that their condition has in any way deteriorated during their wait for a consultation. The most protracted waiting times for non-urgent cases are in the specialities of general surgery, ophthalmic surgery and orthopaedic surgery. At Leicester Royal Infirmary the waiting

423
time could be 12 weeks or more. At Leicester General Hospital the waiting time for an appointment in general surgery could be up to 16 weeks. But the position in other specialties is much better. For example, in E.N.T., neurology, paediatrics and plastic surgery the waiting time is four weeks and in urology it is six weeks. The waiting time for virtually all other specialties is two weeks or less.
The Sheffield Regional Hospital Board acknowledges that levels of medical staffing are lower than average in Leicester and it is, of course, planning to remedy these deficiencies but this cannot be done in isolation from the planning of other hospital developments in which, as I will show, Leicester plays a prominent part.
As an interim measure by way of improvements, work is proceeding on a scheme of short-term improvements at the Leicester Royal Infirmary to provide additional accommodation in the outpatient department there. Some of the improved accommodation is already in use and the remaining work is expected to be completed in the New Year. The board has managed to make a number of additional senior medical staff appointments in the Leicester area this year and plans more for next year.
As I have indicated, however, increases in consultant staff must be matched by increases in hospital facilities which need to be considered in the context of the board's general plan for the Leicester area. For example, new operating theatres need supporting beds, pathology and X-ray facilities, and so on. They all hang together. I have earlier made it clear that during this time of acute pressure general practitioners may ask for priority if the condition of patients worsens while waiting, so that they can become urgent in the technical sense of that term.
Longer-term improvements to hospital services in Leicester, about which my hon. Friend inquired, both physical, by which I mean building, and financial in terms of improved allocations of funds are necessary to achieve a permanent solution to the problem of waiting time and they loom large in the development planning for the area. As my hon. Friend knows, Leicester is a natural
424
centre for the area with a road net-work radiating to the peripheral centres of population in the county. With the exception of the Hinkley-Lutterworth area there is little opportunity for patients to seek alternative hospital services to those provided in Leicester itself.
In recent years the demand for hospital services has increased in common with the rest of the country but, due to an inherited shortage of beds and resources in the Sheffield region generally, it has been difficult up till now—unless it had been done at the expense of more needy areas in the region—to make good the backlog whilst at the same time planning to meet increasing needs.
The situation in Leicester is not helped by the distribution of beds. Although in the county population catchment area as a whole the total number of acute beds is generally in line with national norms, a high proportion of the beds is in the periphery and many are allocated to general practitioners. The problem in Leicester has also been heightened, as I am sure my hon. Friend is only too well aware, by the influx of workers attracted by the prosperous light industries in the area.
It should not be thought from what I have said that there have been no developments in Leicester. In fact nearly £6 million has been spent in capital developments since 1948. This has included new X-ray, accident, emergency and maternity departments, extension of the pathology department, a group pharmacy and a new maternity unit at the Leicester Royal Infirmary and a new operating theatre suite, new out-patient department and new pathology department at the Leicester General Hospital.
Work is in progress amounting to £1–3 million to provide 120 geriatric beds and other improved facilities at the Leicester General Hospital. Work will start in 1973–74 on phase II of the new redevelopment of Leicester Royal Infirmary including 431 beds, 12 operating theatres, four diagnostic X-ray rooms, a new outpatient department and an accident and emergency centre. At Leicester General Hospital a further 120 geriatric beds are to be provided by 1973 in furtherance of our aim to improve services for those who need to stay longer in hospital. The

425
capital cost of these planned developments amounts to over £8 million.
The establishment of the new medical school in Leicester, while presenting the board with major problems in planning the disposition of resources, will help to increase the hospital services earlier than would otherwise have been the case. For example, the board is planning interim improvements at the Leicester General Hospital, including an extension to the out-patient department—this has a special bearing on consultations—for use by teaching staff expected to be appointed by 1973–74.
The main hospital concentration for the whole of the Leicester catchment area will need to be in and around Leicester and the service needs will be met initially by the Leicester Royal Infirmary, which will also become the major teaching hospital, and the Leicester General Hospital. Plans are also being considered for a further district general hospital to achieve a better concentration of hospital resources in Leicestershire as a whole.
As to provision of finance, we recognise that the Sheffield region as a whole has a below-average share of the total moneys available for recurrent expenditure on hospital services. This is being put right progressively over a period of 10 years under revised revenue distribution arrangements introduced last year which will enable all regions to achieve equality of revenue provisions for hospital services without disrupting the services of those regions which are at present better off. As a direct consequence of these arrangements, the allocation per head of population in the Sheffield region has already been increased from 82 per cent. of the average of all regions in 1969–70 to over 85 per cent. of the average in the 1972–73 allocations recently notified.
But these comparisons between regions' relative financial resources and populations do not tell the whole story. Additional revenue support can help only up to a point; beyond that point a situation of need arising from inadequate hospital facilities—in the sense that demand exceeds the physical capacity of the existing hospitals—can be corrected only by the provision of additional capacity under the hospital capital development programme.
426
From what I have said, my hon. Friend will appreciate that the needs of Leicester have certainly not gone unheeded. The shape of financial investment in Leicester to come is quite striking. Much progress has been made to remedy the inherited deficiencies of the area in the face of sharply rising demand. The situation will not, I am sorry to say, be wholly redressed until the major development schemes now in progress have matured. Since major building is involved, there is no way of accelerating this progress, but it is definitely in the pipeline.
My hon. Friend has said something about Mrs. M. This patient was given an appointment at the Leicester Royal Infirmary on 6th August following an approach by her general practitioner in May—a waiting time of three months. She was also offered an appointment at Leicester General Hospital, but this was cancelled by telephone. I understand that following a private consultation in June she was admitted seven weeks later to Leicester General Hospital on 27th July as a National Health Service patient, and she had an operation which had a satisfactory outcome.
When referring the case, Mrs. M.'s general practitioner did not indicate a need for priority treatment. The consultant who saw her privately on 7th June apparently agreed that there was no urgency but in view of Mrs. M.'s anxiety placed her on his list for admission in the category "soon but not urgent". In fact Mrs. M.—and this can be judged by the length of time which elapsed between her private consultation and subsequent admission, nearly two months—was not either, in the view of her general practitioner or the consultant, an urgent case. Had she been such in the view of either, not only would a National Health Service consultation have been available earlier but an immediate admission would have been available.
My hon. Friend has referred to the case of two other ladies, one of whom had a lump on the breast. It is difficult for me, from the evidence he has been able to place before the House tonight, to judge whether this was an urgent case. From what he has said there seems to be no indication from the consultant concerned that he would have placed this in the category of an urgent case. If he

427
had done so, there is no doubt but that she could have had an immediate Health Service admission. If my hon. Friend would be kind enough to let me have details of the cases referred to I will consider whether they give rise to the need for any further advice or for any exchanges with the regional board.
428
In the round I readily admit that the waiting time for some specialities in Leicester is excessive, but the capital provision the Board is now making will in time make substantial improvements.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Investment
  Investment
  Consumer Demand (Stimulation)
  Consumer Demand (Stimulation)
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Football Pool Winnings (Tax)
  Football Pool Winnings (Tax)
  Tax Reliefs and Welfare Benefits
  Tax Reliefs and Welfare Benefits
  Savings
  Savings
  United Kingdom (Foreign Debts)
  United Kingdom (Foreign Debts)
  Personal Wealth and Estate Duty
  Personal Wealth and Estate Duty
  Regional Employment Premium
  Regional Employment Premium
  Travel to Work (Tax Relief)
  Travel to Work (Tax Relief)
  Pensioners (Income Tax)
  Pensioners (Income Tax)
  Value-Added Tax
  Value-Added Tax
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Estate Duty
  Estate Duty
  Taxation (Proportion of Income)
  Taxation (Proportion of Income)
  Government Departments (Dispersal)
  Government Departments (Dispersal)
  Customs (Duty-free Concessions)
  Customs (Duty-free Concessions)
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  Investment Incentive
  Investment Incentive
  Betting, Gambling and Gaming
  Betting, Gambling and Gaming
  Companies (Government Shareholding)
  Companies (Government Shareholding)
  Single Person's Allowance
  Single Person's Allowance
  Post-War Credits
  Post-War Credits
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Pharmacists, Medical Physics Technicians and Opticians (Pay)
  Pharmacists, Medical Physics Technicians and Opticians (Pay)
  Spectacle Frames (Birmingham)
  Spectacle Frames (Birmingham)
  Poverty
  Poverty
  Prescriptions (Shortage of Chemists)
  Prescriptions (Shortage of Chemists)
  Medicinal Samples
  Medicinal Samples
  Drugs (Profit Margin)
  Drugs (Profit Margin)
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Lane Committee
  Lane Committee
  National Insurance and Health Contributions
  National Insurance and Health Contributions
  Physically Handicapped Persons
  Physically Handicapped Persons
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Cardio-Vascular Disease
  Cardio-Vascular Disease
  Government Departments (Dispersal)
  Government Departments (Dispersal)
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Trading Surplus
  Trading Surplus
  Investment
  Investment
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Export Promotion
  Export Promotion
  Oil (Imports)
  Oil (Imports)
EMPLOYMENT
  Prices
  Prices
  Flintshire
  Flintshire
  Civil Servants (Department's Staff)
  Civil Servants (Department's Staff)
  Rhondda
  Rhondda
  Short-time Work
  Short-time Work
  Blind Persons (Scotland)
  Blind Persons (Scotland)
  Industrial Safety Officers
  Industrial Safety Officers
DEFENCE
  Hawker Siddeley Nimrod
  Hawker Siddeley Nimrod
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Atomic Energy Authority (Staff)
  Atomic Energy Authority (Staff)
  Additional Expenditure
  Additional Expenditure
  N.A.T.O. (Cost)
  N.A.T.O. (Cost)
WALES
  School Meals
  School Meals
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
ENVIRONMENT
  Land Reclamation
  Land Reclamation
  Private Tenants
  Private Tenants
  Westminster Hall (Exhibition Stand)
  Westminster Hall (Exhibition Stand)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Seat Belts and Crash Helmets
  Seat Belts and Crash Helmets
  Caravans
  Caravans
  Mopeds (Licences)
  Mopeds (Licences)
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Firm Price Tenders
  Firm Price Tenders
  Land Use (Site Preservation)
  Land Use (Site Preservation)
  Empty Properties (Rates)
  Empty Properties (Rates)
  INDIA AND PAKISTAN
  INDIA AND PAKISTAN
  PRESIDENT NIXON (MEETING)
  PRESIDENT NIXON (MEETING)
  FISHERY LIMITS
  FISHERY LIMITS
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (DISPERSAL)
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (DISPERSAL)
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  T.U.C. GENERAL COUNCIL (PRIME MINISTER'S TALKS)
  T.U.C. GENERAL COUNCIL (PRIME MINISTER'S TALKS)
  INTERNATIONAL BODIES (DELEGATIONS)
  INTERNATIONAL BODIES (DELEGATIONS)
  MINISTERS (FINANCIAL INTERESTS)
  MINISTERS (FINANCIAL INTERESTS)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Government Departments (Dispersal)
  Government Departments (Dispersal)
  Malt
  Malt
  JUDGES AND STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES (PRIVATE PRACTICE)
  JUDGES AND STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES (PRIVATE PRACTICE)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Milk
  School Milk
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Colleges of Education (Eire Citizens)
  Colleges of Education (Eire Citizens)
  Public Libraries (Charges)
  Public Libraries (Charges)
  Schools, Retford
  Schools, Retford
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Racism and Racial Discrimination
  Racism and Racial Discrimination
  Mediterranean and the Middle East
  Mediterranean and the Middle East
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police Disciplinary Meeting
  Police Disciplinary Meeting
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Television (Welsh Language)
  Television (Welsh Language)
SCOTLAND
  Social Education Advisers
  Social Education Advisers
  Physiotherapists
  Physiotherapists
  Student Grants (Widows)
  Student Grants (Widows)
  Health Centres (Glasgow)
  Health Centres (Glasgow)
  National Health Service (Brassieres)
  National Health Service (Brassieres)

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

CHANNEL TUNNEL STUDY
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: 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 when they expect that the feasibility study on the proposed Channel Tunnel will be completed.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we expect the present phase of studies into the Channel Tunnel project to be completed in the first half of next year. In the light of this work and of the financial negotiations now in hand with the French Government and the private interests with whom we are pursuing the project, decisions will be taken on the scope and timing of further studies and works remaining to be carried out before a final decision on the project can be made.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. May I ask whether, in deciding whether or not to go ahead with the Channel Tunnel, consideration will be given to the other forms of transport which could be available for cross-Channel use in the 1980s? Secondly, may I ask if the opinions of essential users have been sought about whether or not they would be prepared to travel in a train in a tunnel rather than use other traditional forms of oversea transport?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, with regard to my noble friend's first supplementary question, I do not think this point is being considered at the moment, because, as was published in the earlier papers, the other forms of transport were considered unsafe
988
—a bridge for navigational reasons and roads because of fumes and for economic reasons. As regards the point about the users, that forms part of the present study.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how long, in the opinion of the Government, it will take to build the tunnel once authorisation is given? Secondly, do the Government totally exclude the possibility of constructing, not a tunnel but a "bridge-tunnel-bridge" on the lines of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge which is already in operation?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, results of the present studies are not expected before the first half of next year. We should hope to reach a decision by 1973. If the go-ahead were given, it is hoped that the Tunnel could be in use some time in 1978 or 1979. I am not quite sure whether I understand the noble Lord's second supplementary question about a tunnel bridge. I take it he means a tube tunnel laid on the surface of the sea.
LORD GLADWYN: No, my Lords. The suggestion is that it should be a bridge which would go down to an artificial island, continue in great submerged tubes to another island and then go up again as a bridge to the other cliff. It is perfectly possible, my Lords. It has been done in Chesapeake Bay. It is a feasible proposition.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am advised that this would give rise to navigational hazards; also I am told that other maritime nations would have to be consulted before this could be done.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that consideration of this project has been going on for quite a long time? What can be done to speed up the study which has been taking place since the project was first introduced, a project which many people in both Houses gave credence to because they thought that it would be of great value to this country and to France?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. The earlier studies are now out of date and more geological surveying is needed. Present studies will, we hope, be complete by the first half of 1972.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE: ACCOMMODATION
2.39 p.m.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: 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 steps are being taken to provide the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with office accommodation more consistent with the requirements of modern business practice.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, a programme of works to improve working conditions in the Old Public Offices is being implemented at the moment, including redecoration, refurnishing and new accommodation for visitors. My right honourable friend is aware that very much more needs to be done and is considering with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how best to proceed in the longer term.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords. I am grateful to the Minister for reminding us of the minor works at present in progress. So far as the efficiency of the conduct of the business is concerned, may I ask whether he is aware that a quarter of a century ago this building, as a place to work in, was unanimously considered obsolete in accordance with the standards of that time? Is the Minister aware that eight years ago the then Minister of Public Works—whose name happened to be Mr. Geoffrey Rippon—said that the building was unsuitable for present, and therefore for future, purposes, and that the Duncan Committee came to a similar conclusion?
May I ask the Minister whether he can give any, or all three, of these assurances. First (and I put this without in any way wishing to prejudice what the decision will be) whether a decision can be expected in the near future as to how a radical modernisation can be carried out; secondly, whether he will press his right honourable friend—
LORD CHAMPION: Speech!
LORD GORE-BOOTH: —to bring about this decision quickly; and, thirdly, whether in doing so he will ensure consultation with those who have to work in the building, particularly those who will still be working there when the new building comes up for consideration.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think I can best answer those three supplementary questions by assuring the noble Lord that my right honourable friend is very well aware of the very long time during which this issue has been under consideration. He is as anxious as everybody else is to arrive at a satisfactory and radical solution and is pressing on as fast as possible, but he is not yet in a position to make any further statement.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this really is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs? Is he aware that the staff accommodation in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is, in most cases, unsatisfactory, and in many cases positively disgraceful—unlike the accommodation for Ministers which tends to he elegant and spacious? Does be not agree that this situation of Ministerial affluence alongside official squalor needs some kind of urgent treatment; and is it not in fact the case that what we need is a new Foreign Office? It may be that the present one is more in keeping with the Government's policy, but it is not very good for the staff of the Foreign Office.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am aware of this problem and so is my right honourable friend. He is anxious to solve it as quickly as possible.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the future of the site between the Treasury and Central Hall has yet been decided, or whether this would be open for a Foreign and Commonwealth Office?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that is rather a different question, if I understood the noble Lord to be referring to Parliament Square. If he will put down a Question I will answer it.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask whether the Minister can give us an assurance that when these new offices are built, adequate accommodation

991
will be provided for those civil servants who will be engaged on the drafting of Parliamentary Questions?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords.
LORD SHERFIELD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the plasterboard "rabbit hutch" in which I spent four years of my working life 25 years ago still houses an Under-Secretary? Will its abolition be included in the minor works?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I was not aware of that point, but I can almost certainly assure the noble Lord that it will be.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that all Governments, though notably this Government, have been lax in dealing with a problem which ensures major loss of efficiency in Whitehall? Will he consult with his noble friend the Lord Privy Seal to see whether some progress can be made which might quite significantly reduce the number of civil servants and the amount of paper? If the noble Lord has any doubt, would he try visiting the basement in the Foreign Office late at night and see whether he can find his way out? I once got lost there.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, is the Minister aware—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has taken us rather wide of the original Question, but the object of a full and complete solution to this problem is to provide satisfactory accommodation for all people who work in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that any change in the external appearance of the present buildings would be regarded with great distaste by the majority of the population?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, my right honourable friend is fully aware of that fact.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the "rabbit hutch" in which the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, worked, apparently so unhappily, was constructed by me at the end of the war, and was at least greatly superior to the attic in which I worked
992
for two years previously? Does not the noble Lord agree that in any reconstruction of the Foreign Office that may be undertaken it is best to think in terms of a headquarters staff next door to Downing Street, and the great bulk of the Departments being housed, not in squalor, but in comparative squalor, if you like, somewhere in the suburbs?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, all these points are among those which are being considered by my right honourable friend and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that not only do the conditions of Government office accommodation not comply with Lord Gore-Booth's Question to-day, concerning "modern business practice", but that in fact they do not comply with the Offices Act? I assure him that I can give him instances of that.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am advised that the work currently in hand brings the offices up to the standards required by the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, while this is perhaps a superficial question, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is in a position to give an affirmative answer to the last assurance for which I asked; namely, that there will be continuous consultation with those who have to work there when the time comes for designing new accommodation?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords.

GREECE AND MEMBERSHIP OF N.A.T.O.
2.45 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 was the reaction of the British representatives at the meeting last week of the Council of Ministers of NATO Governments, to the proposal by Denmark to consider the eligibility of the Greek Government for membership on the grounds of its repudiation of the NATO Charter.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, proceedings at meetings of the NATO Council of Ministers are confidential. It is our firm policy, however, that the security of the Western Alliance, in which Greece plays a very important part, should not be jeopardised. The Greek Government have not repudiated the North Atlantic Treaty.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I ask whether it is not the case that both Denmark and Norway have repeatedly raised this question at the Council of Ministers, and have been brushed aside? Is it not the case that the North Atlantic Assembly has expressed great concern about this issue? In view of the fact that the preamble to the Treaty of the Charter is dedicated to democracy and individual freedom, and that Article 2 makes the commitment to strengthening free institutions, is it not a mockery that Greece, with its present record, should be a member of NATO?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I do not think I can add to what I said with regard to the meetings of the Council of Ministers; namely, that they are confidential. Of course Her Majesty's Government would like to see democratic Governments in all countries; and the Greek Government know that we look forward to the restoration of democracy in their country. But it is not for us to tell them how to manage their internal affairs.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not the case that there has been martial law in Greece now for four and a half years, and that the only advance towards democracy is the present election of an Advisory Committee by 0·24 per cent. of the population? Is not there evidence of the torture of political prisoners, as indicated by the record of Lady Fleming?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the points which the noble Lord has brought forward may or may not be true, but in the belief of Her Majesty's Government this would not alter the fact that NATO has a very important part to play, and that Greece has an important part to play in NATO.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is it not true that the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance exists for the defence of
994
democracy? Is it not true, also, that the Parliamentarians at the North Atlantic Assembly have not been prepared to allow Greece to attend a North Atlantic Assembly for the last three years?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think it would be true to say that the NATO Alliance is there for the military protection of the West. The fact that the North Atlantic Assembly has met and passed various resolutions is, of course, a indication of the feelings of those people who are members of the North Atlantic Assembly. But they do not bind any government.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, while taking the point that Greece is an important member of the North Atlantic Alliance, and of course that the collapse of that Alliance might lead to losses of freedom even worse than that which is taking place in Greece at the moment—although that is bad enough—can the noble Earl give the House an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not lag behind other members of NATO in attempting to bring pressure on the régime in Greece to return to a democratic form of government?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the Greek Government know full well what our position is, which is that we look forward to an early return to a more democratic Government. Further than that, I could not go.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that NATO is primarily a military alliance and that all the senior military advisers and commanders arc wholehearted in their demand that Greece should remain the linchpin in the Eastern frontier?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I entirely agree with what my noble friend has said, that Greece forms a very important part of the NATO Alliance.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, does not this rather isolated small island need as many allies as possible in the world, without particular regard to their local politics?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think that is perfectly true.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, what kind of an ally and what kind of a partner in NATO? In a repressed country, with very great disruption, and where the armed forces have been very largely purged during the last few years, what asset does the noble Lord really think the armed forces represent to the NATO alliance?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, Greece has a very important part to play in NATO as one of the countries that form the Alliance, and if Greece were removed from this, it would have a deleterious effect on the security of the West.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will reconsider either now or at some later stage —but preferably now—an answer in which he appeared to give support to a suggestion that this country should find its allies anywhere and that it might find them without regard to their internal political arrangements?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if I gave wholehearted support to that suggestion, I would certainly withdraw it. The inference that I had intended should be drawn was that Her Maejsty's Government wished to have allies, and has allies, including the Greek people. But it is not up to Her Majesty's Government to interfere with the internal political workings of another country.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that the claimed basis of NATO is to defend democracy and freedom? Is not the inclusion of such a Government as Greece one of the reasons why there is disllusionment and scepticism felt by the youth of this country in politicians and in politics?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I do not think that that is so. People may be disillusioned by politicians for a variety of reasons, but we have to carry out our commitments in the best way we can, and this country has great friendships with the Greek people. We wish to keep those friendships.

LONDON HOUSING: RENT INCREASES AND ACCOMMODATION
2.52 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: 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, bearing in mind their wages and prices policy, what action they propose to take to curb the present tendency on the part of some landlords to increase the renewal terms for short leases for flats in Greater London to the extent of 42 ½–44 per cent.; and whether they are aware of the increasing shortage of unfurnished accommodation for rent.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the noble Lord does not mention the period for which the current rent has been in force but I have no evidence of increases of the size he mentions for periodic or 3-year tenancies. For dwellings which come within the protection of the Rent Act—which are the vast majority—the rent officer can be asked to determine a fair rent. The Government are well aware of the shortage of unfurnished rented accommodation within the rateable value limits which attract Rent Act protection. For this reason the Government attach great importance to the protection given by the Rent Act in relation both to security and rent.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. The periods I have in mind were three, five, and seven year leases. Does he not think, bearing in mind the Government's White Paper, Fair Deal for Housing, that in effect tenants should be given similar protection when they have leases which come above the ceiling to which the Rent Acts refer—that is to say, £400 in Greater London? In the White Paper great stress is laid on the fact that there should be fair rents in the private sector. Would not my noble friend agree that this should apply equally to tenants of properties below or above £400 rateable value in the Greater London area?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think the simple answer is that when we did not lower the rateable

997
value figure which carries with it rent protection below £400, it was in order to give security of tenure to the tenants. On the other hand, we did not want the amount of unfurnished accommodation coming on to the market to dry up completely. We felt that if we raised the figure above £400 this might happen; and the object of the Rent Act is, as you know, to protect people who if they lost or could not afford their homes would experience difficulty in finding somewhere else to live. People who can afford to live in rented accommodation having a rateable value of more than £400 usually have sufficient means to find alternative accommodation.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that there is a great shortage both of flats and houses for renting? Because of this, is not the Government's encouragement to local authorities to sell council houses not only misguided but utterly political?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think house ownership has always been a good part of Conservative philosophy which does no harm to anyone.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, do the Government realise—and here I must declare an interest—that there are a large number of people at present occupying flats having a rateable value of above £400 and who would be incapable of paying the new rent that has been demanded of them, sometimes amounting to double the amount they are paying at present. Do not the Government think it time that the rateable value was increased from £400 so as to give certainly middle-class people an opportunity of being able to live, instead of having to be thrown out of their homes?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we believe that if we pushed up the rateable value limit for protection the amount of unfurnished accommodation coming on to the market would be very little. The answer probably is that if people did not insist on living in central London, but were content a
998
little further outside, they might find what the noble Lord is looking for.
LORD JANNER: Yes, my Lords, but surely, if nobody is suggesting that there should be an unfair rent and fair rents are being set for those houses of below £400 rateable value, there is nothing to prevent a fair rental being demanded for properties of over £400 rateable value.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords, the Francis Committee, as your Lordships' House will be aware, did recommend the other way, that existing limits were too high. We believe that in £400 we have struck about the right balance.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend (because I think this is an important matter, and there have been these increases of the percentage that I have given for short tenancies) whether my noble friend has seen the article in the Sunday Telegraph last week-end headed, "Financiers move into the Flat Business"? I will quote from it if I may. It says:
"London flats have become a favourite hunting ground for a new type of property operator often backed by City finance".
Does he not feel that, for people who are living on fixed incomes, this is something which, in view of the shortage of unfurnished accommodation and bearing in mind the White Paper, Her Majesty's Government should look into at the moment?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords, it is something we should look into. We are doing so, and when our housing policy begins to take effect I think we shall find it beneficial to the country.

BUSINESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will at a convenient moment be making a Statement on the future of public employment services.

E.E.C. NEGOTIATIONS: FISHERIES AND ANIMAL HEALTH
2.59 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat the Statement made yesterday in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The text is as follows:
"I should like to make a statement about my meeting with the European Community in Brussels on the 11th and 12th of December.
"At this meeting, which was attended by Ministers of the other applicant countries, I was accompanied by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture as well as my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. The two main subjects on the agenda were fisheries and animal health.
"On fisheries the United Kingdom, together with the Republic of Ireland and Denmark, have now reached agreement on the outstanding problems. We have persuaded the Community of the need to safeguard the essential fishing interests of the applicant countries in order to ensure conservation of fishing stocks and the protection of the livelihood of our fishermen. As a result of the agreement we have reached the position would be as follows.
"First, it is clear that we retain full jurisdiction over the whole of our coastal waters up to twelve miles. In other words we have power to control on a non-discriminatory basis the conservation of stocks by such means as the regulation of size of nets, types of trawl and methods of fishing.
"Secondly, access to our coastal waters within six miles from our baselines is limited exclusively to British vessels. Next, in areas between six to twelve miles, where the baselines are not in themselves a sufficient safeguard or where the stocks are already fully exploited, the fishing will also be limited to British vessels and to those with existing rights to fish there for certain species of fish. The areas covered in this way out to twelve miles
1000
are the Orkneys and Shetlands, the North and East Coasts of Scotland, North-East England from the river Coquet to Flamborough Head, Devon and Cornwall including, of course, the Scillies and Lundy Island, and County Down.
"The effect of all this is that there is no change at all in the protection now afforded in areas from which 95 per cent. by value of the total inshore catch is taken. As far as the remainder is concerned, that is. those areas I have not mentioned earlier, there will be a generalisation of existing rights between six and twelve miles only.
"We have also sought and obtained a formal assurance from the Community that the legal application of the Common Fisheries Policy would not permit, either in form or in fact, any discrimination by a member State in waters beyond twelve miles over which it might exercise fisheries jurisdiction against the fishing vessels of other member States operating in such waters. This is a valuable safeguard for our deep sea fishermen.
"As to the future of the Fisheries Policy, we have urged upon the Community the need for common action in all our interests to ensure conservation of stocks. In consequence we have agreed with the Community that as soon as practicable, and by 1979 at the latest, the Community will attempt to determine conditions for the preservation of the biological resources of the sea.
"We have further agreed that before the end of 1982 the enlarged Community will, after studying a report on the situation then obtaining with particular reference to the economic and social conditions of inshore areas and the state of the fish stocks, examine the arrangements which could follow what we have negotiated for the first ten years.
"Here I must emphasise that these are not just transitional arrangements which automatically lapse at the end of a fixed period.
"In substance what we have achieved can fairly be described for the most part as a maintenance of the status quo for a decade, followed by a fair and open-ended review taking account of all

1001
the circumstances of the time. I am confident that when that review takes place Her Majesty's Government will continue to safeguard this vital national interest.
"Before leaving this subject I should like to bring to the attention of the House the advantage we have secured in regard to marketing arrangements which are designed to secure better and more stable conditions in the fishing industry and to which I referred in my statement to the House on the 11th of November.
"Finally, I know the anxieties that exist about conservation and effective measures of policing. As I have already explained to the House, we will retain full jurisdiction over our 12-mile limit. The Fisheries Protection Services of the Royal Navy and the Scottish Department of Agriculture and Fisheries will continue to he responsible for the enforcement of our regulations, including those governing fishing methods and for ensuring that vessels of other countries are excluded from the inner six miles and that limitations on access in areas between six and twelve miles are strictly enforced.
"Honourable Members will be aware that the Scottish Department is already ordering a new fisheries cruiser, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has undertaken to strengthen the forces at present employed by the Royal Navy on protection duties in coastal waters. My right honourable friend will be making a further statement on this in the near future.
"The other major issue on which we were able to reach agreement was animal health.
"The Community has adopted a number of Directives which, if applied to Britain would have involved a number of important changes in our animal health arrangements.
"We therefore asked for and secured agreement that pending the establishment of a common veterinary policy we would not be required to accept any animals, whether for rearing, breeding or immediate slaughter which have been vaccinated against foot and mouth disease. We shall similarly he free to continue our existing methods of test
1002
ing for brucellosis and tuberculosis. Imports of non-vaccinated animals from other Member States will continue to be covered by national rules, and imports of meat will he subject to animal and public health controls in accordance with the Community's provisions.
"These arrangements will apply for five years. Well before the end of that period the Commission will review the whole situation and the veterinary developments which have taken place and to the extent necessary make appropriate proposals taking account of those developments.
"These arrangements, which take account of the existing differences in standards and practices, will ensure that progress towards common veterinary arrangements throughout the enlarged Community will involve no increase in animal health risk.
"I am therefore satisfied, as is my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, that our essential animal health requirements are fully safeguarded now and will remain so in the future."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
3.7 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I, on behalf of your Lordships, express to the noble Baroness our thanks for repeating that Statement the day after it was made in another place. My noble friend made the request that it should be repeated in this House because of your Lordships' interest in this particular problem. May I discount the latter part of the Statement about animal welfare and regulations and confine my questions to the fishing industry? The noble Baroness talked about a new fisheries cruiser being ordered by the Scottish Office, but is it not a fact that this cruiser was coming, whether we went into the E.E.C. or not? It was necessary for the protection of our fishing grounds and has nothing to do with this particular problem.
When the noble Baroness says that all things have been safeguarded until ten years ahead, is she not in fact saying that the only matter that will be considered in ten years' time is whether the countries of the E.E.C. will have an entry into our fishing grounds or not? That is the

1003
only question that will then arise, because there are no other fishing grounds available to us. As a result of this agreement, would the noble Baroness not agree with the summing up in a very ex-parte paper, the Daily Telegraph, of yesterday which said that the conclusion for Britain is that Britain has in effect dropped her demand for a formal automatic right of veto over free access by Market fishermen to her waters after the first decade of membership? Whether the noble Baroness agrees or disagrees, I do not think that the agreement is what she makes it out to be. It may have been the best that could be obtained, but it certainly has nothing to do with the promises that have been made.
If that is so, may I ask the noble Baroness what our position is vis-à-vis our partner, Norway? On October 25 the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said in another place:
"We have also to protect the position of our partners in EFTA."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, col. 1241.]
He made that perfectly clear. The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries said in another place on December 7:
"Our approach is a joint approach with Norway, Ireland and Denmark and we shall hope to continue in that way. It would be a great mistake to be hypothetical on what may happen if any of these countries should fall out. We hope that this will not be the case."—(col. 1106.)
If Norway has fallen out, how can the Government declare that they have maintained the British position by not claiming anything less than Norway? If Norway has not accepted, it is because she wants rather more and we must have rather less.
In this respect I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would either confirm or deny a statement made in another place last Thursday when an honourable Member sought to raise the matter on the Adjournment, and said that the Prime Minister of this country had written to the Prime Minister of Norway and said to him, "For goodness sake ! tone down your claims about these fishing agreements." In other words, "You are going to make it awkward for Britain in these negotiations. You must accept less than you have." Indeed it has been regrded in the Norwegian Press as a great interference in the rights of Norway herself.
1004
It comes very strange, on the day when the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in reply to another Question, says that we have no right to interfere in the affairs of another country. Did the Prime Minister in fact send this letter? If he did, was not his reason to try to tone down Norway's request and get somewhat less than we had been promised before? Finally, would the noble Baroness not agree that, as a result of these negotiations, there are considerable parts of the fishing industry in this country, with which I have been associated for many years, who not only are disappointed but feel that they have in fact been betrayed by the settlement that has now been reached?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, my answer to the first question, whether a new fishery cruiser was necessary whether we joined the E.E.C. or not, is, yes, it is necessary. In answer to the second question, quoting the Daily Telegraph, whether in 1892 we have given up our right to an automatic veto—
LORD HOY: My Lords, 1982.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I apologise. I meant 1982—I have written the date down wrongly. As to whether we have given up our rights to an automatic veto, that is not so, because we have declared that fisheries are of course a vital national interest, and that being so they attract the unanimity rule. On the question of the position of Norway, we have always said—in fact I said this on the last occasion when this matter was discussed —that we sought comparable opportunities for all the applicant countries. As I have already said in the Statement, the Republic of Ireland and Denmark together with ourselves accept these conditions, and we hope very much that Norway will, too.
Regarding the last question, whether the Prime Minister of this country wrote to the Norwegian Prime Minister, I also read the remarks in the Press. The point is that we are always in constant touch with all our negotiating partners. We believe that, as we have secured for this country that 95 per cent. of the fishing for the inshore fishing interests is preserved in this country, all the arrangements, including the review arrangements

1005
in 10 years' time, are very satisfactory; and we hope that Norway will join, too.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I press the noble Baroness on one question before we go any further? The noble Baroness says we are always in touch with the other countries. I asked a specific question. Did the Prime Minister of this country write to the Prime Minister of Norway and ask him to tone down the negotiating position of Norway with regard to transactions in the E.E.C.? Was a letter sent or was it not sent? That does not require a difficult answer.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: As a matter of fact, my Lords, it is a difficult answer to give because I do not happen to know. I will certainly try to find out the answer. Even if it has been sent, I would suggest that that is a perfectly fair position. If four applicant countries are negotiating together on fisheries, and three of them agree that the results are good, I should have thought it was a friendly act to suggest to the fourth country that they were satisfactory to them, too.
3.13 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, what we on these Benches feel is that the agreement now reached on fishing is certainly the best that could have been achieved in the circumstances. All that we might be disposed to criticise is the impression previously created, I think, by Mr. Rippon, that he could achieve something even more cast-iron in the way of long-term guarantees. Obviously the Six have abandoned their original position and have agreed to most important and far-reaching derogations from their fishing regulations, which was presumably the chief object of the exercise. Nor can anybody legitimately object, I suggest, to the arrangements proposed for the 10 years following on our entry into the E.E.C. What will happen then will be the result of some further long negotiation in which all the members of the enlarged Community will of course do their utmost to safeguard the legitimate interests of all their fishermen. It seems to us there is no reason to suppose that the British Government in 1983 will be unable to fight their corner perfectly well; but the eventual agreement will have to be something which reflects the interests not only of one country but of the group as a
1006
whole, and this will naturally include sensible arrangements for conservation.
However, what we surely cannot do—and this is something which I hope is accepted by the Government; indeed, from what he said yesterday in another place it seems to have been accepted implicitly by Mr. Rippon—always supposing we propose to join a Community which is something more than a collection of totally independent States, is to bang the table and say that unless we obtain complete satisfaction on every point, on any question that may be under discussion, including of course fishing, then we shall veto (as the saying is) any collective decision. If we go into the Community in that frame of mind, it will not work, and indeed there would be small point in our joining.
My Lords, I have only one question to ask.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD GLADWYN: I always understood, my Lords, that on Statements one could make a statement in reply, provided it was limited to a minute or two. I have only one specific question. Supposing, as now unfortunately may be the case, the Norwegians cannot reach any agreement on fishing, and therefore decide not to proceed with their negotiations for entry into the E.E.C., is such a fact likely in any way to upset the timetable respecting our own entry and that of the other candidates?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, if I may speak for everyone I think the House will be very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who has taken such an interest in the European Communities, has welcomed this final, very difficult stage of the negotiations. If I may say so, he is of course absolutely right. The Common Market countries have in fact gone a very long way from their Common Fisheries Policy in agreeing to the very large derogations that we have, happily, been able to achieve with our partners. It is certainly true, I would agree also with the noble Lord—and this is why we have said we must do this at least before 1979—that we must all agree on a policy of conservation. This is absolutely vital. He asked also whether it is not a fact that

1007
we must not all the time be speaking about a veto. I think this is true. I believe I used those words during our debate, saying that the European Community has been a success so far because it rests upon consent. While one might have the power of veto in the background, one would hope to achieve what one wished by negotiation. On the question of whether, if Norway did not join, it would affect our signing of the Treaty of Accession, the answer is, No. We hope to he able to do this about the middle of January; but of course we hope very much that Norway will join.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to congratulate the Chancellor of the Duchy on a remarkable achievement after these days and nights of arduous negotiation, which I should have thought unjustified and unnecessary because the whole problem should never have arisen? But what happens after 10 years? That is the nub of the problem. Is this merely a stay of execution, or do Her Majesty's Government consider that in practice the arrangements now negotiated and concluded can never be changed without our consent?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I will certainly gladly convey to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the congratulations of my noble friend Lord Boothby because they come from someone who has taken a lifelong interest in fisheries and knows a great deal about them. As regards his question, a very important one, whether after 10 years, in 1982, the agreement will have been merely a stay of execution, or whether it would mean in practice that the arrangements negotiated thereafter could not be concluded successfully without the United Kingdom's consent, the answer is, Yes; the arrangements could not be concluded without the United Kingdom's consent.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her answer.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to clarify a point? She is resting on the unanimity rule in the Council of Ministers regarding matters touching national interests. Is
1008
she aware that that unanimity rule has been subject to some discussion recently, and that there are many inside the Common Market who believe it should be changed to a comprehensive majority vote situation in the Council of Ministers? If the unanimity rule were changed to a majority rule between now and 1982, would it still require the consent of Her Majesty's Government before the fisheries situation could be changed?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, there is no question at the moment of any change whatsoever in the unanimity rule. In fact, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said so yesterday. Also, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will remember that when the Prime Minister came back from meeting President Pompidou he particularly referred to this question: it was agreed between them that subjects which were of vital national interest would be subject to the unanimity rule. In fact, if I may quote it exactly, it was on May 24 that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said:
"the maintenance and strengthening of the fabric of co-operation in such a Community requires that decisions should in practice be taken by unanimous agreement when vital national interests of any one or more members are at stake."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; 24/5/71, col. 32.]
That is really the answer to the noble Lord's question.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, does that not mean that we should have the right of veto if we objected?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Yes, my Lords.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness two questions? First, has she observed that throughout the whole of these negotiations those who are seeking to put us into the Common Market have used the argument, "This is the best we can get"? The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, used that very phrase a moment or two ago. It is not what is in our interests but, "the best that we can get". I should like to receive an answer to that question.
Secondly, has the noble Baroness observed in the public Press—and I

1009
thought my noble friend might have mentioned this in his welcome to this alleged concession—that my noble friend Lord Boothby had a conversation with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster yesterday about these negotiations, when he said that he was now satisfied that the scheme was what we wanted. Could the noble Baroness furnish us with the information as to what it was that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said to my noble friend Lord Boothby which converted him?
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I think I had better answer that—
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, perhaps I should answer first, because I think the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, wanted to know whether this was only the best agreement that we could get or whether it was a really satisfactory arrangement. As I said earlier, if we can preserve 95 per cent. of the total inshore fishing of this country and 98 per cent. of the total catch, I think that is a very good agreement. In regard to the public Press, I also observed that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, had approached my right honourable friend, but as I was not present at the meeting I cannot, of course, say what transpired.
LORD BOOTH BY: My Lords, I do not know whether I am allowed to reply, with the leave of the House—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I know my noble friend is trying to be helpful to the House as a whole, but nevertheless I think he can put himself in order only by putting a question to the Minister.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, whether he is aware—
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am afraid the question must be addressed to the Minister.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I would ask the Minister whether she is aware that I saw the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster this morning; that he gave me satisfactory assurances that the breeding grounds and our inshore waters would he completely protected under the arrangements made, and that I then asked
1010
him the specific question I asked the noble Baroness, as to whether in practice Her Majesty's Government consider that the arrangements now negotiated can never be changed without our consent, and she said, "Yes", and he said, "Yes", and that satisfied me?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend, may I say that I hope very much that those assurances have been conveyed to other parts of the House?
3.25 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, a very important issue has been raised. I am not saying that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, should reply to my question, because he is not a member of Her Majesty's Government. But now we are informed that, in addition to the communiqué yesterday which the noble Baroness repeated this afternoon in your Lordships' House, something has been said privately to a Member of your Lordships' House which apparently was not contained in the Statement made yesterday in another place and repeated this afternoon in your Lordships' House. Surely, we are entitled to know what transpired between the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my noble friend Lord Boothby which has not been disclosed to us. Because if it were disclosed to us we might also be converted.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, it has been disclosed.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am quite certain that nothing could have been added to what has already been said by me to your Lordships' House this afternoon.
LORD BOOTHBY: Hear, hear!
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is hoping that there was some secret pact, but I do not think he can raise that hare.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, may I ask whether this agreement includes a 12-mile limit for a considerable extent of the French coast, and, if so, whether this will not give the French considerable opportunity for the conservation which they so badly need to do; and that

1011
further, when the benefits of this conservation are achieved by the French, they will then wish to continue with the present arrangements?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Yes, my Lords, it does. The 12-mile limit is extended to five Departments of Brittany. I agree with my noble friend that it should ensure that the French are very interested in conservation, and therefore we hope they will be interested in the arrangements after the next decade.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that when I made my first statement she said that three countries had agreed and one had disagreed. At that time agreement had not been reached at all. When the Prime Minister sent his letter he was seeking to get agreement, but no decision was reached. If the noble Baroness is now saying that we have the right of veto this was not referred to yesterday in another place. Indeed, on December 11 the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said that any agreement that had a time period written into it, be it five years or ten years, could not be accepted in Britain. Now, apparently, we have a 10-year limit.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, that makes all the difference.
LORD HOY: No, my Lords, it does not make any difference to what the noble Lord said, because he said that no matter whether it was five years or ten years, both periods were unacceptable. He is on record as having said that just a few days ago. I am now asking the noble Baroness, as Minister of State, whether this is not in fact going much further than the Statement in the House of Commons yesterday. If the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is in agreement with the noble Baroness it will not be difficult for her to request him to repeat this Statement in another place.
The noble Baroness has said that there can be no change in the unanimity rule, but the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, did not take that view. He said that we have not got the right of veto. What the noble Baroness is now saying to the noble Lord is that we retain the right of veto. If that is correct, then obviously
1012
the noble Lord is wrong. The only request I make is this: if in fact we are retaining the right of veto in ten years' time, the least that the Government can do is to arrange for a Statement to that effect to be made in another place, and I would respectfully ask the noble Baroness whether she can arrange for this to be done.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I was present in another place yesterday and I heard all the replies made by my right honourable friend to the questions on his Statement, and while I do not have the complete Hansard in front of me at the moment I can remember clearly that he spoke of the question of unanimity, and that if there is a unanimous decision it means what it says. But it also means that if unanimity cannot be reached, then each country has the right of veto if they have declared a particular question to be of vital national interest.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords. would not the Government agree that the so-called unanimity rule is a convention, nothing more, nothing less, and that in the Treaty of Rome there is provision for qualified majority "voting? Would not the noble Baroness also admit that if, by any chance—I hope myself that if will indeed be possible—we came back in the next few years to acceptance of the majority principle, we should still then be able to block any suggestion as regards fishing, or anything else, if we had only the support of two small countries, namely, Ireland and probably Norway? Even under that system, which in my view we ought to accept, we should be in a position which in practice would be fully safeguarded—even to the extent desired by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord. Lord Gladwyn, said earlier, that we must not proceed to enter the European Communities by considering that we shall always rely on the veto; we must try to reach agreement and be part of the membership of the Community. The Six members of the existing Community have shown great understanding of the needs of the applicant countries as regards fisheries. So far as voting is concerned, if noble Lords look

1013
at paragraph 70 of the White Paper they will observe that it makes quite clear that in practice
"Where a member State's vital interests are at stake it is Community practice to proceed only by unanimity".
If, however—to answer the noble Lord's second point—we did in fact have qualifield majority voting, there would have to be 43 votes cast in favour of the decision, and as the United Kingdom would have 10 votes, Denmark and Ireland three each, and Norway, if she becomes a member, three, we should outvote anyone, not taking into account the position of France, who now also has an extension of her rights.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, will the addition of one cruiser be sufficient to protect British fishing interests, and will this protection fall exclusively on British forces, or will the other States of the Common Market agree to collaborate in maintaining that protection?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned that responsibility lies on British forces. At the moment, for England and Wales there are six minesweepers which undertake this duty on behalf of the Navy for the Ministry of Agriculture; in Scotland we have seven fishery protection vessels, and we have another one building at this moment.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may I turn from the very popular subject of fisheries to the less popular but none the less, to my mind, important question of animal health, which the noble Baroness mentioned, and ask her whether she is aware, in the first place, that the agreement on brucellosis and foot and mouth disease will give great satisfaction to the fanning industry in this country? Is she also aware of the enormous importance, when all the veterinary regulations come to be discussed, of maintaining the position that this country has, because it is an island, particularly with regard to foot and mouth disease?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Yes, my Lords. I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Walston, raised this matter because it is a very important part of the Statement. It is for just the reason that we wish to help to
1014
improve the standards throughout the Community that we have maintained the present arrangements, which for ourselves are very strict, for the next five years; then we shall see what veterinary developments come within those five years.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, if we may return to fisheries at a more parochial level, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware of the grave alarm in the Western Isles, which I think have been not too well treated in the terms of limits? They would like to enjoy the 12-mile limit allowed to Orkney and Shetland. We have protected the Inner Minches, but surely it is the Western seaboard of the Long Island, where herring spawn in the shallow water of the Long Island to the Butt of Lewis and down to Barra Head. This is at the mercy of anyone who cares to come in and rake the bottom. It is one of the most important areas of spawning fish and fish nurseries in the Highlands. With unemployment running at 29 per cent., I feel the whole of that area's future is in serious jeopardy. The noble Baroness talked about a fishery cruiser. Having sat in the House for nearly forty years, I know that there has been talk of fishery cruisers since time began, and poaching goes on in the Minch nightly. The position is extremely serious for the island fishermen, who have come into their own since 1964 when the 12-mile limit was introduced.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, as my noble friend rightly says, the way in which the base lines are drawn does include the whole Minches, which are very rich in fishing—much richer than the West coast of the Long Isle. As far as the breeding Grounds are concerned, if it were necessary to extend any limit beyond six miles it would be possible because we still have our national jurisdiction up to twelve miles, provided it is non-discriminatory to any State.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, without wishing to prolong this exchange too far, may I ask the noble Baroness to clarify one matter for the benefit of the House, as I think there is some confusion about the question of unanimity? Will she confirm that the unanimity rule, so-called, is in fact only a practice or convention and that it has no basis in law,

1015
and that the only rule governing voting in the Council of Ministers is the rule of qualified majority?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, it is perfectly true that it is a practice, a convention. But, as I said earlier, on major questions the Six Common Market countries as at present constituted have always had to proceed by consent.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, would my noble friend answer my question as to when we can hope to see the new fast fishery cruiser?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the tender has just gone out. In about a year, I hope.
LORD CAMOYS: My Lords, I want to support the noble Lord opposite on the question of animal health and ask the noble Baroness whether there is any possibility of preventing pollution of the sea by atomic waste and other horrible things that go into it?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, international discussions are going on about the question of pollution of the high seas.

PRIVATE BILL ETC. STANDING ORDERS
3.37 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL)THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL) rose to move, That the following amendment be made to the Standing Orders relating to Private Bills:—
Leave out Standing Order 163 (Appointment of new trustees to be with approbation of High Court).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the first Amendment, which is to leave out Standing Order 163, I should like to explain quite briefly its purpose. This Amendment and the subsequent Amendment are Amendments to Private Bill Standing Orders regulating procedure on personal Bills. I am informed that it is not the practice of the High Court, in exercising its jurisdiction to vary or approve settlements, to impose a requirement that the court must consent to the appointment of new trustees. I would, therefore, ask the House to agree to this
1016
Amendment, so that our procedure is brought into line with that of the High Court. I beg to move.
Moved, That the following amendment be made to the Standing Orders relating to Private Bills:—
Leave out Standing Order 163 (Appointment of new trustees to be with approbation of High Court).—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, in moving the second Amendment in my name, which is to leave out Standing Order 169, I should explain that this Standing Order was originally inserted because a trustee appointed by Act of Parliament, that is, as a result of a Personal Bill, could not refuse to accept the appointment. I am, however, of the opinion that the consent of trustees is covered by Standing Order 166, which provides that the consent of all parties concerned in the consequences of a personal Bill shall be proved to the satisfaction of the Committee on the Bill. Trustees affected by a Personal Bill are clearly concerned in the consequences of the Bill. In addition, this Standing Order requires trustees to give their consent in person before the Committee on the Bill. I suggest to the House that this additional precaution is unnecessary, because it is quite sufficient to obtain their consent in writing. For these reasons I am asking the House to agree to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the following amendment be made to the Standing Orders relating to Private Bills:—
Leave out Standing Order 169 (Trustees to consent in person).—(The Earl of Listowel)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY THEATRE (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
3.40 p.m.
BARONESS LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships have the Bill before you and I think you will agree that it is not a complicated or long one. It is simply asking that the live theatre should have the right to perform on Sundays. This right is already enjoyed by cinemas and by orchestras, large and small. People in their private homes are able to look at

1017
theatre on television; and, not least, in our pubs, more and more on a Sunday evening there is a sing-song or a concert of some kind, and, although it is not strictly within the letter of the law, there is no doubt at all that costume is quite often used. So it seems odd that I should have the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, representing Covent Garden, the National Theatre, the Coliseum, about sixty repertory companies, ardently asking that the theatres, for which he has a special responsibility as Chairman of the Arts Council, should have this privilege. The noble Lord. Lord Goodman, may be here before the end of this debate, but he has other pressures on him, and if lie fails to be here in time, I have his personal consent to say that he most ardently wishes the support of your Lordships' House for the passage of this Bill.
At the same time the managements of our commercial theatre are most anxious that your Lordships should agree that their theatres should be open on a Sunday—not for the whole of Sunday but only after one o'clock, so that many morning church services will not be interfered with at all. As we know, modern churchmen of all denominations have discarded the idea of a gloomy old-fashioned Sunday, on which you get people to church because there is nothing else that they can do. There are very few modern churchmen who would take this point of view. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, was kind enough, speaking as a distinguished Methodist leader, to say that he agreed with the purposes of this Bill. Other leading churchmen—I do not want to claim too much support—of all kinds of denominations have taken the same point of view.
Several Members of your Lordships' House have been a little worried whether the Bill would result in actors, mechanics, and other people being compelled to perform on seven days a week. They have also been a little disturbed because, in the original drafting of the Bill, there was specific mention of the six-day week. That specific mention is not included in the present Bill. I think I could best explain why by reading to your Lordships a passage from a letter which I received from Mr. Emile Littler, the chairman of the Theatres' National Committee. He says:
1018
"I am writing to you because I thought it might be as well if I explained to you the reasons why we are deleting from the previous draft of the Bill the provision that no performer would be employed on a Sunday who had been employed under the same contract to act on each of the six previous days. We were advised by the Home Office officials that it would be very difficult to draft this provision satisfactorily, "—
this is the important matter—
"and as we have previously given an undertaking to Equity in writing, which they have acknowledged, that we would not require their members to work more than six days a week on the same contract, it was agreed that it would be better to leave the matter to be dealt with between the Unions and Management in collective agreement negotiations."
The management side and the union side (Equity and the technical unions) feel it would be better that this question should be left for negotiation among themselves.
Mr. Littler goes on to explain part of the reasons. He says:
"Had the six day clause been part of the Bill, it might have stopped a small variety artiste, who works only during the Christmas season, from taking a Sunday engagement for a Christmas party, if he had been working in a variety bill, even doing only 10 minutes in a show, during the week. It might also have prevented an artiste who was appearing in a show, from giving a charity performance on a Sunday."
He then explains that he himself was very keen to have this written into the original Bill, but by common consent and the will of both management and unions it is agreed that this matter should be left to private negotiations between them.
I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, would have been Present, but to-day in his full-dress rehearsal for the Eugene O'Neill play which begins a week to-day. It was impossible for him to be here in person but he has written to me, and I could not possibly answer some of of the doubts and give some of the reasons behind this Bill more adequately and eloquently than in the way he writes in his letter. If your Lordships will bear with me, I should like to read a passage or two from his letter. He begins by saying:
"I will never forget during the war, how appalled I was by the sight of soldiers on leave having absolutely nothing to do on the Sunday except go to the pubs or sec a movie at the local cinema. What they saw at the local on the Sunday night was always a

1019
specially cheap old film that the cinema could foist on to these captive audiences."
I am not saying that that is the contemporary situation, but the noble Lord is recalling that he became concerned about this first of all during the days of the Second World War. He continues:
"There was a big movement afoot to open theatres on Sundays to look after these fellows a hit and the people in favour tried hard to sell the idea to the membership of my profession, at least as a wartime measure and to feel, if you like, that this was part of their war effort, but so strong-ingrained was the feeling of affectionate tradition regarding the famous English Sunday, that we did not succeed."
Lord Olivier goes on to make what I think is a very important point; namely,
"If the Sunday Observance Society had been strong enough to keep pubs closed on the Lord's Day and the cinemas shut also, not to mention Sunday concerts, the English Sunday would at least have consistency.
"But I do think the times of performances on Sunday should be restricted to between the beginning of the usual matinee time and the usual end of the evening performance time, and it must of course be"—
taken for granted that the free day will exist. He says:
"I think from every realistic point of view, from that of good business to that of employment, we must now bring the theatre within legalised Sunday entertainment."
He talked about fair play for our live theatre on a Sunday. He has expressed himself as a family man, and indeed in his last passage he writes:
"Perhaps I am strengthening my case a little by declaring that this is not to my own personal advantage, in fact being a family man, very much the reverse as it will indeed be to any professional person who is a parent, but cardinal in the nature of our business is that our work is other people's play."
I think that last paragraph expresses the generosity of Lord Olivier's personal character. Of course he does not want to work on Sunday, and neither does his talented and distinguished actress wife. They want a free day on Sunday. Who does not? But the theatre, like so many other occupations, is casual in its labour. There are times when there is no work at all—alas! far too many times. There are times when, although their main contract may be for a six-day week, those employed, want to be free, if an offer comes along from television, a charity show, perhaps a seaside performance, to take on this extra work.
1020
I have talked about our great repertory companies. Most of the young people engaged in them are underpaid, and often have to starve for years. The lazy ones are weeded out, because it is no good just being Daddy's girl, or Mummy's boy. You may have influence to get your start, but you will not get very far unless you have staying power, and unless you can accept the disciplines of the training. I think almost without exception the young ones are eager for Sunday opening. Some of them say, "Normally when we travel on a Sunday it is the fish or us." Sunday is not an ideal day for travelling, so even in terms of their personal convenience they would see some advantages in the theatre opening on Sunday.
Another important point is that if the live theatre is not only to survive but to flourish, it must attract a wider audience. After all, at the beginning of the century there were the music halls, and not only in the large cities; there were concert halls even in the smallest towns. In fact, my playground as a child was a music hall. I owned it and everything around it, in the way a child owns everything. Actually, my father managed it, my great uncle owned it, my grandmother owned the hotel, and my mother managed it, so that the whole world I surveyed was my world. It was very common at one time for there to be a lively music hall where there would be folk music, sentimental plays, old-fashioned plays, D'Oyly Carte and the visiting opera companies. But the cinema came, together with radio and television; and since then our little theatre has had a very bad time indeed. Most of the theatres have either vanished or been converted into cinemas, and many of the cinemas have now been converted into bingo halls.
We are not engaged in banning people from the leisures that they choose, but what civilised society must surely do is to give a diversity of choice. If anyone wants bingo, then good luck to him! If anyone wants to go to a good old do "in his local pub, then good luck to him, too ! But I hope that no one will encourage my friend and colleague Lord Longford to go to some of our Midland clubs on a Sunday. They are not vulgar; they are bawdy—and there is a big difference. All we are asking is that we do not take away from anyone what gives

1021
him pleasure. and that we should encourage our living theatre, the best of our actors and actresses. And I am not talking only of high drama or opera or ballet; I am talking about the family that goes for a holiday at the seaside. What guarantee have they that it is not going to be wet on a Sunday evening; and why should this one form of entertainment be denied to them? They can go and get drunk in a pub if they want to; they can go to a sleazy night club, or to a cinema, good or bad; but they cannot go to a living theatre. That seems so wrong. Many of your Lordships have an enthusiasm, which I do not share, for going into the Common Market. On the Continent they think we are crazy to have our theatres closed on a Sunday. In this island we depend for our livelihood on attracting as much tourist trade as we can, but visitors from abroad, as well as our own people, coming to the cities for a week-end find that the theatres arc closed on a Sunday.
I am not going to go into the details of this Bill, which is a very simple one. This is only the Second Reading, and there will be ample time for any legal points to be raised. Furthermore, there are other Members of your Lordships' House, with a lifelong knowledge of the theatre, who will contribute. I just want to say this. For me, in my childhood, Sunday was the best day of the week and it was the day we looked forward to. For us, it was both a holiday and a holy day. My father was a deeply religious man, not in a narrow sense, but not as one who belonged to any particular Christian denomination. If you had to put a label on him, he was a humanist. But he worked very hard for his trade union' movement and in the Labour Movement, trying to help his fellow-men in the fight against poverty and in the attempt to get a better life. Sunday was the day that we were with our father. It was a family day. But there was no reason why you should not go to a Socialist Sunday School and hear the ten Socialist commandments. or go to the Methodist chapel, to the Catholic church, or to the Jewish synagogue. One thing does not exclude another. But I feel that Sunday is the family day, providing an opportunity for old and young to enjoy themselves, together or separately. There is surely no reason at the present time why families should not be able to
1022
go to the theatre together. You might ask: what about the other nights of the week? But more than ever these days men and women do not leave their work at the factory door. At the end of the days' work they have to get a bus, a train or a car home, and life is such that, by the time they have earned their living and have got home and cooked themselves a meal and done a bit of cleaning up, very often all they want to do is to put their feet up and look at the television.
I am not speaking in opposition to television, but I would say this about it. We are told,
"A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deep or leave it alone."
I say the opposite about television. I say that a little television is not a dangerous thing, but that to drink deep and have too much of it, and too continuously, especially where children are concerned, is a dangerous thing. Indeed, there is a danger of the "telly" becoming a substitute for the old-fashioned dummy teat: the way to keep the children quiet is just to sit them in front of the "telly". But there is a revolution beginning in our schools, which I think will come to the rescue of the theatre. Particularly in the primary schools, children are being given a sense of movement and drama and design. These will be the theatre-goers of the future, and the theatre of the future will be what we care to make it; there are fashions in the theatre, as there are in everything else. Surely it is better that, instead of thinking of a nation sitting like fascinated rabbits for hour after hour watching television, there should be a diversity of choice. They should have all the television they want, especially if they are very tired and their feet are sore and they cannot go out. But if at the week-end the old and the young want to go out to the enchantment, excitement and stimulus of the living theatre, then they should be able to do so. I hope that we in this House feel that we are no enemy of any man's religion; that we do not want Sunday to be the same as any other day of the week; that we want Sunday to be a day of rest, a day of refreshment and recreation, but that we want it to be a happy day, a holiday, as well as a holy day.
This is a simple Bill. It has nothing to do with sport, or with the fear that some people have of a great deal of congestion and noise. We can leave those

1023
questions entirely aside. I am simply asking your Lordships to be good enough to agree that this ban on the live theatre on a Sunday is an anachronism, and that the time has now come when, in the interests of employment, in the interests of the living theatre, in the interests of that vast talent that we have in our theatres, and in the interests of the enlargement of life, it should at last be lifted. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª. —(Baroness Lee of Asheridge.)

THE EMPLOYMENT SERVICE
3.58 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I hope that it will be acceptable to your Lordships if I now repeat the Statement that has been made by my honourable friend the Minister of State to the Department of Employment. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the future of the public employment service. My right honourable friend has to-day made available in the Vote Office and through the Department's local offices copies of a Report entitled People and Jobs which outlines a programme for modernising the Employment Service. This programme is based on a review my right honourable friend has been making of all the Department's manpower services. We acknowledge the debt we have owed during that review to earlier work on the Employment Service including the comments received from many individuals and organisations on the Consultative Document of May, 1970.
"The Employment Service has important economic and social functions. It has responsibilities for improving the operation of the labour market and for helping people who have difficulty in finding or keeping satisfactory employment. The present service is undoubtedly doing good work in both these respects; but for largely historical reasons it is not able fully and effectively to meet the many and varied needs of employers and workers in a modern labour market.
1024
"Accordingly the Government is making major changes in the way the service is organised and run. These are set out in detail in the Report. The main changes are:
First, the Employment Service is to become a departmental agency—that is, a self-managing unit within the Department of Employment. A newly appointed Chief Executive will be directly responsible for the efficient performance of the service.
Second, the staff and offices dealing with placing and other employment work, on the one hand, and administration of unemployment benefit, on the other, will be separated and unemployment benefit will be paid by post.
Third, job self-service and vacancy displays will be extended to all local employment offices, and the staff and training requirements of advisory interviewing work will be thoroughly reviewed.
Fourth, a new network of attractively designed well located employment offices will be developed.
Fifth, plans for re-styling the pro. fessional and executive register and charging employers for the service will be urgently followed up.
Sixth, a new division of responsibility between the Department of Employment and local authorities will be established for giving careers guidance and a placing service for young people.
"As the House will realise, it will not be possible to make all these changes overnight. The Chief Executive, supported by a management team which has been freed from responsibilities for day-to-day work, will be responsible for carrying out the modernisation programme as quickly as practicable in full consultation with staff and other interests concerned.
"The Government is determined to carry through this programme with all urgency, and believes it will provide the positive and dynamic public service which is required as an effective instrument of manpower policies in modern employment conditions."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating what is an extremely important Statement, and one which really will be very significant in the field of employment. I am grateful, too, for the noble Lord's acknowledgement of the previous work done. These proposals are, as he said, based on the Consultative Document of the previous Government. and I only wish the noble Lord had referred to the part of my right honourable friend Mrs. Barbara Castle, who brought energy to bear on this matter.
Although I have given a broad welcome to this Statement, the fact remains that I am disappointed that the Government have taken so long to make it. I can only conclude that they were so busy with the Industrial Relations Bill that that took priority; and I would ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that, as we pointed out in the debate on industrial relations, the saving of even a single day in placing each person unemployed would in total exceed the number of days lost through strikes. We gave the noble Lord these figures during the debate, and my noble friend also has them. If the noble Lord works it out, he will find that this is so. Therefore the highest priority is necessary; and all the more so while unemployment is running at its present level. I will not enter into a discussion on that now, but the need for a much more highly-geared employment service is very great indeed. I note that the noble Lord said that a new management team is going to look at the setting up of the organisation. I am glad to see that the same concept of semi-hived-off. management by objective style and accountable management style organisation is to be set up. Intending no reflection on the excellent work previously done, I would say that it will need to take on a rather different image; and I am sure the noble Lord will acknowledge that.
May I ask the noble Lord how far the discussions with the staff side have gone? I would have hoped that in the seventeen months that have elapsed since this Government came into office we might have gone a lot further along the road. My main complaint is that these proposals are not as sweeping as ours were. But, as I said, I give the Statement a welcome. I urge the Minister to use his influence
1026
to press on as hard as possible, and possibly even look at some of the devoted work which was done, both in the Department of Employment and Productivity and, indeed, in other Departments, on this subject.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I slightly deprecate the rather grudging welcome from the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition. The prodigal son was welcomed home, not chided for being late when he came home. It is so rare to get something very good from this Government that we must welcome it indeed. From these Benches I should like to welcome it wholeheartedly, and to say how particularly important think the separation of the administration of unemployment benefit will be, and the payment of unemployment benefit by post, and also the careers guidance for young people. The only question I would ask is, I think, an important one. Would the Minister care to comment on the one really important subject which is not mentioned in this Statement at all? Surely almost the most important job of the Department and of the service will be channelling people into retraining—which is so important, as we on these Benches have been pointing out, at this particular moment, with the large amount of unemployment that exists. There is no mention of this at all in the Statement. I wonder whether the noble would like to repair the omission.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will not mind me—
LORD SHACKLETON: Is the noble Lord going to answer?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I will willingly answer, but I thought it might be convenient if so distinguished a noble Lord as the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, were to speak first. If the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, would prefer it, and thinks it is more in accordance with the usual custom, I will of course answer his points now.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am bound to say that I am in a difficulty and I apologise to the House that I should be at a Committee of the House; but it is customary, I think, to answer the first two speeches before the points get lost. I fully agree with the noble

1027
Lord's comments about the importance of any contribution which will come from my noble friend.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Then perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, will allow me to reply now: I shall listen to his contribution later. My Lords, I am very grateful for the way in which this Statement has been received, and for the recognition of its importance. I fully recognise this is an urgent matter. On the other hand, I think I am bound to point out that, in the nature of the case, the whole body of these proposals will take some time to work out. But I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that, as I have said, the Government are determined to proceed with all possible haste in these matters. I am sorry if he thinks that the acknowledgement in the Statement was in any way grudging. I am not sure that it is always necessary to refer to personalities in these matters, but I thought the acknowledgement was—
LORD SHACKLETON: Better than most.
LORD DRUMALBYN: —better than most.
The noble Lord asked about the discussions with the staff side. Of course, these mainly relate to the matters affecting the employment of staff, and these will arise mainly in the sector dealing with separation. In the nature of the case, this is bound to proceed slowly. So far as the general question of the staff's duties is concerned, the management has been set a goal for its proposals: that they should be completed by October of next year; and that will, I hope, give adequate opportunity for discussions with the staff side. I am also glad that the noble Lord welcomed the management team. It is, I think, a good team. It is a small one, I believe, and it has representatives from outside the Department as well as from inside.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for his remarks. He asked about channelling people into retraining. I fully agree with him on the importance of this work, and this is something that has not been overlooked in any way. The occupational guidance service which was set up during the term of office of the Party opposite is already
1028
dealing with something like 45, 000 people a year, and it is expected that this number will increase very considerably. The advice given to those who come to the employment board will certainly include advice on the retraining facilities that are available. As the noble Lord will understand, the actual training does not come immediately into this Statement, but advice about what is existing does.
LORD COOPER or STOCKTON HEATH: My Lords, while we may agree with the noble Lord that the method of payment, the method of training and the method of placing is very important, I think we ought to keep a sense of proportion about this matter. In a situation where there are almost a million unemployed people we are at this stage almost in the realm of theory. If any message at all were to go from this House to the other place, I hope that it would be a message about the urgent need to do everything possible to relax the overall economy, so that we can get the size of this great army of unemployed labour down to proportions where the proposals may have some meaning.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I fully take the noble Lord's point, but I think that in this regard Lord Shackleton's point was also relevant, and the more quickly we can get people into the jobs available as they arise the better. The whole object of this exercise is to get the needs of the employers, for jobs to be filled, and those of the workers, to find jobs, satisfied as efficiently and as quickly as possible.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it would obviously be a great convenience if the payment of unemployment benefits were made by post. But what is going to happen in the event of disputes as to the entitlement amounts? These will be quite numerous, and I wonder whether the noble Lord has any specific arrangements in mind for dealing with this matter.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord says that these arrangements will be quite new. They have been in operation already in the Greater London area and I am not aware of any particular difficulty arising through mistakes in payments. But I will make inquiries and let the noble Lord know.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I endorse what was said by my noble friend Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath and I agree with him that one must see this matter in the perspective of the present unemployment situation. I am also mindful of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. Nevertheless I am bound to ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, whether he would not agree, after this delay of 17 months, that the proposals which were put forward on a consultative basis by the former Government have not been developed or expanded during this lapse of time; that rather, so far as one can judge from the Statement made, they have been substantially diminished? Would he not agree, for example, that the proposal for a network of manpower centres, which was a feature of the Consultative Document, does not have a place in the present proposals? I do not think that the new employment offices to which the noble Lord referred are intended to cover the ground of the manpower centres. Would he not further agree that these proposals appear likely to be giving, over a fairly wide field of employment, a further lease of life to fee-paying agencies? I take the point, of course, that in respect of professional persons the Department is to seek to take over this work; hut, as I understand it, in the remaining fields of industry the fee-paying agencies, where they exist at the moment, will have a further lease of life. Lastly, would the noble Lord say whether it is intended to make the careers guidance work mandatory on local authorities?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, asked about the comparison between what is proposed here, what is to be brought into operation, and what was proposed by the Labour Government. I think, my Lords, that to a large extent it is a matter of nomenclature. What was to be done by the manpower centres is, I understand already being worked out. For example, there is the computer service for vacancies circulation in London; the experiment that has been made in Birmingham, and the extension of that experiment to some ten cities in the coming year. There are also the proposals for manpower intelligence which will be brought within the duties of the manager of each employ
1030
ment exchange. It will be for the management team to decide how best to coordinate those. So far as the question of a fresh lease of life to fee-paying agencies is concerned, I must make clear that the Government do not envisage any kind of monopoly of the services in this area. Nor would it be posible for them to give the variety of services that are required, both by employers and also by employees, if they did envisage a monopoly. My Lords, the last question which the noble Lord asked was about the new employment service and whether it would be mandatory. This is a matter which my right honourable friend is going to discuss with the local authority associations. He has not yet made up his mind about it.
4.18 p.m.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, I am very concerned about this problem because I am probably one of the few who have "signed on the dole" for years and wondered why. I have discovered, in the years that have passed by, that unless there is sufficient investment inside industry there is no hope at all of curing the unemployment problem. I have discovered that, following the investment, following the provision of the necessary money, you must have the necessary skilled employees. That brings me to the question: is the present employment exchange, which we used to call the unemployment exchange, sufficiently able to obtain the necessary skilled labour which would warrant the necessary investment in industry? The unskilled labour in any country—make no mistake about this, my Lords—is completely dependent on two things: first, money, and secondly, skilled labour. It seems to me that the question posed to the House is whether independent selective employment agencies can supply the skilled labour better than State-controlled employment agencies. I do not know the answer to that. If the State can supply the skilled labour, let it say so. If the independent agencies can supply the skilled labour, let it not be denied. Because we have to decide which of these can supply the skilled labour before we get the investment. If we then decide how to get investment in this country. we shall resolve a lot of problems. I have heard many arguments lately about whether we should have foreign capital in this country, and

1031
whether we should have the highest concentration of capital inside the country or whether we should not. I think that we must attract the capital inside the country before ultimately deciding what is to be done about labour. Having got the capital, we must then get the skilled labour. If we are to exclude the independent people who really got the skilled labour inside this country—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, I will give way for a reply.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I began to think that perhaps he was going a little further than we generally go in putting a point after a Statement had been made. Perhaps I could reply simply in this way. In this Statement we are not really concerned with the actual supply of trained labour; we are concerned with the means of bringing together the employer, whoever he may be, and the possessor of that skilled labour. The view that I expressed in response to a question asked earlier was that in discharging this task we need to call upon all available agencies. The employer may himself prefer to advertise directly for his requirements; he may prefer to do so through an employment agency, or he may prefer to go to the employment exchange. The object of these proposals is to encourage him to prefer to go to the employment exchange, and to put down his requirements and notify his vacancies there. The difficulty in the past has been that employers have not been notifying as many of their vacancies as we should like. We hope that in future it will be possiable for them to double the number of vacancies that they notify.
LORD DOUGLASS Or CLEVELAND: My Lords, I accept that argument. I was not aware that I was arguing against it. We must encourage people to go to the labour exchange; but the fact is that they have been encouraged by events to go elsewhere. Is the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, suggesting that we ought to exclude all the outside agencies who bring skilled labour into contact with the money which is necessary for the development of industry? His argument must surely be—and I am sure this is the view on this
1032
side—that if we cannot bring together the skilled labour and the necessary investment there is no hope for the future. Surely what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is arguing now is that we should encourage all vacancy notifications to come within a certain ambit.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, may I ask a question? I must at least be allowed to ask a question. Is it suggested that if employers who want skilled labour make a different approach from the State-controlled one suggested by Lord Drumalbyn—if they go to the independent people who bring together investment and labour—this is wrong?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords; I have tried to suggest the contrary. We want to use all available agencies possible in order to match those offering jobs with those seeking jobs. What I said was that we think that the employment exchanges, after 60 years in more or less the same pattern, could he modernised in such a way as to attract a greater share of the employers to notify vacancies to them, so that they could place a greater proportion of the employees in work.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, may I ask a further question? Is the noble Lord advocating the eradication of all the employment agencies except the State-controlled ones? It seems to me that that is what this argument leads to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords. I was merely saying that we do not think the employment exchanges do as large a share of the work as they could do.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, after listening to the various contributions that have been made, am I to assume from the Statement that all the employment exchanges are to come within the ambit of the main employment exchange? Is that to be the position? Or will there be the employment exchanges with this proposal additional to them? The noble Lord said that the Government want other sectors who may he able to help. I have recently seen on Tyne-Tees Television advertisements of certain vacancies in Newcastle and the surrounding area. This is a means of advertisement which could be of some assistance: and if more of this were done it might help.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I hope I have made it clear—I have endeavoured to do so—that there are three main ways of recruitment. One is by the employer advertising directly: the other, is by going to private exchanges, and the third is by using the employment exchange. We do not intend to cut off any of those three sources. We want to improve the last.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, I am going to insist.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, if I may speak for just a moment, there is a great deal of additional Business on the Order Paper. The noble Lord has already spoken—
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, I am still on the original question. I am in order. I am asking the question now. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that not enough work is going to the labour exchange, which is where it should be going. I am asking whether there is a reason for this. I am asking whether the labour exchanges are sufficiently capable of dealing with this problem. If they are, does the problem of the outside agencies arise? But this problem does arise; and it increases unemployment.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, I have a right to ask this question. I do not care how many agencies we have so long as they help to decrease unemployment. I am going to follow that particular line.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with the answers I have given because I do not see how I can add to them. I am sure that he will read this paper, People and Jobs, and then perhaps we could discuss the matter further.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, I conclude by saying that, with a million unemployed, I am not at all sure that any agencies are satisfactory. But I shall pursue this question at a future date.

SUNDAY THEATRE (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
4.28 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should like now to continue the debate on the Sunday Theatre Bill. When I spoke on Lord Strabolgi's Sunday Cinema Bill last week I described the attitude of the Government as one of benevolent neutrality. The same remark applies to the Bill which the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, has commended to your Lordships to-day in such a remarkably persuasive speech. This means that the Government are sympathetic to the aims of the promoter and would not wish to do anything to impede the Bill's progress. If the Bill passes through your Lordships' House it will, however, need to make progress in another place on its merits, and I am afraid that owing to the very heavy programme of legislation I am not in a position to offer either Government time or drafting assistance. Nevertheless, I have had an opportunity to discuss the Bill with the noble Baroness and her advisers, and I am glad that my Department have been able to be of some assistance in the framing of the No. 2 Bill. I am advised that there are still one or two minor defects in the Bill, but these are fairly technical and can be straightened out in Committee. My noble friend the Paymaster General had hoped to speak for the Government in this debate, but unfortunately he has suffered from a bout of 'flu and has to have his energies for the further debates on museum charges later this afternoon. But he has asked me to say that from his standpoint as Minister with responsibility for the Arts he looks on the objects of this Bill favourably.
Since the war, much has been done to encourage the writing and production of plays. The reputation of the British theatre to-day stands very high. Visitors from overseas have paid many well-deserved compliments to the standard of

1035
acting, of writing and of production. We can take pride in the fact that artistically the theatre is flourishing to an extent that has not often been achieved in the past. But while the tourists and the visitors turn up at the box office in their thousands, we have not yet done enough to attract British audiences. Cinemas have been open on Sundays in most cities and towns for many years now; and a wide variety of television programmes are available on three channels. These newer media (partly perhaps because they are newer) are privileged in comparison with the theatre, and in a way that is contrary to the best interests of the Arts.
The live theatre must draw audiences —domestic audiences as well as visitors —and at times that are convenient for the widest possible theatre-going public. As the noble Baroness reminded us, not everyone has the time, even perhaps the energy, to get to the theatre after work in the evening. Things are more leisurely on Sunday, and there seems little doubt that if plays could be performed on Sundays they would attract a bigger audience than on Mondays, and perhaps than on some other days of the week, too. This can only be in the interests of a healthy theatre, in close contact with and appreciated by as many people as possible.
The noble Baroness referred to the fact that her Bill does not specifically lay down that no one employed in the theatre should work for more than six days out of every seven. Such an omission would not, I think, find favour with many of your Lordships if the promoters could not tell us that they have discussed this with the unions concerned, and that in their view satisfactory arrangements and safeguards can be made. The Government see no objection to a Bill of this kind without a clause on seven day work, because we believe that it is desirable, wherever possible, to regulate terms and conditions of employment by means of voluntary collective bargaining rather than by statutory provision. I understand that this will be the case here, and no doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, will give us such information as she can on this matter as the Bill progresses through your Lordships' House.
But, my Lords, this Bill is not only about the theatre and those who work in
1036
it. It is also about Sunday, a day of worship for some and of rest for most. I doubt whether any of your Lordships would want Sunday to be the same as Saturday or as Monday. We may have a religious concern for keeping Sunday different; or our concern might spring from reasons of health, physical or mental, or just common sense. As the Crathorne Committee acknowledged. Sunday has a special character quite apart from its religious significance. So the arguments are very strong for keeping Sunday as a day of rest for the great majority. But inevitably some people have to work on Sundays to keep certain public services going. As an increasingly large proportion of the population have the opportunity to go out and enjoy themselves on Sunday, employment has to go on in all sorts of ways to provide for leisure activities—traffic control, garages, restaurants, pubs, park-keepers; all those whose work, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, which the noble Baroness quoted to us earlier, is "other people's play ".
My Lords, I do not believe that there is any chance that the Churches will be threatened by this Bill. if there was evidence to the contrary, the Government would want to think long and hard before declaring themselves to be even benevolently neutral. A man becomes, and remains, a Christian because he believes. If he does not believe, restrictions on the opening of theatres on Sunday seem hardly likely to encourage his conversion. In 1780, when the Sunday Observance Act was placed on the Statute Book, the relationship between the Churches and the people, between work and leisure, were very different from what they are to-day. Maybe an essentially modern obstacle to the propagation of the Christian faith can be found in the widespread ignorance that there is any reality that lies behind what we Perceive with our senses and apprehend with our reason. I hope it is not too high-flown to claim that the Arts can contribute to removing this ignorance. Good art has always taught men something true about the human condition.
Let us not, therefore, as we consider this Bill, make the mistake of setting up considerations of religious observance, on the one hand, and of leisure activities, on

1037
the other, as being in conflict with one another. They are not in conflict. They are part of the same continuous spectrum, the whole of which is illuminated—or is capable of being illuminated—by art. Of course, not all theatrical performances on a Sunday, any more than on any other day of the week, will measure up to these aspirations. But some will—make no mistake about that—as they do now, not only in the West End, but in other parts of the country as well. Others may do little more than make live performances available to people who at the moment can see drama only though the filter of the cinema screen or the television set. If we have faith in the theatre and its potential, as we should; if we take pride in its achievements, as we can, then it is difficult to see why the two-centuries-old restrictions on Sunday opening of theatres should survive for much longer.
It is for reasons of that sort, as well as those which I mentioned earlier, that I can congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, on her initiative in bringing forward this Bill, and assure her of the good will of those who sit on this Front Bench.
4.38 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT or WHITLEY: My Lords, I should like to give my support to this Bill, which I think is a major step forward. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, is not here this afternoon: he might find that A Long Day's Journey into Night is going on here too; but I will do my best not to add to that. As noble Lords have previously said, finding and planning the means of recreation for the country is going to be a growing problem. This is so regardless of the days we are talking about. If there is going to be growing technological unemployment, as many of us fear, the whole idea of recreation and its provision will require a great deal more thought than it has had in the past; and I think it is unrealistic to put up too many artificial barriers in the way of particular dates, times or places.
The theological problem is not, I think, a difficult one. In speaking of this, I was going to apologise for possibly pre-empting the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. But as we have both already been pre-empted by what seemed to me to be a very good theologi
1038
cal exposition by the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench, there is no need for me to follow him except to say that, as Christians, we have a duty to decide whether a measure put forward, as seen by us as Christians, is for the good of society; and if we do so judge that it is good for society, then it is no part of the Christian duty in any way to object to that merely because it might be inconvenient for Christians, as such. Christians are here to be at the service of the world for what is generally good, rather than to put barriers in the way from a selfish point of view.
I have one reservation, and one extra point of condemnation, on this Bill. The reservation is about not writing a six-day week into the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Lee, assured us about the amount of agreement that will go forward between Equity and the technical unions, on the one side, and the theatre managements, on the other. But she will not be unaware that the Government's Industrial Relations Bill has grievously weakened the position of Equity with regard to the employers. Many of her colleagues and many people on these Benches, and some people from the Conservative Benches, voiced fears during the passing of the Industrial Relations Act that it opened the way to fly-by-night managements who cannot have agreements forced on them by Equity. Nothing has happened since then to calm those fears. I know that it is likely to concern a minority of cases, but I believe that this is a point that we might well consider at a later stage of the Bill.
The extra thing which I believe to be in the Bill's favour is that it will allow increasing opportunities for the young in an already overcrowded profession, in that the spare day--Monday or whichever day it is—can well be given over to performances by members of Equity producing one-night stands without charging, as is sometimes done, or club performances on Sundays. This will be a very good vehicle for young people to gain experience and for the trying out of productions of one kind or another. I see this as a very valuable by-product of the Bill as it is drafted.
Lastly, I would say that, if I did have any doubts about this Bill, it seems to me that in judging the measures before us in

1039
a free society the burden of proof should be on those who wish to restrict freedom, and the assumption should always be in favour of freedom. I do not see that any burden of proof has been undertaken by anybody as to why these restrictions should have been made or, since they have been made, why they should be continued. I think it will be a very good thing indeed when they are taken off, and I hope that the Government will be able to sec their way to give this Bill a bit of a fair wind later.
4.43 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: My Lords, I must confess to a somewhat more tempered enthusiasm for the Bill than was exhibited by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, whichever of his collars he is wearing, because I do first of all speak positively, wishing to make my own the sentiments voiced by the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of York, from these Benches in 1965 when the Crathorne Committee Report was under consideration. If I may briefly quote him, he said:
"I welcome the case for the whole man which has obviously motivated the drawing up of this Report, and I welcome, as indeed the vast majority of Churchmen would. the desire to eliminate from the Statute Book anomalies and anachronisms in legislation which only bring the matter of Sunday Observance into ridicule. It is clear to my mind that those who served on this Departmental Committee had in mind that we must work for such conditions as will allow men and women to have, not a Sunday which is drab and boring, but one which provides for re-creation … of body, mind and spirit, for refreshment and renewal of the whole person. Such a day once a week is a very important factor— would say a vital factor—in the growth of men and women."
With those positive sentiments transferred from the Crathorne Committee to this Bill I would fully identify myself. I have nevertheless three reservations, which arc themselves based not on religious grounds but precisely on the ground which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, referred to, on the restriction of liberty. The first is my doubt as to whether there is in fact sufficient safeguard for those who do not wish to be compelled to work a seven-day week. When I say "compelled" I do not mean legally compelled, but compelled by those sorts of pressure which in a crowded profession exercise
1040
a very considerable pressure: the fear of losing work and pay through not competing with one's neighbours when everybody else is doing it, and often thereby having to accept roles which are uncongenial and undesired simply because the pressure of circumstances released by such a Bill would make it very difficult to resist.
My second scruple, when I read the Bill in its second form as compared with the first, was whether the local option was sufficiently retained. I find it hard to see where this is provided for in the No. 2 Bill. There was, for example, an expression of opinion on behalf of the Welsh Churches, that while agreeing in principle they would wish to see freedom for local opting out if relaxation took place, so that areas in Wales could be given local options. It would seem, my Lords, a very important part of all cultural legislation that we should recognise that the United Kingdom is a community of very varying cultural climate. One of our important considerations in such a representative House as this is to remember continually that London is not England and although the Bill does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland I still believe that there are many parts of the United Kingdom in England and Wales where the climate of sentiment would not so readily wish to avail itself. I want to be reassured that this draft of the Bill makes provision for local opting out in the way that I understood the first draft of the Bill to do.
Thirdly, I have scruples about the hour of 1 p.m. It seems to me too early. not because church services are affected—that position clearly is safeguarded so far as morning worship is concerned, and in any case that was not an aspect of the matter on which I should wish to dwell—but because of an entirely different matter, that of Sunday dinner. I believe that in many parts of this country the Sunday midday meal is one of the really few family occasions that remain, and this is vastly important at a time when more and more housewives arc themselves employed. I would regard it as a very sad restriction of the fullness of family life if, by encouraging a curtailment of that all-too-rare occasion when the family gathers as a family, we were to encourage that almost sacramental moment to be abandoned.

1041
I listened most carefully to the very persuasive advocacy of this Bill by the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, and almost all my first scruple was removed. I recognise the force of what was said in the letter quoted from Mr. Emile Littler on behalf of the Theatres National Committee, of which she sent me a copy. I still think that there are real dangers in the kind of economic pressures in the overcrowded state of the theatrical profession which would make it very difficult for some people to resist having to take jobs in Sunday entertainment which on all other grounds they would wish they did not have to take. Clearly in a plural society such as ours the right of those who wish to worship is fully safeguarded in this provision which is made, but I should still like to ask the noble Baroness, when she replies, to give us some further assurance about local freedom to opt out in those areas of the country where the benefits of the Bill will not be so self-evident as they seem to be in other quarters. I should also like to know whether the early hour of 1 p.m. is necessarily the best, and whether all the positive advantages which this Bill envisages could not be met by a somewhat later hour of opening, allowing, as I suppose one must, for the large number of people who would have to be employed considerably before the formal hour of the beginning of the performance. That is the reason why my enthusiasm is somewhat tempered, though I should like nothing better than to find by the time the Bill has passed through all its stages that all my scruples have been satisfied.
4.51 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the Second Reading of this Bill. I was always a supporter of the Crathorne Committee's Report which I thought was very moderate, very balanced and very sensible. Your Lordships will remember the debate that we had on the Bill introduced by my noble friend, Lord Willis. I did not take any part in it, but I heard it all from the Woolsack. We had a number of Amendments moved at the Committee stage, and some on the Report stage. None of them succeeded on a completely free vote they were all defeated on their merits. I thought at the time that it was remarkable that this
1042
quite substantial Private Member's Bill should leave this House exactly as it arrived.
Tonight we are dealing only with a small part, the theatre. This has always in the past suffered under a disadvantage. The Crathorne Committee said, in paragraph 84 of their Report:
"In principle, we could find no justification for treating theatres and variety entertainment differently from cinemas and music and the figures we quoted in paragraph 50 show that, even if all the theatres opened on Sunday, the increase in Sunday employment would be only a small fraction of 0·6 per cent. of all employed persons."
After dealing with possible objections the Committee came to the conclusion that this was a course which ought to be taken. It is now a long time since the cinemas, or most cinemas, opened on Sundays. The theatre has always been under this very unfair handicap. Of course, you could have 40, 000 people at Brand's Hatch, or watching "Sunday night at the London Palladium "which was about the most popular feature of the week on television. It really was absurd that you could not see the show being performed at the Palladium, if it was at the Palladium, or in the studio, if it was in a studio.
I do not want to take up any time about this. I agree that we must at a later stage consider the position of Equity. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that the Industrial Relations Act has weakened the position of actors and actresses in relation to theatrical managers. However, we shall be able to satisfy ourselves that we can meet that position. The House may remember that in Appendix D of the Crathorne Committee's Report it was shown that when the then 11,000 members of Equity were asked. "Are you opposed to the Sunday opening of theatres under any conditions? ", only 401 members replied, "Yes ". With those few words I commend the Second Reading of the Bill to the House, and hope that, under the guidance of my noble friend Lady Lee, it may do well both in this House and in the other place.
4.54 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am very glad from these Benches to support the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, and indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner,

1043
in bringing forward this Bill; and I congratulate the noble Baroness in the way that she did it. Although what I have to say represents purely personal views, I must declare an interest inasmuch as I have always been interested in the theatre. I helped to found the English Stage Company at the Royal Court, and I am now President of the British Drama League, and also of the Chichester Festival Theatre, of which the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, was the first Director. Although on this occasion I am not speaking on their behalf, I have none the less a strong impression that the Bill receives the support of the great majority of the 4, 000 members of the British Drama League. Some of these members represent societies and drama organisations which make a total of probably around 20, 000 people.
Most of the Drama League week-end courses and summer centres already take place on Sundays. In many cases Sunday is the only day of the week in which people are able to involve themselves in such activities. I also have the impression, both from the correspondence I have received and from what I have heard from noble Lords this afternoon, that this Bill has the support of a majority of the British theatrical profession as a whole. In regard to Chichester, if I may speak about what I know, we have regular Sunday night celebrity concerts which are allowed to include such highly theatrical events as Emlyn Williams as Dickens, or Micheal Mac Liammoir as Oscar Wilde, both productions in costume. Sometimes there are even "pop" musical events on these Sunday nights.
It seems to me quite nonsensical, even ludicrous, that people may do almost everything else on a Sunday—look at the television, go to the movies, listen to concerts or readings—yet are not able to visit the living theatre. I am not committing the Chichester Board in any way by speaking this afternoon. They will decide on their merits whether they should close on Sunday or on Monday. They should have freedom of choice, and, I should like to say to the right reverend Prelate, freedom to opt out if they wish to do so.
Like the noble Baroness, and others who have spoken, I am of the firm
1044
opinion that since cinemas have the right to open seven days a week, the theatre should be allowed to do so too, or at least should have the right to choose which days it opens. It may be that many theatres would like to close on Mondays as on the Continent. No-one is suggesting that artistes should be expected to perform seven days without a day off. A free day is essential, and on this I agree with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Olivier. Having spent over five years of my working life in Paris—and it was a very hard-working period—I know that the one evening a week when my wife and I felt free to go to the theatre was on a Sunday. I know, too, that in this country overseas visitors would welcome this facility.
The theatre is the servant of the people. If the public want to be entertained at the weekend—as they certainly do on the Continent and in all the countries within the European Community which we are shortly to join—and as from television viewing figures, even in this country, it would seem that they also wish to be entertained on Sundays, I feel that the theatre should be able to accommodate them. With great respect to the Lord's Day Observance Society, there are many worse things that people might be doing on Sunday evenings than going out to the theatre. Chichester is a well known cathedral city. Our own right reverend Prelate is on the council of our theatre trust. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester has not, to my knowledge, objected to any of the activities that I have already mentioned as taking place on Sunday evenings—indeed, I know that he welcomes many of them. And, pace what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol has said, I cannot believe that our own Bishop would object. Nor do I think that his predecessor, the right reverend Dr. George Bell, who was greatly interested in the theatre, would have objected; and I knew him very well indeed. Most of us understand the point about restricting the activities of commercialised sport, but it does not apply to activities that do not interfere with others. My Lords, I gladly support the noble Baroness in introducing this Bill.
5.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, I must oppose this Bill, and that for the reason that I believe that Sunday is a

1045
God-given day for worship and recreation, and it is needed by members of the acting profession more than any of us. In this connection, I should like to quote from a petition signed by 48 actors and actresses in 1953. This is what they said:

ACTORS AND ACTRESSES PETITION FOR PROTECTION.
"Actors and Actresses earnestly and humbly beg that the House of Commons will not allow them to be compelled, in the interest of commercial managements, to work on Sundays, but will preserve to them the liberty which the law provides to work only six days in each week and to have their day of rest in their own homes.
"They submit that this day of rest is valueless to them if, by the arbitrary will of local authorities and of managers, it is varied in each contract, for Sunday is the day on which wives, husbands and children are released from labour. Actors and actresses who are denied this day will be debarred from the happiness of private life, and, though profit may be increased, humanity will suffer."
This petition is signed, as I said, by 48 actors and actresses, including Dame Peggy Ashcroft, Richard Attenborough, Cicely Courtneidge, Nicholas Hannen, Jack Hawkins, Evelyn Laye, Dame Margaret Rutherford, and Dame Athene Seyler.
I should now like to come a little closer to the present time and to give the reactions of Equity when Mr. John Parker's Sunday Entertainments Bill was introduced in 1969. I have heard nothing from Equity to indicate that their view has changed in the intervening period. I quote from the Stage of July 3, 1969:
"Sunday Bill. No Equity support in any way. Gerald Croasdell, General Secretary of Equity, states that Equity Council have decided that they would not be reflecting the views of the membership as a whole if they were to support the Sunday Entertainments Bill in any way.
"It is widely believed, ' says an Equity statement, that members of the theatrical profession as a whole support the Sunday Entertainments Bill. It is true that many do so. On the other hand, since the Bill was introduced strong opposition to it has been expressed at meetings of Equity members and a request that Equity itself should actively oppose the measure has been signed by a large number of actors and actresses, including more than 200 artists now appearing in nine West End productions "
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, would the noble Viscount allow me to speak on one correction of fact,
1046
or would he prefer me to wait until the end of the debate? I have been in con; tact with Equity officials this morning, and they have no objection to this Bill provided that negotiations take place directly between Equity and the managements.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, I would suggest to your Lordships that this is a matter on which people do not lightly change their opinions, and, as I said a moment ago, two years ago there were at least 200 artists asking Equity to oppose the measure. The noble Baroness also mentioned the support that she has for her Bill from the licensees and theatre managers. I should like to read to your Lordships a letter from one licensee and manager, written to the Evening News on March 6, 1969:
"As the Licensee and Manager of the historical Theatre Royal, Haymarket, I agree with all my heart with John Lambert's views on Sunday opening …
"To everyone who works in the theatre from check-takers and dressers to small part and leading actors Sunday is a blessed day, our one clay off, the only day we can spend in our homes with our children.
"And don't forget that we in the theatre work six days a week. What a splendid thing it would be for our country if everyone did the same. For decades we have worked all day Saturday giving pleasure to other's leisure. Who wants a Continental Sunday anyway?
"I believe it was our English Sunday that gave us the self-control and discipline that served us so well in times of stress. Today, especially, it is these qualities we cannot afford to lose.—Sylva Stuart Watson. Theatre Royal, Haymarket."
My Lords, I hope that I have said enough to show that there is a substantial minority of actors and actresses who are opposed to Sunday working because of the harmful effect on their families. The trouble about being an actor, I understand, is that one is away from home just at the time when one's children return from school; and one does not go to bed very early and may not be up in time to see them off to school the following morning. I would particularly ask at this time, when a happy family life is not easy to achieve, not easy for any of us, that we do not do anything which is going to detract from the family happiness of others. Let us not look to short-term profits but to long-term happiness. I must oppose this Bill and I hope that

1047
other noble Lords who share this view will support me.
5.8 p.m.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: My Lords, I should very much like to support this Bill and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, on introducing it. I am going to give your Lordships only a few of my personal views, so I shall not keep you very long. I have a good many friends in the theatrical world and I have spoken to a number of them about this Bill, not only now but in the past. Only a couple of days ago I spoke to a well-known producer, and his view was that, as Mondays are always bad days for the theatre, why should not the ordinary person, who has a holiday on Sunday, be able to go to a theatre on Sunday? Another friend, to whom I spoke quite lately, a well-known actor, told me that he thought the average actor or actress would like Sunday night opening, as Monday nights were always dreary and the theatre was almost empty. I am quite in agreement with the right reverend Prelate in saying that there ought to be an option and that we cannot expect people to work six days a week, but I think that Sunday opening might help a great many people. It seems a universal view among my friends that Sunday opening is something they are very much in favour of.
My next point concerns a personal observance of my own. I have only comparatively late in life lived entirely in London. I am a rather busy person, so I find that I go to the cinema or to a concert on Sunday because they are open, whereas the live theatre, which I love, is not. I am astonished at the queues of people outside every cinema both for the afternoon and for the evening performances, not only in the West End but far afield—in Chelsea, Kensington, Putney and so on, and one has usually to queue or to go to two or three cinemas before one can find a seat. Why should they be allowed to go to a cinema or concert and not to the live theatre?
I read through the Crathorne Report on The Law on Sunday Observance, and I found nothing in the Report against the opening of theatres on Sunday—in fact quite to the contrary. Add to this, as we all know, that T.V. goes on from morning to night and that many families look at it
1048
all day and all evening, what is the difference between this and going to the theatre? It is true that some of the T.V. performances are recorded before Sunday, but many programmes are transmitted live, and by not opening the theatre until after 1 o'clock no one is prevented from attending service in their church. Like the right reverend Prelate, I feel that the theatres should not open before 1 o'clock, but I doubt whether they would open at that time because the people concerned might want to have something to eat before the performance started. It seems to me to be quite ridiculous that an Act of 1780 should prevent the public from seeing a stage play or a variety performance on Sundays when they can visit any cinema, drink in a public house, watch television or, should they wish, visit a night club where a show is often prevented. It need not be pornographic to he entertainment. I urge your Lordships to support this Bill.
5.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I think the whole House was deeply impressed with the sincerity with which the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, spoke just now. I would like to support him; and I do so, wishing to recall to your Lordships that, not for the first time, the label "progress" has been used to invoke a measure that is in fact essentially retrograde. And merely to denounce an Act because it was passed in 1780 seems to me to be a strange course of logic in a Parliament, some of whose rights date from Magna Charta itself.
No sensible person denies society's need of a regular interval or even day of rest for everybody. That is common ground. Pressure for, and acceptance of, the five-day week indeed demonstrates this. The question is whether this so plausible and so agreeably moved Bill really helps to bring that about. I am always happy when I hear the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, speak because of her and my associations not only with Scotland but with Lanarkshire, and I was particularly struck by the way she spoke in happy memory of Scottish Sundays at home. Surely that in itself was something of a demonstration that the tranquil Sunday, even though it is much maligned by Latins and others in Europe, is something special; and those of us who have had

1049
the privilege of being brought up to enjoy it, realise what a pleasure it is.
This Bill is based on the Crathorne Report and I question its logic. To say that because the Sunday Observance Act 1780 was intended for one purpose and, because that purpose no longer obtains in the plural society of to-day, therefore it, or as much as possible of it, should be repealed seems to me to be a non sequitur. For it may well he that this same Act, having served one purpose in one age, can serve another which is urgent in our contemporary society. In paragraph 48 Crathorne recorded that there was a wide spectrum of people who wanted Sunday, as the Report put it, "kept different" and as a day of leisure. The Report quoted the Churches and others not only as being against enforced worship and conformism—of course we are all against that in these days—but in favour of Sunday at least as a day of quiet and leisure and of the family, and in that regard I was particularly struck by the reference to the Sunday dinner made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. There must be many families up and down the country for whom, as he said, the Sunday dinner is almost sacramental in character. The point of the family being together on Sunday is something which indeed the Crathorne Report respected, and the question which I would ask and which, having answered for myself, causes me to oppose this Bill, is whether in fact this Bill is conducive or otherwise to the maintenance of Sunday as a family day of tranquillity.
Who really, if they are honest, would deny that Britain is rapidly becoming a nation of neurotics, thanks to a host of unwanted tensions? There is the breakdown of family life and loyalties; there is the spread of violence; there is the invasion of privacy, by noise, by smell, by the telephone—there are all sorts of other environmental distractions. And that brings me to the point posed so well, if I may say so with respect, by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. He said that Christians must ask whether such a thing as is envisaged here is good for society. That is the question that I have asked because I believe that to base all claims on an indiscriminate and unlimited freedom of the individual is not really possible. That freedom is
1050
only possible if it is nurtured and protected; otherwise its exercise degenerates from truly free will to the impossibility of doing anything else than of making one self-destructive choice after another.
My Lords, I believe that this Bill offers an extra distraction from quiet; and because, as a nation, we need to return to the conscious practice of tranquillity, which at its most rewarding and most productive level is indeed the practice of worship, I believe that the seemingly civilised, liberal and innocuous proposals of this Bill are indeed damaging and retrograde. It is too easy and too logical a step from the live theatre (with which of course we all have a deep emotional sympathy) to the big sporting events, league football, boxing and wrestling. And while I do not suggest that the supporters of the Bill at this moment of time would wish to see those invasions of Sunday, who knows whether this Bill, once given a Second Reading and once passed through all its stages in both Houses, might not be taken as a pretext for further incursions into our tranquillity? This harmless looking Bill is by no means the end of the story.
Because, therefore, it offends the principle of Sunday tranquillity; because thereby it distracts from family life and enjoyment; because I wish to see our people re-discover—as more and more "trendy" young folk are now learning to do—the pleasures of worship instead of the worship of pleasure, I call on noble Lords to think hard and to search their consciences well and truly before they support the Second Reading.
5.20 p.m.
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot go along with my noble friend Lord Lauderdale in his opinion of this Bill. I had not originally intended to speak on the Second Reading, and I apologise for my intervention now. But I felt that I should be lacking in my responsibility as a Member of your Lordships' House if I did not give the noble Baroness's Bill a great welcome, since prior to joining your Lordships' House as a regular attender I worked in the world of theatre and ballet for 36 years. The years I have referred to were very happy ones for me, especially those that included the last ten years of the life of the late Sir Charles Cochran, when

1051
I had the honour to be his partner. During that time together we presented several big musical shows, as well as straight plays. If Sir Charles were alive to-day, I can tell your Lordships that he would have given this Bill his 100 per cent. support.
During his lifetime we had frequent discussions on Sunday opening in the theatre. I can also tell your Lordships that the late Sir Alan Herbert, the late Ivor Novello, and the late Andre Chariot, that brilliant impresario, with all of whom I worked in close association, would also have given the noble Baroness's Bill a great welcome—in fact would have given it unqualified support. I speak now in memory of the departed members—very great members—of the world of the theatre with whom in the past I have had the honour to be so closely associated. The noble Baroness told your Lordships that a Member of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, welcomes this Bill. This I know to be so. But the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, is not the only star who would welcome this Bill. Your Lordships would find the same, I am sure, if you referred to Sir John Clements. Sir Ralph Richardson, Mr. John Mills, and many other stars of first magnitude.
My noble friend Lady Ruthven of Freeland mentioned pretty fully the point about possible Monday openings. Monday has always proved to be a dead duck "so far as the theatre is concerned, unless you had, to use theatre parlance, a "smash hit "on your hands. So I suspect that a number of theatres might choose to close on Monday night, and in this way there will be no overworking of artistes or theatre staff. Anyhow, I am given to understand that Actors' Equity are not against Sunday openings and that any future negotiations between them and managements concerned will be conducted in a friendly way. The noble Baroness, Lady Lee, told your Lordships of the support this Bill has from the West End Theatre Managers' Association, an important body of the theatre, of which I was a member for many years, and I can confirm this.
With regard to the religious aspect of this Bill, I would say that it does not harm things at all. We can still go to church, and people need not work unless
1052
they wish to. I am in agreement with what my noble friend Lord Windlesham said, but I would go further and say that Sunday theatre opening would be of benefit both to members of the public and to the acting profession. Before I resume my seat I should like to say that I hope all noble Lords will give the noble Baroness's Bill their wholehearted support. In closing I would use just ten words of the late beloved Sir Alan Herbert, from a song in "Tough at the Top ", which was set to music so delightfully by Vivian Ellis and was presented at the Adelphi Theatre by the late Sir Charles Cochran and myself. The words are:
"This is not the end
This is but a beginning ".
With those ten words, my Lords, I welcome and strongly support the Second Reading of this Bill.
5.26 p.m.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, as a Welshman, I came here this afternoon to speak against the Bill. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol told us that London is not England. I am sure he will agree with me when I say that England is not Wales, and that we have a very peculiar view of this question of Sunday. However, having listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, I found her speech so fair, so logical, that rather than speak against the Bill I am on my feet now to urge the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, not to divide the House to-night, but to see to it during the later stages of the Bill that the safeguards which were sought by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol are secured after which I am sure we shall find it a perfect Bill.
5.27 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I very much regret that I have not been able to be present throughout the whole of the debate on this Bill this was due to attendance in a Committee of the House. My only reason for intervening is to say to the House that we as a Party take up no attitude on this Bill officially from this Bench I am not advising those who happen to sit behind me to vote either for or against the Bill. There is a completely free vote so far as this Bill is concerned and so far as this Party is concerned. I am rather surprised to hear

1053
the speech of my noble friend Lord Maelor. I thought I should have to get up and disagree with him about the Welsh attitude, while agreeing with him that he knows perhaps more about North Wales and mid-Wales than I do. But I am rather shocked to hear the attitude he has taken up. Nevertheless, I am bound to say that I agree with that attitude as being a very sensible one. After all, this is a Bill that was passed in the last Parliament—very much the same sort of Bill indeed. It is, in my opinion, an improvement on the one that went through this House in the last Session and ran into difficulty in the other place. I believe that what has happened to the Bill now, taking out that part regarded as objectionable by many Members of the other place, will help the Bill on its way, I hope through both Houses. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has said. He cannot promise us any time for the Bill in the other place; nevertheless lie looked upon it with some benevolent neutrality. That is a well-known timeworn phrase, and we understand and respect it. So far as I am concerned—and this is my personal view—I am strongly of the opinion that this House ought to give the Bill a Second Reading, and I sincerely hope that it will get a Second Reading tonight.
5.30 p.m.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I have only one regret as this debate terminates, and that is that the noble Viscount, the Paymaster General, was not able to be with us earlier on, and we all know the reason why. We are very glad that he is well enough to come back to a more controversial part of your Lordships' proceedings later in the evening. But he was gracious enough to inform me before this debate took place that this was not a Party matter—and of course that is clear from both sides of the House. We began this debate with a great deal of goodwill from both Front Bench and Back Bench speakers. That goodwill has been very evident throughout the course of the debate. I was grateful indeed to the right reverend Prelate for putting down a number of points that he wanted considered. He was quite right to worry about safeguards regarding the seven-day week. This point was again brought
1054
forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and we know that Equity was weakened by the Industrial Relations Act. However, I can assure the right reverend Prelate and other Members of the House that it is not a case of waiting for an exchange of signatures between management and Equity after this Bill is passed; the exchange has already taken place. There is a firm understanding that no one will be expected to work seven days.
No one in the House is going to suggest, or has suggested in this debate, that religion is something for one day of the week and not for the other days. The faith we live by—and our faiths are very diverse in this House—must surely be something that is with us on seven days of the week. Therefore we come to the point about whether there is some kind of violation of the special quality of the Sabbath. I think not, at a time when, as has been said by so many in this debate, cinemas, television, and concerts are open. We surely cannot turn back the hands of the clock:
The old order changeth, yielding place to new."
My fellow countryman, the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, talked about the tranquillity of a Scottish Sabbath. I said that I had loved my Sundays. They were for me not just holy days hut happy days, but they were not tranquil. Most Sunday evenings I was present at vast, excited public meetings. Very often they were addressed by right reverend Prelates and ministers. One of them was a Member of another place for many years, the reverend Campbell Stephen. There was no conflict in the loyalty of many of our leading churchmen, who could be in a pulpit one Sunday evening and on a Socialist platform another, preaching what they believed was an essential part of the Gospel: that we must be concerned about oppression and the problems of the poor, and fight for greater social justice. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, would not disagree with me there. Though we have a special feeling in Scotland for the Sabbath, that Sabbath can be spent in very different ways.
The right reverend Prelate was concerned about local option. This is the Second Reading of a Bill; if your Lordships should, in your wisdom, care to give

1055
it an unopposed Second Reading, then there will be the Committee and other stages when all kinds of important points that have been raised in this debate can be looked into. For instance, the times,
"between the hours of three in the morning and one in the afternoon "
are not to be taken too literally. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, said in his letter that he thought it ought to be normal matinée time, 2.30 p.m., or whatever it is, which should be the time for the show to open if it is to be a normal performance. That is something we can look at. We all like our Sunday dinners. Talking about Sunday dinners, one bears in mind that our hospitals, our transport and a great deal of the life of a modern industrial community simply must be carried on on a Sunday, and we all accept that. Although no doubt it is a difficult problem if you are a railwayman, a coal miner or a hospital attendant and do not want to work on Sunday yet must do these things, you have to reconcile it with your own individual conscience. While we must have a tender, sensitive regard in a democratic community for the views of minorities, ultimately it must he the general consensus of opinion which becomes the law of the land.
I have listened with the greatest respect and understanding to the contribution made by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby. He feels deeply on this issue, but I ask him—and, as I say, "the old order changeth, yielding place to new "—as so many forms of entertainment (in my view many less worthy forms of entertainment) are now available on a Sunday, is there really a case for saying that the greatest and most distinguished actors in the profession should not be allowed to produce great plays? I know there would be other things, but I would ask him to consider the whole picture. Is his respect for Sunday really going to be belittled, or endangered, when we are living in an age of greater leisure, by people insisting at the weekends, Saturday and Sunday alike, that they want a diversity of ways in which to spend their leisure? But these are minor problems which should all be looked at when we come to Committee stage.
I was also reminded—I think it was by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of
1056
Whitley—of the "fly-by-night" managements who have to be watched. I entirely agree, and that is again something we can look at. I think the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, made a very fair point. He is an ornament and support of the Chichester Theatre, and at the same time of the Cathedral. He said that in that lovely city there was really no conflict of interest between the work of the cathedral and the contribution which that splendid theatre is making to the life of the place.
I do not want to detain your Lordships longer. It is quite true that the Crathorne Report concerned itself with sport as well as the theatre. I am rather relieved that we are not dealing with sport this afternoon, because it is quite true that many people are afraid of congestion and noise on Sunday. That would be a difficult issue, but it is irrelevant to our discussion. We are discussing simply whether or not there should be one law for cinemas, television, concerts and pub concerts, and another law for some of our most distinguished practitioners in the British theatre. I am not speaking for them all I quoted only from the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, because he is a Member of your Lordships' House and regretted his inability to be here this afternoon, but I could, like the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, give a long list. Practically all the leading actors and actresses with whom I have been in contact favour this Bill, although most of them view it in the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, views it: they do not think it is going to be any treat for themselves if they have to work on a Sunday, but they do feel that it is necessary in the interest of a first-class theatre and in particular of the younger members of the profession, for whom there will be greater opportunities and employment. The fact is that times change and we change with the times. I cannot feel that those of us who do care for having one day of the week different from the other days will be diminishing the value of the Sabbath if we say that this is not a day of compulsory gloom and a day of compulsory religion, but is a day which can be a day of happiness, of free choice, and a day when, if we cannot have the tranquility that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, talked about, we can at least

1057
have the tranquility of a happy conscience.
House adjourned during pleasure and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Bill read 2ªaccordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NEW TOWNS BILL
5.49 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a
5.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2ª?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 142; Not-Contents, 6.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Airedale, L.

Eccles, V.

Nugent, L.

Albemarle, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Nunburnholme, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Oakshott, L.

Amory, V.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Amulree, L.

Falkland, V.

Phillips, Bs.

Ardwick, L.

Faringdon, L.

Platt, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Foot, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Auckland, L.

Fulton, L.

Rea, L.

Avebury, L.

Gage, V.

Reading, M.

Barnby, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Reay, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gardiner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Belstead, L.

George-Brown, L.

Robbins, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gridley, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Bird wood, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Blake, L.

Hailes, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bledisloe, V.

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

St. Davids, V.

Blyton, L.

St. Helens, L.

Boothby, L.

Hankey, L.

St. Just. L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hanworth, V.

Saint Oswald, L.

Bradford, E.

Harris, L.

Sandford, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Headfort, M.

Sandys, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Henley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hoy, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Sherfield, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Shinwell, L.

Caccia, L.

Il ford, L.

Slater, L.

Champion, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Snow, L.

Clwyd, L.

Killearn, L.

Somers, L.

Colgrain, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Collison, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Stonehaven, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Leatherland, L.

Stonham, L.

Conesfortd, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strang, L.

Courtown, E.

Long, V.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Craigavon, V.

Lothian, M.

Strathcarron, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sudeley, L.

Crathorne, L.

McLeavy, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Crook, L.

Maelor, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davidson, V.

Margadale, L.

Terrington, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

de Clifford, L.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L, [Teller.]

Denham, L.

Milverton, L.

White, Bs.

Derwent, L.

Molson, L.

Windlesham, L.

Diamond, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Wolverton, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Monsell, V.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L

NOT-CONTENTS

Balerno, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Lauderdale, E. [Teller.]

Gainford, L.

Ingleby, V. [Teller.]

Strathelyde, L.

second time. I think it would be in accordance with previous practice, and in order, if I were to deliver to your Lordships' House a long speech concerning all 28 New Towns of England, Scotland and Wales and their history since the end of the war. But the indications are that no other noble Lords wishes to speak in this debate. I shall therefore assume that
on this occasion the House will be content with the briefest possible exposition of the specific purposes of the Bill. But if noble Lords have questions for me about particular New Towns and their progress, I shall be happy to deal with them.
My Lords, the purpose of the Bill is to increase the amount of Exchequer money available for New Town development in Great Britain. The Development Corporations and the New Towns Commission are financed by means of Exchequer advances authorised by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for New Towns in England, and for New Towns in Scotland and Wales by the respective Secretaries of State. The total amount of money which may be advanced is limited by Statute. This limit has been raised by successive Acts of Parliament from the amount of £50 million set by the first New Towns Act, in 1946, to the figure at which it now stands of £1, 100 million, set by the last Act, which was in 1969. By March of this year, advances and commitments stood at £990 million. If advances and commitments continue at the present rate, the current limit will be reached at the beginning of the financial year 1972–73. It has become established practice for Parliament to authorise enough money to cover New Town development for about three years. With this in mind, the Bill which I now commend to your Lordships' House provides for an increase in the limit by £400 million to an overall figure of £1, 500 million. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª;Committee negatived.

MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES ADMISSION CHARGES BILL [H.L.]
5.54 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be received. —[Viscount Eccles.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Liberty to charge for admission]:
VISCOUNT ECCLES VISCOUNT ECCLES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert—
"(3) The power to make orders under subsection (2) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and any instrument containing such an order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, if I have any trouble with my voice it is not caused by the emotions aroused by this Bill but, unfortunately, by the tail end of influenza. In the course of the Committee stage noble Lords opposite were unhappy at the terms of Clause 1(2) of the Bill, and I undertook that we would propose an Amendment to ensure that where a conditional request to a national museum or gallery in Scotland has been ratified by an Act of Parliament, the Secretary of State's order varying or revoking the provisions of that Act, which would be inconsistent with the making of charges, would be exercised by Statutory Instrument. Other noble Lords, and I think particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, urged on us that we should go further and require the Secretary of State to use the Statutory Instrument for the other variations, of which we believe there to be only two, which are not subject to an Act of Parliament. On looking at the point we thought it was right to go the whole way, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will now, in the terms of this Amendment, proceed by Statutory Instrument, which will be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. In this way, we do our best to bring the procedure in Scotland level with the English Act of 1960, and I think I can tell your Lordships that this is a satisfactory way in which the procedure GI' the Secretary of State will be open to debate when he makes these orders.
Before I formally move the Amendment, may I correct a mistake that I made last time? I said that there was a dispute about the ownership of the pictures of the Torrie bequest. I find they are firmly in the possession of Edinburgh University, that the correspondence which I had in mind was

1061
entirely amiable, and that there is no doubt to whom these pictures belong. I apologise for that mistake. I beg to move the first Amendment on the Marshalled List.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I must first express the sympathy of this side of the House with the noble Viscount the Minister. We are sorry to hear he has not been well, but we very much appreciate the trouble he has taken to come here to-day so that the Report stage can be dealt with. We are grateful to the noble Viscount for moving this Amendment, which, as he says, goes very much further than what he indicated in Committee, when he said, I think, that the Government would be prepared to lay such a measure before Parliament only if it dealt with Acts of a local nature. However, we are very grateful to the Government for meeting the points that were then made. I think that this Amendment, though perhaps better drafted, is virtually the same as Amendment No. 2 which I moved in Committee, and which the noble Viscount said he would look at; and I am very glad that he has moved this Amendment in the way in which he has. I hope this is an augury. The Committee stage ended with the Government accepting one of my Amendments, and they have now started the Report stage by accepting the spirit of another one. I hope this is a good augury for the future.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Parliamentary control of admission charges
".—(1) The Secretary of State for Education and Science in respect of England and Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of Scotland shall so soon as may be after the passing of this Act jointly lay before each House of Parliament a statement giving full particulars of the charges for admission to be made by the trustees or other governing body or governing authority of the national museums and galleries in Great Britain.
(2) An institution to which subsection (1) above applies shall not make any charges for admission—

(a) until 40 days after the relevant date, and

1062

(b) if either House of Parliament resolves within the period of 40 days after the relevant date that such charges be not made.

(3) Nothing in this section shall prevent the trustees or other governing body or governing authority as mentioned in subsection (1) above from making from time to time other charges for admission than those contained in the aforesaid statement of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Scotland; but before they so make these other charges the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Scotland shall so soon as may be after 31st March 1973 and so soon as may be after the same date in each year thereafter jointly lay before each House of Parliament a further statement giving the full particulars of all such other charges to be made by such trustees or other governing body or governing authority as aforesaid.
(4) No other charges such as are mentioned in the preceding subsection shall be made—

(a) until 40 days after the relevant date, and

(b) if either House of Parliament resolves within the period of 40 days after the relevant date that such other charges be not made.

(5) The relevant date for the purposes of this section is the day on which the statement or further statement, as the case may be, of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Scotland is laid before each House of Parliament.
(6) Nothing in this section shall prevent the trustees or other governing body or governing authority as mentioned in subsection (1) above from making charges for the purposes of special temporary exhibitions and such charges shall not be subject to any of the provisions contained in subsections (1) to (5) of this section."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment seeks to retain Parliamentary control over the financial arrangements. It will be remembered that we debated the principle in Committee. The Minister raised some objections to the wording of the Amendment, so it has been very carefully redrafted. I hope it now meets the points that he raised. The first main change is that the charges will now be "made" by the trustees, and not "determined ". The reason is that the Amendment covers all the 18 national museums and galleries in Great Britain, as indeed does also the Long Title to the Bill. However, while the Bill allows the four institutions listed in Clause 1 to "determine" their charges, there are several others which are Departmental museums—for example, the Victoria and Albert. I have therefore used the word "make" for all. But although the institutions will make the charges, the

1063
Government of course will decide how they will be made, as the Minister stated several times in Committee. For example. he said in Committee on December 6 (column 610):
"The Government can always use their influence to insist that all the charges arc the same."
He went on, at column 611, to say that the museums:
"accept that the rate of charges is fixed with the Government."
Then again, he said, in the same speech:
"It is of course the museums themselves that will issue the scale of charges, but they do this on the conditions which the Government attach to their grant."
The second change is that the statements setting out the charges will be laid before Parliament only once a year, the first one after the passing of the Act. These statements will also, however, be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. This is to take account of the Minister's—I think reasonable—objection that Parliament would continually be asked to pass small changes relating to museums throughout the country. The idea is now that once a year, after the collective arrangements have been made, the Government will lay on the Table the statement which will relate to any changes over the whole field. This proposal does not refer to charges for special temporary exhibitions, which are excluded under subsection (6) of the proposed new clause.
I submit that this Amendment will allow once a year a Parliamentary review of the collective arrangements. It is, I think, important to have some control of this charging scheme. At present there is. for example, nothing in the Bill to stop the British Museum from charging what it likes. I think it also important that future arrangements should be referred to Parliament as a check on the Government of the day; otherwise we are giving the Executive an absolutely free hand and all kinds of financial pressure against which there will be no redress might he brought to bear on trustees. I beg to move.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, it is not in my mind to go over the arguments that were produced in Committee. The arguments about the new Amendment, as opposed to the one
1064
whose place it takes, have already been ably put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I should like merely to say that we on these Benches still feel strongly that the Government should give way. We are not challenging them any longer, much as we disagree, on the principle of admission charges; what we are doing is asking that there should be some Parliamentary control.
There is one pertinent point which arose out of the Committee stage which should be raised now. One of the reasons why two trustees or past trustees of galleries and museums spoke against our Amendment at that time was that they wanted to retain the freedom of manoeuvre and negotiation between the trustees and the Government. Some of us on this side thought, "What freedom of movement?" After the complete giving way on this issue, what freedom of manoeuvre could they think was left to them? But an interesting clue to their thinking came when I re-read in the OFFICIAL REPORT the speech of the noble Lord. Lord Robbins. I refer to column 601 of December 6, 1971, where he said:
"Some people may ask: 'Why did you not resign? ' To that I would reply that I think the thought must have flitted through the minds of many members of those bodies, and it certainly flitted through my mind; but there was also vividly in our minds the fact that, in our judgment at any rate, some matters even more important than the matter of charges were at stake: and it is a well known and irrefutable proposition that you can commit hara-kari only once."
I do not question this attitude on the part of Lord Robbins. My question is not to him; it is to the Minister. May I ask what matters the Government have been raising with museums and galleries which raise issues much more important than these—so that trustees who might otherwise have thought of resigning do not do so because they wish to retain the option to commit hara-kari over something that they regard as more important? I think that this is a very pertinent question, because either there are these matters which are more important (in which case I suggest that we should know all about them, though this is possibly not the appropriate time or place) or there are not such matters—in which case I think we are entitled to say to people who ask that the freedom of negotiations be kept between the trustees and the

1065
Government: "After this Bill, what freedom of negotiation do you think you have left?" That is the one point that I wish to raise in strongly supporting this Amendment.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for the moderate way in which he introduced this new clause. I can understand his hope that the changes he has made will result in making this Amendment somewhat less objectionable than the one put on Committee stage; but I am afraid it is still a matter, we think, of very great importance that we should not have this reference to Parliament. I think it would introduce an unusual and, in many quarters that matter in the museum world, an unwanted and serious complication in the system of charging. It could certainly lead to delays that would endanger the Government's plan for financing museums. It is precisely those plans which are of more importance than the charges and therefore of more importance to a great many people in museums.
I must come to them in more detail in order to answer the reasonable question from the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. Perhaps. therefore, I may explain what the Government policy aims at in introducing these charges. We need this revenue as an appropriation in aid towards the cost of making good the large backlog in museum buildings, equipment and staff. The collection of the charges is therefore part of our long-term plan that is to say, the system itself has to be simple and it has to be sure and it must not be open to political debate at repeated intervals on any change of detail. This is part of the method by which we shall try to get the sums of money we need. I have made a calculation that over a period—and, of course, the shorter the better—at least £40 million is needed for the expansion of the national museums and galleries alone. I would assure the House that if these plans are not realised future Governments will find the museums unable satisfactorily to cope with the crowds that are coming. Programmes of this kind cannot be financed in isolation from the rest of the Government's capital commitments. The introduction of charges allows us to show those who are interested in other areas of Government expenditure that we are being fair—fair as between one art and another, and fair
1066
between the Arts and the social services. If these charges are to be a dependable element in the plan of museum finance, once Parliament has accepted them in principle—as it has done in both Houses —the details are best worked out within the normal relations of the museums and the Department concerned.
There is nothing new in putting that to your Lordships. The practice of charging as a means of obtaining an appropriation-in-aid is very common at Government-maintained buildings. In no case are these charges referred to Parliament. At the Tower of London the basic charge is 10p from October to March, and 20p from April to September. The revenue in 1970 was £490, 000 net, almost half the modest total that we want to get from the 18 national museums. The Labour Government, when they were in office, raised those charges. They did the same at Hampton Court where the scale is the same. The Labour Government charged children and pensioners at both these places 5p for each category, and I may tell your Lordships that that was the precedent we followed when we worked out our own scale. There are a great number of other palaces, historic buildings and ancient monuments where charges are made. There has never been an outcry against these charges, and no-one has ever argued that the scale should be laid before Parliament. The reason is obvious enough. The scales of charges are bound up with the size of the grant. They may often require minor amendments, and it is good management practice—I put this point to your Lordships—that the strategy be decided by Parliament and that the small matters of day-to-day management, changes and so on, are settled by the Government Department concerned and the people who run these institutions.
In the case of the national museums and galleries, reference to Parliament would I think be very inappropriate. I do not put much on the fact—but it is a fact—that the charges we propose are lower than those in other Government-maintained buildings which have not been referred. More important is that these charges are part of a very ambitious scheme of finance for the museums; and if, first, the original list, and then every time a change was made, once a year every year, it had to be laid before

1067
Parliament, the scope for uncertainty and delay is quite obvious.
During the Committee stage, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has reminded us, we heard two noble Lords oppose reference to Parliament, and I should like to quote what they said. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, said:
" … if it is a question of dividing the House on this extension of Parliamentary control I shall feel compelled to abstain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6/12/71, col. 602.]
The noble Lord said that out of his long and distinguished experience at the National Gallery. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook said (col. 605):
… speaking as a Trustee—and perhaps it is significant that only two of us who have spoken this afternoon are in that position and I think we are both in agreement-I should prefer our relationships to remain direct with the Minister, without the control by Parliament in between those three-yearly periods which these Amendments involve."
The noble Earl was of course referring to the statutory duty on museums to report to Parliament every three years, when, of course, if the Trustees want to come out in the open about any matter of this kind, they can; and they certainly do. Very rough things have been said in those reports, and I hope that, where necessary, they will continue to be said.
I do not wish to delay the Committee much longer on this, but, in short, I think it comes to the fact that the principle of charging is a political question. It is certainly something on which Parliament must vote. Parliament has voted in both Houses in favour of the principle. On the other hand, the details are not, we think, proper material for repeated Parliamentary scrutiny; first, because it is not done in other similar cases, and now because the result would be bad for the relations between the Government and the museums. That is one basic objection. The other basic objection is that the uncertainty about the yield of the charges, if they were, even at only annual intervals, brought back into the political arena, would compromise our financial plans. Therefore I would ask those of your Lordships who do think about the future of the museums to realise that there are these enormous difficulties ahead of us —matters on which a good many bodies
1068
of trustees are particularly exercised at this time. I would ask you to accept that we make a trial of the charging system as it is now proposed and then, after three years—I will speak to that on a later Amendment—we shall have a review; and we can then see whether the estimates that we on the Government side have made turn out to be right or wrong. But I do not think that this is a case where our normal practice should be broken and where charges in detail should be brought back to Parliament.
6.18 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for his support and also to the noble Viscount, the Minister, for deploying his argument. But nothing the noble Viscount has said convinces me that this Amendment should not find a place in the Bill, if your Lordships so decide. The noble Viscount talked about delay, but the proposal is only that the statement shall lie on the Table for 40 days and be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. I cannot believe that the whole of his charging scheme would be put in jeopardy because of this. As I see it, assuming that the other place passes the Bill without too much delay, the Act will come into operation on April 1. The statement will then lie on the table for 40 days, and during the course of the year, if the Government find that they need to alter the charges in any way and agree this, either reluctantly or not, with the Trustees, at the end of that year it will come back to Parliament and before those changes are made it lies on the table for another 40 days. I cannot see that this is going to make for undue delay.
I also cannot understand the noble Viscount's objection to laying on the Table a statement of this kind. It has been done before. As I mentioned in Committee, in relation to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Bill, at the wish of the Trustees it was decided that if we wished to send a painting abroad, Parliament should be asked. If the Government told the Trustees, "We want to send the Leonardo somewhere because we are trying to do a particular trade deal, "and the Trustees replied, "We do not like it; the picture is far too valuable and far too fragile," and if the

1069
Government then said, "We cannot help that, we have to balance our payments, and the picture has to go ", they would then have to come to Parliament and Parliament would have to approve the proposed action. There is nothing wrong with that. It is not detracting from the Trustees' responsibility in any way.
To-day, in Amendment No. 1, the Government have offered to put an Order before Parliament when they wish to revoke any trust, and I am very glad that they have done so. Therefore the Government ate prepared to do it when it comes to pictures, and in the case of wills of dead people; but they are not prepared to do it when it affects living people and gallery-goers. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the arguments deployed by the Minister. This is a basic principle. He said that Parliament has approved this whole charging system. Parliament has approved the White Paper. The White Paper is not legislation. Furthermore, the White Paper is already out of date.
The noble Viscount has made various concessions. He made welcome concessions for members of the supporting societies; he has made the concession of half price admittance for retirement pensioners and so on. In the course of the passage of the Bill he may make other concessions, and when he comes to negotiate the whole system with the trustees there may be others. By the time the Act comes into force Parliament will have no control. Furthermore, when we let the ship go out to sea we shall have no idea what will happen in the years ahead. The Government will have complete power to do what they like. I believe sincerely, as do others of my noble friends in all quarters of the House, that this is a basic principle on which we must retain some democratic control through Parliament.
6.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 82.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gardiner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Ardwick, L.

George-Brown, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Avebury, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Segal, L.

Beswick, L.

Henley, L.

Shackleton, L.

Blyton, L.

Heycock, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brock way, L.

Hoy, L.

Slater, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hughes, L.

Snow, L.

Champion, L.

Kennet, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Clwyd, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Killearn, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Crook, L.

Lea therland, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Wade, L.

Diamond, L.

Maelor, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

White, Bs.

Faringdon, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Foot, L.

Platt, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Rea, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Amory, V.

Conesford, L.

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

Auckland, L.

Courtown, E.

Balerno, L.

Cowley, E.

Hankey, L.

Barnby, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hanworth, V.

Beaumont, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Harris, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Belstead, L.

Daventry, V.

Hawke, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Davidson, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Bessborough, E.

de Clifford, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Birdwood, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Jellicoe, R. (L. Privy Seal.)

Blake, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kilmany, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Eccles, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Kinnoull, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Ferrers, E.

Lothian, M.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gainford, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Margadale, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Merrivale, L.

Reading, M.

Strathcarron, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Strathclyde, L.

Monsell, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Sudeley, L.

Mountevans, L.

St. Just, L.

Terrington, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Saint Oswald, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Sandford, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Nairne, Bs.

Sandys, L.

Vivian, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Sherfield, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Oakshott, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Windlesham, L.

Pender, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6.29 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Children and retirement pensioners
". Notwithstanding the provisions of this or any other enactment, children not in organised educational parties and retirement pensioners, the latter on production of their pension books, may be permitted free entry to the permanent collections of any of the national museums and galleries in Great Britain on such clays as those institutions are open to the public."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3, which relates to children and retirement pensioners. The charge for children under 16, according to the White Paper, will at all times be 5p. I was very impressed by the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in Committee when he said:
"I am absolutely convinced that from an educational point of view it would be a crime to put any barrier against children entering museums and galleries as freely as possible."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 6/12/71; col. 590.]
I commend those words to the Minister. This principle was supported by my noble friend Lady Lee, by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, who tells me he is sorry that he cannot be here to-day, by the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, by my noble friend Lord Slater and many others. Indeed the same principle was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, the Chairman of the British Museum Trustees, in the debate we had a year ago almost to the day on the Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. Turning to the White Paper, I see that children in organised educational parties will be allowed in free. I should like to ask the Government what is an organised educational party? Not all visits, for example, are made in school hours: indeed small groups of children will often
1072
be taken informally for visits at weekends or half-term by a teacher or indeed during the school holidays by one of the parents. These small groups can often be seen in our museums throughout the country. I should like to ask the Minister whether they will qualify as authorised educational visits. We cannot underestimate the value of educational visits by children. I should have thought that the educational advantages were worth absolutely every penny of the amount involved, which is only £150,000.
Turning to retirement pensioners, I would point out that the charge for them will be 5p at all times, including July and August. which is one of the concessions given by the Government and announced in another place last June. The Government also said that they were looking into the question of giving free admittance to pensioners receiving supplementary benefits, on production of their pension books. As I ventured to put forward in Committee, there are great difficulties in differentiating between different pension books with identical covers. I think, therefore, there is a strong case for exempting all retirement pensioners, irrespective of whether they are receiving supplementary benefits or not. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in fact made the point—and I fully agree with him—on Second Reading, when he said:
"I wonder whether it might not be simpler to let them in entirely free."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22/11/71; col. 849.]
The noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, again during the same debate last December, supported this exemption. There is a further advantage too, which is that if children and all retirement pensioners were granted free entry there would be no need for the 5p ticket. This would mean a comparable reduction in overheads, which I am sure will commend itself to the Government. For all these reasons I put forward this Amendment, which I now beg to move.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I hope that the Government will see fit, if not to accept this Amendment—because I think that is too much to ask, and I see that there are some arguments against putting it actually on the Statute Book—at least to see their way to announce concessions because of the very real distress and care which lie behind it. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to say that although he cannot accept the Amendment he can accept the principle. To start with, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has put his finger on an extremely important point which goes to the heart of the matter when he talks about differentiating between what is an organised educational party and what is not. This is not a matter of detail which can be sorted out. As the noble Viscount knows, as an ex-Secretary of State for Education, it goes to the heart of the movement about modern education. More and more we are getting away from the idea that education is conducted only in groups of children marshalled into a crocodile, with a teacher at the head and a teacher behind, going into museums. More and more will education at every level mean encouraging children to go on their own, sometimes in school hours and sometimes outside, to visit the local museum or the local gallery. This is obviously quite apart from what they choose to do in their spare time.
But the point I am hoping to put to your Lordships is that the ideal for almost all education to-day is to make it and that part of life which we choose not to call education into a complete spectrum which is divisible at no point, so that it should be very difficult to tell where education starts and where it ends. Because education is something which should be going on all the time: in the home and in the school, in those hours which are spent at school and in those hours which are spent at leisure. This is why I feel strongly that it would be a great blow to education and to the educational services of this country if children were not allowed to go into galleries and museums free at any time. As I say, I see that there may be some difficulties in including the Amendment on the Statute Book, but I hope that the noble Viscount can give us some reassurances about the spirit behind it.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord who has just spoken that this is not the sort of Amendment to put on the Statute Book. It is exactly the same point which I made at the Committee stage, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. This is entirely an administrative matter. I can assure the noble Lord opposite that all trustees are anxious—indeed, more anxious than anybody else, I suspect—to see that children get the maximum amount of educational advantage from their collections. I think the arrangements made will inevitably vary from institution to institution and the organisation of them is much better left to the ordinary administrative machine. In moving the Amendment the noble Lord talked about what in fact is an educational party. It would be nonsense to try to define an educational party, whether here or anywhere else. It must be left to those who are responsible for running the museum services as a whole, and to each museum in particular, to decide which is the best way of getting the best out of their collections. So I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
As to old age pensioners, I recollect that my first thought when I read about charges being made was, "What about the poor old things who come into museums to have a look round because they are bored, and to keep warm on a cold day?" Now the Natural History Museum, of which I am a Trustee, has made a reasonably complete analysis of the people who come in by age, by the place they come from, by the sort of parties in which they come and the like, and the curious thing is that those of us who are old do not appear to take much notice of our museums. We found that only 4 per cent. of the people who came into the Natural History Museum—although it may very well be different for the Museum for which the noble Lord who sits on the Cross-Benches is responsible—
LORD ROBBINS: No, my Lords, it is the same.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: Only 4 per cent. were over 60, and the Registrar-General's figures for the over-60s figure in the population is, so far as

1075
I remember, about 19 per cent. I do not believe that old people are drawn towards museums as much as we would like to think they are. So far as the old ones who drift in for the benefit of the warmth are concerned, we all have them. We all know them; there are not many of them—a dozen or two in every institution. I suspect that we may well have to give them free tickets out of our purchase grants, or something, if it is absolutely necessary. I can assure noble Lords that there are not many like that who come in through sheer necessity to get out of the cold. I do not believe that this Amendment is necessary, and I hope that the noble Lord will not press it.
6.40 p.m.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, may I say a word or two in support of what has been said by the noble Earl? I do not feel strongly about the position of old age pensioners, largely for the reason which the noble Earl has stated. So far as the National Gallery is concerned, I am well acquainted with the nature of the attendance there. I visit there at least once a week; and since I specialise in audiences, having got into the habit of looking at how much money there is in the house when I was in my other capacity as chairman of the Finance Committee of the Royal Opera House, I have a good look round when I am in the National Gallery. The way that the attendance is weighted in favour of the middle or lower age groups is remarkable.
I rise to add my plea to what has been said on behalf of the children. The noble Viscount will have observed that in the various friendly altercations which I have had with him during the discussion of these charges I have always stated my case very mildly as regards the financial burden to the average gallery-goer. I find it difficult to believe that so far as the average person is concerned the charge of the equivalent of a packet of ten cigarettes, or a pint of beer, is going to be a great deterrent. I regret it for other reasons, but that part of the case against the charges can be tremendously overstated.
There are two classes of persons whom it is desirable to lure into the galleries who may be so affected. The first class consists of children accompanied not by
1076
their school teachers, but by their parents. While the charge for the single entry is a mild one, if a family party is in contemplation the cost adds up. Family parties visiting the galleries are an extra-ordinarily salutary and desirable thing. My second class consists of the isolated boy or girl who is not so keen on travelling around in an organised group, but who likes to wander into these places and contemplate by himself or herself the great masterpieces of all time. If you go into the National Gallery and observe the way in which people are enjoying themselves—it is a pleasurable experience to see people enjoying themselves in a way which does no harm to anybody—one thing that strikes one most is the spectacle, here and there, of some young person suddenly transfixed with the beauty which has dawned on him for the first time in his life. I do not want to deter that person. There is the possibility that even the smallest charge may deter him. For that reason I plead with the noble Viscount not that this Amendment should be put on the Statute Book, for I can see all sorts of objections to that, but to agree in principle with the desirability of giving some latitude in this respect.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, one has the greatest respect and regard for the work which the two noble Lords who have just preceded me have given to the offices that they have held as trustees in museums and galleries. I spoke in the last debate and endeavoured to bring before your Lordships the second point which was brought out by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches, that concerning the family. I referred to the family coming from the North-East; but such families come not only from the North-East but from the Northern part of Scotland, the Shetlands and so on. When they arrive down here, having carried the heavy burden of finding the fare to bring their families to London, and then to pay for the cost of residence for a week, ten days or a fortnight, in one of the cheaper hotels or boarding houses in London, they want their children to see everything possible. They want to see not only the Tower of London, but to go to the British Museum. Because of the fixed charge that may be made in accordance with what we now have under consideration,

1077
perhaps the parents will say, "We should like to take you into the museum but because of the charge that we as parents will have to pay, and also the charge we will have to pay for you, we are not in a position to do so." Fix the charge, if it is so desired, in regard to the parents, but not for the children. I am definitely against children coming from various parts of the country not having as much right to privileges and opportunities as children who live within the metropolis. and who are within easy access of some of these places. Local children do not have to face the cost of fares to the same extent as children coming from my area in the North-East, in the North-West, or the Shetlands, or elsewhere.
Coming back to the pensioner, I wonder how many noble Lords are aware that in this country we have what are known as Darby and Joan clubs which are run on a voluntary basis. Committees are organised to enable the people who have entered into the eventide of life to have one or two nights out a week without any charge being imposed upon them. They are entertained at no expense to themselves, for the volunteers pay their expenses and they use various ways and means to raise the necessary finance.
Bills have been brought before another place to allow free travel on buses for pensioners. I hope that noble Lords are not going to throw this matter to one side without giving serious consideration to the people who have entered into the eventide of life. Over the years, in various walks of life, to the best of their ability, they have made their contribution to this country, and if they feel disposed to go into the warmth of a museum, as has been pointed out that in itself is something.
I am one of those people who look upon not only the aged, but the young as being individual units of a great society of which this country ought to be proud. We ought to be proud of the efforts that have been put in over the years to establish the present situation, with freedom of opportunity and liberty of the subject. I sincerely hope that, if the noble Viscount cannot accept this new clause, he can find some words in substitution, or some way round the situation to meet
1078
the position referred to by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi.
6.50 p.m.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: I doubt whether anything new can be said on this Abject and I have no desire to detain your Lordships unduly. But Christmas is coming, and if we go down any side street in any industrial town and many a village at the present time we shall see up in shops notices about Christmas clubs. Sometimes the notices refer to Christmas clubs and sometimes to clothing clubs. Week by week money has been deposited—perhaps a shilling or two shillings, some humble amount—in order that clothing which is necessary, or Christmas gifts, can be bought and parents will not have to disappoint their children. Would any Member of your Lordships' House go to the trouble of paying into a weekly club for clothes or Christmas gifts or anything else if you were able to meet the full charge of these goods straight away? For one thing, it is a most expensive way to shop. Why do people do it? There are not just thou-sands but literally millions of families in this country—we have a million un-employed to begin with, and we know about the position of old-age pensioners and about families with very small incomes—in which people do really have to count their pence. It would cost the Government nothing—indeed, it might cost less than nothing—to concede the case so ably put by the noble Lord, Lord Slater, and the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. I apologise if I have left out others who may have made a similar case while I was not in the Chamber. Such a small amount is involved.
I do not vouch for the authenticity of everything I read in the papers, but I read from a cutting I have in my hand of a certain Mr. Carl Hawker, who has actually made quite a little sum of money out of his opposition to museum charges. I am informed here that Mr. Hawker is an artist friend of Sir Michael Tippett, the composer, and that in 1961, when Tippett dedicated his new opera "King Priam" to Mr. Hawker, and gave him the manuscript, Hawker sent it to the British Museum
"on indefinite loan as a gesture of goodwill and in memory of many happy years spent there as a student."

1079
This paper goes on to say that when Lord Eccles announced his intention to charge, Mr. Hawker felt he wanted to withdraw the manuscript—like so many other people who have made gifts to a museum or galleries. He knows there is a ready market on the other side of the Atlantic and he was offered a good price. Probably the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, who is with us is in an ideal position to correct or endorse this, but if I can believe what I read Mr. Hawker did not go for the highest price he could find but took the price the British Museum was willing to pay him. He made. I understand, a clear £1,000 out of the deal. What an absurd position that we should be antagonising and distressing men and women of all kinds (we do not know how many are involved) whose impulse is to give because they would wish, as my noble friend Lord Slater said, to create a united nation and not a divided one.
This is all so small. This is so petty. I would say to the noble Viscount the Paymaster General that Christmas is coming. Give the kids at least the opportunity of free entrance. Not many of them are involved and it is the special ones we are talking about. It is the special child who seeks to find his or her way into our museums and galleries alone. They might go in out of the cold, like the odd old person, or they may go out of curiosity. Who knows why? Suffer them to come unto ye. Why should we create even the most minute barrier, any kind of tripwire, between any child who wants to feel that he is accepted as part of the community and that our museums and galleries are part of his home?
LORD AUCKLAND: It could be that there are serious objections to this Amendment as drafted. For example, as has already been said, "organised parties" is a somewhat vague expression. Equally, a number of arguments could be made in defence of making charges for children. Increased pocket money may be one. But I think we must differentiate between a museum and a live performance. Much play has been made of the fact that there are charges for cinemas and concert halls, but in the latter case we are dealing with live perform-
1080
ances. With museums we are dealing with something which is entirely educational. I well recall, as I know many of your Lordships will, as a child going frequently particularly to the Science Museum of the Natural History Museum. Many children visit such museums in organised parties and otherwise. It may be that if three or four boys go in they will run around and let off steam and have to be pulled up by an attendant. But even if an Amendment could be brought in saying that a boy must be accompanied by a parent or a responsible adult, this would go some of the way to meeting what is wanted. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, instanced the case of a boy going in on his own. Such a boy is probably going to learn very much more from going into the Science Museum or the National Gallery than from going to the Cameo Cinema. For this reason, I urge my noble friend to reconsider this matter. It is not a question of what children earn these days. We all know that children get more pocket money than they received thirty years ago, but museums are, as I understand it, establishments of a purely educational nature and the more youngsters, particularly, we get there, the better for all of us.
LORD AIREDALE: I hope that the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Slater, will be listened to. The noble Lord said that if organised parties of school children are going to get concessionary rates, then let organised parties of retired people equally get concessionary rates. Apart from that, after listening to this debate, I am beginning to wonder whether the Treasury would lose anything at all if the spirit of this Amendment were acceded to. I am thinking of the family party referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, who are travelling together on holiday. Let us say that the family consists of a grandparent, two parents, and their two children. Supposing the question arises: Are we or are we not going round a museum? It might be said, if all five have to pay, "The children won't enjoy it very much, perhaps, and it hardly seems worth it. Don't let's go." On the other hand, if Granny gets in for nothing and the children get in for nothing, and only Mum and Dad have to pay, they might think, "That's a bargain, so let's go." So all the Mums and Dads under those arrangements are going to contribute to museum

1081
funds monies which would not be forthcoming at all under a system whereby everybody is going to have to pay. I cannot help wondering whether, by acceding to the principle of this Amendment, the Treasury may be on a money-spinner, whereas if they reject it they are probably on to a loser.
LORD PLATT: I feel very strongly in favour of this Amendment, but of course I am bound to be influenced by speeches by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, who so far as I can see feel that, although they are in general favour of children's entering museums and galleries free, nevertheless it should not be put on the Statute Book; it is one of those matters which should be left to the trustees and governors to discuss with the Minister.
I rise only to warn the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, who I think said that one of his points was that conditions might vary from one institution to another. I see he nods his head. I suppose he remembers the noble Viscount's reply to the Amendment which we proposed on December 6 —that the practical effects of the Amendment would be to introduce a network of charges so uneven, so chaotic, so troublesome to vary in the smallest particular that it would become worthless. He said he was advised that this was exactly what the first Amendment said. These museums do not all think alike. In some the charges might be very low, and the exemptions very numerous. At other extremes other things might happen. This is something which apparently he cannot countenance. The public would ask why, since all the museums depend upon the Government for their money, the Government did not see that the rates and the exemptions were all the same. I do not think the noble Earl will get very far.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I want to make one appeal to the Government on the system of charges. Education is one of the best things that this country does for its children. When we are dealing with education it is no good our educating the child and not the parent. Therefore I ask not only that the children should go in free but that the parents should go in free with them.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, having seen this Bill go through all its stages,
1082
I should like to say that in my view what my noble friend Lord Auckland said made a great deal of sense. Basically, in principle it seemed to agree with the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I am entirely behind the idea of children, especially in family parties, being allowed into museums free. The educational side, as we have heard, is very good. In regard to pensioners, I think that what has been said by the experts, such as the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, is perfectly true: this can be left to the trustees because they know who the pensioners are and a working agreement can be arranged.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, may I just express the hope that the noble Viscount will take into account the—perhaps in a sense surprising—number of Members of the House of Lords who have told him that when they were young if they had had to pay to go to a museum or gallery they could not have afforded to do so. In another sphere he may remember that the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King (whose musical nature we all know) told us that his introduction to music came entirely from concerts which, he having discovered that it was in the charter of the Albert Hall that on Sun-days there had to be a certain number of free seats, he was able to attend; otherwise as a boy he could not possibly have afforded to do. I think that one of the points which is in our minds is that it seems odd, in a way, that my generation and the generation of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, who lived as boys in difficult times of considerable poverty, could then be allowed to go into museums free, whereas his grandchildren in much better times are told that we cannot afford to let them go in free and that they will have to pay.
7.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate and I am grateful for all that has been said. I think we must divide the Amendment from the idea behind it. It will be seen that the Amendment would put into the Bill a permissive power to grant free entry to children not in organised educational parties, and to retirement pensioners. That is a power which we already have. There is no need whatever to put that power into legislation. We already have the power to charge and

1083
also to ask the museums to agree to certain details of charging, so we do not need this Amendment. On the other hand it provides an excellent occasion on which to discuss the two categories of old-age pensioners and children.
I should like first to refer to the phrase "organised party". It may surprise your Lordships that the reason why we have said that organised parties can come in free is that the time is already arriving when directors of museums must have some control over the number of organised parties. They must be told in advance when these parties are coming, because the number coming at one time is getting quite embarrassing. I propose to refer to that point later. If there is a premium on an organised party it is possible for the manager of the museum to space out in a convenient way the number of schools, for example, in the London area who will be sending a party to a given museum. I do not wish to refer to what is happening at a number of the more celebrated provincial museums in France, where they are rationing the number of children every day—and indeed it is happening in America. I will return to that later because it is an important point: the number of children who are coming now and the number who, with very little extra encouragement. would come in the future.
Our proposal that retirement pensioners should pay 5p and that children not in these parties should pay 5p is due to the fact that we have, I think it might be said, set a modest target, £1 million a year, for the amount of money we wish to collect from charging as an appropriation in aid. That figure, and the fact that we believe that it is right to keep the basic charge down to 10p for ten months in the year, governs the number of exemptions that we can make. We could, of course, go for a smaller sum, in which case we could make these exemptions quite easily. Personally, I should be happy to do that, but we really think that as we have such a large financial plan on hand £1 million must be our target. We could make exemptions and raise the basic charge to 20p, which for reasons that I have explained to the House on previous occasions is the first stopping place after 10p. If we did that, I am quite convinced that the result
1084
would be unfair as between those who would then be paying 20p and those who would then be paying nothing. If one looks round on a crowded day it is obvious that most of the few elderly visitors—and I agree with the two noble Lords who are trustees and who have spoken—and most of the children could as easily afford 5p as the visitors of working age could afford 20p. Speaking for a moment about the pensioners, I think we are agreed on both sides of the House that as pensioners wish to spend their money in many different ways, the best help that any Government can give them is to increase the cash rate of pension. Well, we have just done that by £1—the largest increase which has ever been made by any Government.
Now I want to come to the children. I think that those who are so solicitous for children—and I hope to convince the Committee that I am, too—cannot be very familiar with the situation in the museums to-day, and still less with the improvements in the services for children that simply must be made as soon as we can make them. It seems to me that such people are thinking, as the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner said, of the days when they were children. The differences between the pocket money at the disposal of children when I was a young man, and the noble Lord was a young man, and when the noble Baroness was still a child and the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, was in his cot, and the amounts they have now are very great indeed. The noble Baroness told us that her father spent a penny on a concert in Dunfermline; about how much he loved music, and said that that was why he paid his entrance charge, because he loved music. I think it very probable that a penny in those days was worth more to a Fife miner than 5p is to the average child who goes into a museum to-day. At least, that is the general belief of those who look after the museums which are most attractive to children.
It is very important to realise that our museums were built and arranged for adults. It is only quite recently that children have begun to come to them in tens of thousands, and to put tens of thousands of questions to the staff. And the result is that the demand on gallery space and the load on the staff are being

1085
radically altered. Some museums have appointed an education officer; others are about to do so. But none, I venture to say, has the number of lecture rooms, separate restaurants and other facilities which the children already need desperately badly, and they will need much more if they are not to get right in the way of the adults and make it very difficult at many times of the day and on many days in the year for the museums to be appreciated in the way we want.
The influx of school parties (it is admirably set out in a Report, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Lee commissioned, on Museums and Education) is going up rapidly, and it would be very easy indeed to encourage a further enormous increase. If children in the Inner London Education Authority area (let us take the one nearest to our major museums) visited the museum in the proportion which all of us in this House would like, the situation would be extraordinarily embarrassing. I think it is perfectly true also, from what I saw when I was at the British Museum, that many of the children who afterwards come back unaccompanied, or even bring their fathers and mothers, were first introduced to museums on school parties; and I believe that we want more and more of these children to be introduced, to have their curiosity fired, by one means or another. Therefore the question is this: do you want actively to stimulate the use of our museums by children, whether in parties or on their own? If you do—and this is the Government's firm intention—then you must ask how the money is to be found to finance the new building, the extra staff, special publications and all the other facilities which are lacking and which will be very urgently needed.
If we do not put these improvements in hand pretty soon, we shall have to find ways of rationing the number of children going to museums. As I said before, it is already done abroad. We do not want to be driven to doing that in our museums, but it is a race against time. If the new block at the British Museum—the finance for part of which the noble Baroness authorised, and the other part of which has now been authorised—is started next month, we shall have there a whole great set of educational rooms which can be used for children, in small groups, or on their own, or of course in
1086
larger organised parties, and we shall have a large new restaurant entirely for the children. I wonder how many noble Lords have witnessed the conditions in which children visiting the British Museum now try to get something to eat. It is really shocking.
Do noble Lords know that the National Gallery has told Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools that they are reluctant to encourage any more school parties for fear of overcrowding at the peak periods of the year? I wonder whether noble Lords have experienced the conditions on a weekend this summer—when of course the situation gets worse—at the museums most attractive to children. And here I must observe that not all the children who come unaccompanied are interested in the displays. Sad to say, a growing number are rowdy and destructive. Two provincial museums have recently initiated charges for the express purpose of keeping the young hooligans away. The charges have worked. The gangs do not come any more, but the attendances as a whole have continued to rise. One of those museums is in the North-East, and the noble Lord. Lord Slater, might like to know that it is now visited by more family parties than ever before. I should like to do what all noble Lords wish and admit children free, but we cannot do it just yet; we must get these museums more prepared. And as the power to do it is not required—we already have it—I feel that the Amendment itself would not commend itself to the House, and that the noble Lord would not wish to press an Amendment that would give a power which is quite unnecessary.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, do I take it from what the noble Viscount is now saying that the trustees of the various museums already have plenary powers whereby they can, if they so will it, intro-duce a policy whereby children could be admitted free, or could be admitted free with their parents, and aged people could be admitted free? Have they plenary powers to take such action?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I am glad the noble Lord raised that point, because it is one on which we had some confusion before. This is a Bill to remove impediments from four bodies of trustees only who do not possess that power. Then all the national museums

1087
and galleries will have a legal power to charge. But the charges would be made in principle and in detail on the scales which the Government tell them we think is the best and fairest way of raising the El million. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked why that is not the most important thing in the world. The answer is that the £1 million is opening the door to so many other things. That is why there are other things that are more important. We could, if we thought it was fairer, charge all people of working age 20p and charge children nothing. It is our view that that would not be so fair as between one category and another. But I propose to tell the House, on the last Amendment, that after this system has been working for three years we are prepared to have an official review in which all this experience can be looked at. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, said that they had some pretty good statistics in the Natural History Museum. I think they are very reasonable statistics, but I think I am right in saying that the national museums, as a group, have not good statistics now. We must collect them, and I undertake at the end of three years, if it appears that the way these charges are being assigned is unfair as between one category of person and another, we will review them. In the meantime, I must oppose the Amendment because it is totally unnecessary.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and that the spirit of the Amendment has had support from all quarters of the House. I was particularly impressed with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, when he said that he thought that we were dealing with something that is entirely educational. I was also impressed with the plea that the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, put forward for family parties. I must say that I was rather shocked by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, when he described retirement pensioners as "poor old things", and the slightly patrician attitude which he adopted.
THE EARL or CRANBROOK: My Lords, perhaps I may explain myself.
1088
There are about a dozen "poor old things" who come into our museum. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, would say that he has about a dozen poor old things". I think every institution has that sort of number who drift in just for the warmth. Everybody, except apparently the noble Lord opposite, knows that that very small number exist. I imagine that if charges were introduced we should probably "cook" them through, and say nothing about it.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for explaining what he meant to say. It may be that the retirement pensioners are not so interested in natural history. Many other museums are full of a great many old people, and I think it does them a great disservice to describe them in this rather contemptuous fashion.
I can assure the noble Viscount the Minister that I know the Refreshment Room in the British Museum very well. It is a ghastly place. It is a small catacomb leading out of the GrecoRoman rooms. The caterer there does extremely well in very difficult conditions. This is not the fault of the children. I do not think that you could argue that children should not be allowed into the British Museum because of this rather small and unsatisfactory refreshment place. I seem to remember that when the noble Viscount was chairman of the Trustees there was talk then of building a new refreshment room there, and I think that the Trustees at that time announced that they were generously going to give up their own board room. But nothing seems to happen, and I think that this is the fault of the Ministry of Works and not of the children.
We often forget that we are dealing with very small figures. The noble Viscount has his target, to which he must keep, but, as I said before, to exempt all the children would cost only £150,000. I know that the Government do not have the figure for the retirement pensioners, but it cannot really be very much. Nothing that has been said convinces me that this Amendment should not be accepted, and I must ask your Lordships to divide.
7.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
7.32 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Running costs
". If the proportion of the charges of admission attributable to running costs exceeds 10 per cent., the charges of admission may not solely for that reason be increased pro rata."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment seeks to ensure that if the 10 per cent. estimated running cost is found to be too optimistic, the admission charges may not be increased pro rata solely for that reason; so gallery visitors
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 75.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Diamond, L.

Peddie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Falkland, V.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Arwyn, L.

Foot, L.

Platt, L.

Avebury, L.

Gardiner, L.

Rea, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Headfort, M.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Beswick, L.

Henley, L.

Shackleton, L.

Blackett, L.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Blyton, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Simon, V.

Brockway, L.

Maelor, L.

Slater, L.

Champion, L.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Collison, L.

Norwich, V.

Summerskill, Bs.

Crook, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

White, Bs.

Davies of Leek, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Eccles, V.

Nairne, Bs.

Abinger, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Northchurch, Bs.

Ailwyn, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Oakshott, L.

Aldenham, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Amory, V.

Fortescue, E.

Reading, M.

Balerno, L.

Gainford, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Barnby, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Beaumont, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebons, L. (L. Chancellor.)

St. Helens, L.

Belstead, L.

Sandford, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Hanworth, V.

Sandys, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Harris, L.

Sherfield, L.

Bradford, E.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Somers, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hawke, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Strathcarron, L.

Conesford, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strathclyde, L.

Courtown, E.

Killearn, L.

Sudeley, L.

Cowley, E.

Kilmany, L.

Swansea, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Terrington, L.

Cran brook, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lucan, E.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Daventry, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vivian, L.

Davidson, V.

Milverton, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

de Clifford, L.

Mountevans, L.

Windlesham, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Wolverton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

will not have to pay for any miscalculations. So far as the Scottish national galleries are concerned, the 10 per cent. estimate seems to be little more than wild surmise. The total income from Scottish admission charges is calculated at about £70,000 in a full year, but according to an Answer given in the other place on December 8 last, the running costs are estimated at £11,000. I make that well over 15 per cent. In actual fact—and this calculation is based on the attendance figures—about half of this amount will come from the Royal Scottish Museum, with the remainder coming from the other four Edinburgh galleries, including the Scottish National Gallery. No wonder, my Lords, that the Trustees of the National Gallery in Edinburgh stated in their last Report that, even on

1091
the practical level, they had doubts about a levy which will be difficult and expensive to collect.
The minimum running cost at the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich, I am informed, will be £20,000 a year for wages alone. I understand that 15 new staff members will be required and there is very little accommodation for them. This does not seem to accord with the Government's policy of reducing the number of civil servants. At Greenwich there are ten entrances, which may now have to be reduced to seven, with some inconvenience to the public. I am afraid that the same heavy costs may be repeated in several other institutions. The last time an attempt was made to impose charges at the British Museum was in 1923, and one of the reasons for dropping the scheme was that the cost of running it would be far too great. The other reason was strong opposition from all Parties in the other place. I should like to ask the Minister whether it is true that an order has already been placed for a hundred ticket machines and 25 million tickets, presumably at a cost of £55,000. If that is so, it seems rather premature, when the Bill has not yet been passed by this House let alone considered by the other place. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that. My Lords, I beg to move.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has proceeded with his Amendment with the idea that the estimate of costs has to apply museum by museum. Of course that has never been possible. It is perfectly obvious that some museums are much more thinly attended than others and that therefore the cost of collecting the charges at some will be less than at others. We have tried to make our assessment on the basis of all the museums taken together. Of course the Amendment does not make sense, and I am very surprised to see it on the Marshalled List. What I understand the noble Lord would like to happen is that if, let us say, we have underestimated the costs in the whole of the museums by £25,000, we should then be prohibited by his Amendment from increasing the charges—and how we should do it, I cannot imagine—by £25,000. But the noble Lord's Amendment states that we may increase the
1092
charges by £24.000, or we may increase them by £26,000. In fact, your Lord-ships will observe that the words in the Amendment read, "… may not … be increased pro rata." I am afraid that this destroys the value of what the noble Lord is asking us to do.
On the general point, I am afraid that I do not know about the order for machines. I can say that we had hoped that the Parliamentary timetable in both Houses would be such that we could have got the Bill through by the Christmas Recess, in which case we should obviously have required the machines in order to start the charging on January 1. We could not possibly have ordered them between, let us say, December 17 and January 3. So I should think it is probable that some arrangements have already been made, but I am afraid that I do not have the details. It may be that, in practice, however much we try to keep the costs down, we shall find that at certain museums the net result is really hardly worth while. If that happens, then I have no doubt that when we come to our review in three years' time, that will be one of the points taken up.
But, in our opinion, when something like this scheme is started, which evidently arouses such a lot of public interest, we must start on a uniform basis and then, if experience tells us that we should vary it, we shall do so in time to come. If charges are kept where they are and for one reason or another wages are increased, then it is obvious that our original estimate of the proportion of the total receipts required for administration will go up. Obviously, there are matters of that kind which make it impossible to say that the proportion will never go up. But if the noble Lord reflects upon the amount by which the estimate might be wrong—if it is wrong —he will agree that it is so little that it would be extremely difficult to increase the charges to match it. How would you spread over, let us say, the sum of £25,000? I regret to say, therefore, that the noble Lord's Amendment does not do at all what he thinks it does, and I hope that he will not pursue it.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, may I make quite sure that the noble Viscount does not have in

1093
his mind at this moment any idea of making these ridiculous charges still more ridiculous by increasing them? I was rather alarmed, when he started talking about labour and costs going up, that charges might have to go up as well: because I believe that the fallacy under-lying all these discussions is that we are continually trying to feed the dog with its own tail. The particular dog we are dealing with is a very small dog. If you compare the total Estimates for the Arts and the museums and galleries with the Estimates for most other Departments of Government, you will see that in some Departments they are very large dogs—Defence, Transport and, quite properly, those concerned with hospitals and education. It may be that in those cases you can trim the tail or take a hair or two off the ears here and there without that having very much effect; but when you are dealing with something which is really a new form of public responsibility in its present size, is it not high time that, instead of going round in circles wondering whether we can pinch-penny here and pinch-penny there to get an extra little lavatory in the children's restaurant in a museum by charging some children, we turned to the Government and said to them, "Look here, you have got your priorities wrong"? Instead of sort of eating in on ourselves in this cannibal fashion, what we need is a little more money all round so that we should not have to indulge in this sort of discussion, which, quite frankly, I think is undignified.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Baroness Lee for her support, and I have little to add to what she has said. This, of course, is only an exploratory Amendment, and I shall not press it. I must say I am shocked to hear the Minister con-firm that the Government have spent a large sum of the taxpayers' money in buying these machines before Parliament has even passed the Bill. It seems to me an absolutely flagrant disregard, not only of this House but of the other place as well. But having said that, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.42 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Duration.
". This Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and seventy-four, and shall then expire unless Parliament by affirmative resolution of each House determines that it shall continue in force."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment limits the duration of the Act to two years from next March. We are setting out on new territory so far as the post-war period is concerned. All the museums and galleries have been free since the last war. Indeed, the Victoria and Albert Museum has been free since 1914—all my life—and the British Museum has been free since the middle of the 18th century. We do not know what effect these charges will have on attendances generally, or on the general attitude of the gallery-going public. We do not know what effect they will have on children's attendances. Also, of course, this is enabling legislation, through which Parliament will be giving more or less a free hand to the Government, who, by financial pressure, can get the arrangements changed or amended without having to come back to Parliament, since the second Amendment has been defeated. In our view, therefore, it is absolutely essential to have a review after a period. The National Gallery Trustees, in their last report—in which, of course, they came down firmly against charging—said that they considered that all arrangements for charging should be subject to revision after twelve months, but this period may be a little too short. After consultation, I think that two years would be about right, and that is the period I have put in the Amendment which I am venturing to move. I propose, therefore, that the Act should expire after this period unless Parliament decides that it should continue in force. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, we have not amended this Bill in any way which alters its character. It is a Bill—and here I read the Title—
"to remove impediments to the making of charges for admission to the national museums and galleries in Great Britain".

1095
It then goes on to remove the impediments in respect of the four bodies of trustees who are at present uncertain of their powers. If, therefore, we accepted this new clause, all we would be doing at the end of 1974 is to call in question whether or not the removal of the impediments to the powers of these four museums had been a sensible thing to do —and that is not what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, wants. What he wants—and I quite understand it—is that a system of charges which are novel and which have aroused very considerable opposition in many parts should be looked at.
Now we think the same, and therefore I have been giving thought to the best way in which I could give an undertaking to the House that we would have a thorough review. I am of the opinion that three years is needed before we shall know how these charges are working out, and whether there are any major changes that need to be made. I will undertake that the Government will have an official review of the working of the system in three years' time, by which time we ought to have proper statistics from which we can really know what has been happening—and we do not have them now. That, I think, is a much more satisfactory offer to the House than an Amendment which, as I say, is so narrowly confined to the actual Bill, itself a very narrow Bill, that we have been discussing.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I want to put on record that in my view the attendances at our museums and galleries are going to go up, irrespective of charges. They are going to go up because, although we are taking such a reactionary step in imposing charges, there is a more liberal attitude in our schools and there is much more encouragement to be interested in the Arts, as the noble Viscount knows. One of the last reports produced during the last Parliament was on the use of the museums and galleries by our schools. Indeed, as the noble Viscount has said, the real problem is the tidal wave of young ones and those of middle age who want to go in. You cannot have the kind of television programmes that have been given by Lord Clark—television programmes which have appeared on B.B.C.1 now, as well as on
1096
B.B.C.2—or the experiment of television programmes dealing with the treasures of the British Museum, without their having an immense impact. There are enormous numbers of people who never before knew of the existence of these institutions. To them, they were strange, dark, unattractive places. These people are now having their interest stimulated in all kinds of ways; schools are learning about museums and galleries, and so on.
Therefore, I hope it will not be taken for granted that any of us on this side of the House thinks that an increase in the total of attendances is a justification for charges, because what we have tried to say is that, although a wider public will become interested in museums and galleries, and in all that they stand for, which is my view, that still does not answer the point that unless society changes radically in the next few years there are going to be families—not just a few families, but thousands and hundreds of thousands of families; and I could go to a much higher number than that—in which there are individual children and individual middle-aged people who are going to be prevented from attending these places because of the charge. That is the gravamen of what we are trying to say.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt, particularly as I definitely shall not be a trustee in 1974 because my period of office expires before then, but I can assure noble Lords opposite that the trustees are as jealous as anyone else of what will be the results after this Act has been passed. Certainly in our triennial reports we shall put before Parliament very full reports of what has happened and all of us, I am certain. if dissatisfied will make it abundantly clear that we are dissatisfied and will expect Parliamenet to take action. I do not think this Amendment is necessary, for that reason.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I would ask leave to say one or two further words. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lee. I think that she is right. The tidal wave is such that. charges or no charges, attendances will go up. It is a matter of interest that in the museums in the Provinces, where charges have been put on in fairly recent years, attendances have gone up faster.

1097
The reason is very simple. It is because interest in the museums has grown so much. More people have talked about them and more ratepayers have, I suppose, insisted that more things were done. I hope that this is going to happen here. I agree that if we really "went to town" on the advertising of our museums over the mass media we should certainly see some extraordinary results.
I should like to say that I was at the British Museum for eight years, and for eight years I saw that this was going to happen. But did anybody listen? It is all very well to discover in 1971 that we are going to be swamped by these crowds. I think that we all have to take a share of the blame: that we ought to have found it out in 1961. If we had, by now we should have had many extensions built. But better late than never! Let us now combine and try to do what is right. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and I assure him that the tougher that he and his co-trustees make their reports the better the Government will be pleased.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I was rather hoping from the tone of the noble Viscount's earlier remarks that he was going to accept this Amendment—as he accepted the last Amendment on the Committee stage. The last Amendments seem to be the lucky ones. But we must be thankful for half a loaf, and I am glad to hear that after three years he will be reviewing this whole project It may be too early to ask him this question, but I should like to know what kind of review it will be and what form it will take. The difference between this and my Amendment is that the Government review will be conducted by the Government while my Amendment would ensure that the contents of the Bill would be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure of Parliament. I know that the Government always are anxious to avoid coming to Parliament—and have been so, right from the beginning of this scheme. It is at least consistent with that policy.
The noble Viscount mentioned how the attendances were going up in the provincial museums after admission charges had been put on. I suppose he had in mind Castle Museum in Norwich, for that is always cited. The reason for this is that it is now a focal point and highlight
1098
of many of the coach tours. It has nothing to do with the charges and the admission charge is often part of the overall day ticket. Having said that, I am grateful for the fact that the Government are regarding this as something that is experimental. I am sure it is right that something so new and so different from what has been the policy prevailing since the war should be reviewed again after three years. I welcome that and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
7.54 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, I wonder whether, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Dulverton, who is absent at the moment in East Africa promoting some philanthropic work in regard to the Flying Doctor Service there, I may ask Her Majesty's Government if they have any further statement to make regarding the grey squirrel? Your Lordships will remember that there was considerable discussion during the Committee stage on November 30 last under Amendment No. 10.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandys for giving me this opportunity of telling your Lordships about the progress we have made towards meeting what is, I am confident, a widespread desire in this House that there should be more effective means of controlling the grey squirrel. As promised, I have brought to the notice of my right honourable friends the strong views which were expressed when the Bill was with us in Committee. I think it would be a fair summary of your Lordships' feelings if I said that, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, all those who spoke on this subject wanted the law to be amended so that grey squirrels could be poisoned if and when scientific research established that this could safely be done—and by

1099
"safely" I am sure that the House would have in mind that there should be no material risk to other forms of wildlife, and indeed domestic animals. That, my Lords, is the very nub of the matter because, as I have been at pains to explain, we are not yet satisfied that we have an adequate safety margin, although recent research suggests that it could soon be within our grasp.
It is for this reason that the Government have been attracted to the suggestion developed by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and supported by my noble friend Lord Derwent, that the more satisfactory approach at this stage would be to introduce enabling powers under which the use of a suitable poison such as Warfarin could be permitted against grey squirrels provided essential safeguards were observed. In the short interval since that suggestion was made, there have been some urgent consultations with the wildlife, animal welfare and like interests concerned to obtain their first reactions to the principle of approaching the problem in this way. Although there is understandable apprehension in some quarters, it is clear that the principle of enabling powers would carry a wide measure of assent provided that no orders could be made without prior statutory consultation with organisations concerned and without the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
Clearly it would be an abuse of this constructive response to rush into legislation without giving the wildlife and other interests reasonable time to consider not only the principle—which, as I have said, appears to enjoy a wide area of consent—but also the actual form of the statutory changes that would be involved. Your Lordships will agree that a matter of this kind, which is of very real importance to so many people, cannot properly be transacted over the telephone in the brief interval between the Committee and Report stages in your Lordships' House. Nor would the Government wish to table an Amendment of this kind without giving your Lordships any margin of time to digest its implications. In these circumstances, I hope noble Lords will be content if the Government take steps to draft an Amendment which would enable orders to be made, on the lines I have described. This would give us a frame-
1100
work for urgent but more formal consultations with those concerned—and for this purpose, if it is acceptable to the House, I will personally take counsel with my noble friends, Lord Dulverton or Lord Sandys. In this way, the Government's aim would be to bring in their Amendment when the Bill reaches another place, and a new clause of the kind I am depicting would of course come back to your Lordships for detailed consideration at the concluding stages of the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

IMMIGRATION CONTROL: U.K. PASSPORT HOLDERS IN EAST AFRICA
7.59 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY LORD AVEBURY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they will take, following the recommendation of the European Commission on Human Rights in the case of the United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa, to reach a friendly settlement with the complainants.The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I apologise for detaining your Lordships at this hour but, if I may, I would start by recapitulating briefly the changes in legislation in the United Kingdom and Commonwealth countries principally concerned which have led to the unhappy plight of the applicants to the European Commission on Human Rights who represent the tip of an iceberg of human misery and destitution. Under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 a distinction was made, for the first time, between citizens of independent Commonwealth countries and citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The groups then remaining exempt from control were: persons born in the United Kingdom; persons who held U.K. passports as opposed to colonial passports and who were citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or who held such passports issued in the United Kingdom or in the Republic of Ireland; and persons who were included in the passport of another person who was himself exempt as falling into either of the two previous categories.
In 1965, the Government decided to limit the admission of Commonwealth

1101
citizens subject to control, by reducing the number of voucher holders from the previously existing level of 20, 800 under the Act of 1962, to 8, 500 per annum. This cut down not only on the number admitted for employment but also the number of their dependants, and we can see this in the figures issued by the Home Office since then which show a decline from a peak of 61,000 in total admitted in 1967 to about 37,000 in 1970. I would note in passing, my Lords, that during the same period on the official Home Office figures the number of aliens admitted for permanent settlement increased from approximately 18,000 in 1967 to 21,000 in 1970. So it is not the pressure of numbers which has occasioned this fresh legislation and the restrictions imposed by successive Governments.
This 1967 figure I have mentioned included 13, 600 United Kingdom citizens from East Africa who were also passport holders. These were mainly, as we know, from Kenya. In 1967 the Kenya Government passed the Immigration Act and Trade Licensing Act, which had the effect of depriving noncitizens—and those were, of course, mainly non-citizens of Asian origin—of the opportunity of supporting themselves in many categories of employment or independent trading. But the higher rate of immigration during the year 1967 may, according to the experts, have been as much due to the threat of impending British legislation as to the laws that were passed in that year in Kenya itself. And similar legislation was passed in Uganda, in 1969.
Originally, under the 1962 Act which I have mentioned, the United Kingdom passport holders were subject to control because their passports had been issued in a dependent territory. But then, after independence was conferred on those territories, those who did not obtain citizenship of the newly independent country were able to renew their United Kingdom pasports and, by doing so, to obtain exemption from the entry controls into Britain, since a renewed passport was then issued directly by the United Kingdom Government and not by the Government of a Dependency. It was clearly recognised at the time that East African persons who were of Asian descent might wish to continue to exer
1102
cise all the rights of United Kingdom citizenship, including the freedom of entry into this country; otherwise there would have been no point in granting them this choice.
I would refer noble Lords to the open letter written by Mr. Macleod to Mr. Duncan Sandys late in the day, just before the 1968 Act was introduced into Parliament, when Mr. Duncan Sandys was considering a Private Member's Bill. Mr. Macleod wrote to him in these terms:
"Two years after the introduction of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act you introduced the Kenya Independence Bill to the House of Commons. The constitution on which it was founded was detailed and exact. The pro-visions for citizenship and for renunciation were clear. The earlier Act must, of course, have been in your mind. Your Under-Secretary said in the House, after explaining the Bill, There is thus no question of anyone becoming stateless as a result of the Bill's provisions.' The only pressure in the House was for you to widen not restrict the protection given to minorities and you responded."
So that was the view of Mr. Macleod as to the motivation of the British Government at the time of conferring in-dependence on Kenya. There was no question whatsoever that this was in-tended to deprive the United Kingdom citizens of Asian origin who were then resident in Kenya of any of the rights which they had previously enjoyed.
Yet in 1968 the Government, alarmed by the rise in the number of immigrants from East Africa and panicked into action by the racialists who were in full cry at that time, suddenly revoked the right of their own citizens by passing the Commonwealth Immigrants Act of that year. This Act provided that in addition to the qualifications set out in the 1962 Act, it was necessary for a person to show that he was born in the United Kingdom or had a parent or a grandparent who was born in the United Kingdom or had a similar connection by way of naturalisation, registration or adoption. The only loophole then left, which is important in some of the cases we heard before the European Commission, was that certain wives could still obtain exemption for themselves and their children, even when their husbands failed to qualify for free admission. This loop-hole, I understand, has now been stopped up under the 1971 Act, with effect from January 1, 1972.
Apart from that, East African Asians were granted a special quota of 1, 500 vouchers, within the total of 8, 500 which remained unaltered, and that implied an intake of 6,000 to 7,000 persons a year from East Africa as a whole. This figure ought to be compared with the Government's estimate of 200,000 persons of Asian origin resident in East Africa at the time who might have sought entry within a very short time in the absence of any control. I may add that the Kenya Government's estimate of the number in mid-1968 was 100,000, and since then there has been a census in Kenya which shows that the actual number was only 60,000. But no attempt was made officially by the British Government either to establish, by means of detailed surveys in the countries concerned, what the total number was or what percentage of them might have wished to exercise their right of entry in the absence of any controls. So far as I am aware, the only information that we have on this subject is from a survey conducted by Mr. Martin Ennals, the Secretary-General of Amnesty International, who, in a survey of 2,039 heads of households in Kenya, discovered that only 18-2 per cent. of them would have wished to settle permanently in the United Kingdom.
I should add that there has been an increase this year in the number of special vouchers. It was doubled to 3,000 with effect from June 1, and there was also a once-and-for-all increase of 1, 500 during this current year. If you work out the time it is going to take for all the would-be immigrants to be admitted on the basis of the Government figures for 1968—let us say at the rate of 3,000 voucher holders per annum; that means an intake of 13, 500 persons allowing for their families—if there were 200,000 it would take 20 years before all those waiting in the queue were ultimately satisfied. I think the Government's estimate of the size of the queue has been grossly exaggerated, and I should refer here to some figures produced by my honourable friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles in the Sunday Times on May 9, 1971. He showed then, after a visit that he made to Kenya, that there were some-thing like 2,000 waiting to be admitted, and they broke down into the following categories: 650 young people who had left school and found themselves unable
1104
to get employment; 350 former traders living on steadily dwindling capital; 200 people with money and skills which could be particularly useful in Britain; 100 widows and 700 persons who had lost their employment. That was the size of the problem.
Now I come to the case which has been presented before the European Commission. As noble Lords will be aware, there were originally 25 cases, to which another six were added later. All these were declared admissible in January, 1971. Of this first and larger group of 25, the majority were the young single men whose case I have already mentioned, and just over half of them had applied for special vouchers before they left Kenya. It is noteworthy that not one of these applicants for special vouchers has been granted such a voucher, no doubt because they did not fall into any of the priority categories which were laid down by the Government; that is to say —and I quote from the Government's memorandum of evidence to the European Commission:

"(a) persons under notice to leave their country of residence by a given date;

(b) persons barred from employment or trading in their country of residence;

(c) persons unable to obtain employment (e.g., school-leavers who have never succeeded in obtaining jobs because of local policies in their country of residence);

(d) persons in economic hardship for other reasons (e.g., deserted wives with young children, retired persons with inadequate pensions);

(e) other persons wishing to migrate. Within categories (a) to (c) priority is given to those suffering economic hardship."

It would be interesting to know how many persons in the countries that we are discussing had their applications accepted under each of these headings, and in India also, since many of the passport holders originally went to India temporarily on the understanding that it would not affect their ultimate right to settle in the United Kingdom. I am not sure how many people actually went to India. I think my honourable friend, in the article to which I am referring, gave an estimate of 6,000 families who went to settle in India at the time in the belief that they would not thereby forfeit any of the rights that they held as United Kingdom passport holders. But when questions were put in another place on

1105
this subject at the time of the Statement on increase in the number of vouchers, the Minister responding was extremely vague about the rights of these passport holders. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could clarify their position this evening. The submissions of the Government do not make it clear whether any of the young men concerned in these 31 cases before the European Commission were employed at the time of their departure from East Africa, or whether any of them had been able to get jobs since the time that they left school, but it is a well-known fact that, quite apart from any legislation that may be operative in Kenya and Uganda, school-leavers of the Asian community have the greatest difficulty in obtaining work.
The second important category to which I should like to refer is the group whose wives had already become resident in the United Kingdom, either before the 1968 Act or as exempt persons after the passage of the 1968 Act. Paragraph 41 of the Instructions to immigration Officers says that an entry certificate will be issued to a man to join his wife and family resident in the United Kingdom only if there are special considerations which would render his exclusion un-desirable, such as the degree of hardship the family would suffer if the wife had to live outside the United Kingdom to be with her husband. Yet in no case that I am aware of, apart from these three taken before the European Commission, has the discretion of the Secretary of State been exercised in favour of a husband where the wife's and children's return to East Africa (assuming that they could pay the fare and that the East African country would readmit them, both of which are extremely doubtful) would mean a return to destitution, homelessness and permanent unemployment. I may take as a recent example the case of Mr. Chandrakana P. Joshi, living in Kenya, who applied to come here to join his wife and seven-year-old child, and was refused by the tribunal as recently as December 7. It would appear to me that paragraph 41 of these Regulations is still being interpreted very harshly, except in the few cases where unwelcome publicity is focused on the Home Office.
It would take far too long for me to enter into the cases heard at Strasbourg in any detail. I will just mention the
1106
Articles under which these cases were brought: Article 31, protection from de-grading treatment; Article 51, right to security of the person; Article 8, respect for family life; Article 14, protection from discrimination on racial and other grounds. I will only say, in this connection, that the argument before the European Commission frequently de-generated into one of semantics; but I think that the applicants had the better of the case, because when one looks at the first of the Articles that I have men-tioned—what constitutes degrading treat-ment—one can refer, as counsel on behalf of the applicants did, to the definition contained in the Oxford English Diction-ary. "Degrade" is defined there as:
"to reduce from a higher to a lower rank; to depose from a position of honour or estimation; to lower in the estimation of character or quality".
Sir Dingle Foot also referred to a case that was heard before the Privy Council in 1967, which was an appeal from the courts of Southern Rhodesia, interestingly enough, where counsel for the Crown, Mr. Mervyn Heald, who was acting against the applicants before the European Commission, produced a definition of the word "degrade". He said:
"'Degrade' means' lowering in rank, position, reputation or character'."
I think, my Lords, it is undeniable that so far as the 31 applicants are concerned they were lowered in all of these respects by the refusal of the United Kingdom Government to honour the undertakings that were given to them at the time of conferring independence on Kenya.
These complaints were all found to be admissible by January of this year. The Commission considered the written observations in May and held an oral hearing on the merits of the case in September. Under the procedure of the Commission the pleadings are not followed by a judgment. What happens is that an attempt is made to reach a settlement between the parties which is acceptable to both sides. Since the end of September, presumably the Commission has been sounding out the British Government and the complainants to see whether this is possible. I under-stand that discussions have taken place. But I would remind your Lordships that if no agreement can be reached, then

1107
the Commission will have power to report the case to the European Court, and the court in turn would have the power to award compensation to the victims of contravention of the treaty and even to require changes in British legislation, domestic legislation, which has given rise to the complaints. In other words, the European Court could require us to rescind Section 1 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968. Unfortunately there is no time for this stage to be reached, and that is why, after nearly three months, I am asking the Government to give us a progress report this evening.
In my opinion, my Lords, the 1968 Act was one of the shabbiest and most repulsive pieces of legislation ever passed through Parliament; and I think the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, probably agrees with me about that, because he voted against it at the time. Not only have we deprived many thousands of British subjects of their citizenship purely nn grounds of colour, but we have locked them up in our prisons when they were innocent of any offence; we have deprived women and children of the sup-port of their menfolk we have left families to rot in half the cities of Europe; we have treated without compassion or humanity the wretched supplicants before the High Commissions in the East African territories. I sincerely hope that the Government will be able to make an offer which is satisfactory to these particular complainants. But no redress for them could wipe out the stain on our country's honour.
8.20 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I do not think that any of us can have listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, without a feeling of shame—a feeling of shame because the real issue that is before us when we are considering the results of the Immigration Act 1968 is one of national honour. That shame was felt so deeply during the debate on the Bill that the representatives of this House who have had service in the Commonwealth Department were among those who spoke against the Bill and who voted against it while they were Conservatives. There was the speech of the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire; the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord
1108
Lansdowne, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said, perhaps the least happy person in the House to-night can be Lord Windlesham, who also voted against the Bill. Let me just add this, to be fair: I am perfectly certain that on the Front Benches of the Labour Government who introduced this Bill there was an unhappiness about it as great as the unhappiness on the other side.
The issue then was one of an honourable pledge which we had given to these British Asians in East Africa. We had said to them in the clearest terms: "You will be recognised as British citizens; you will have British passports with all the undertakings given in the name of Her Majesty which are within a British passport: freedom of movement, freedom to come here". I regard it as one of the most shameful periods in our history that when we had given a pledge of national honour in that way we should have betrayed it because of tensions within our own country. I am not saying for a moment that there were not great pressures—perhaps more by public speakers than in public opinion—which sought to restrict the coming to this country of those who were non-whites. But it was a shameful thing that our Government, with the support of a majority both in this House and in another place, should have given way to those kinds of pressures rather than maintaining the national honour of our country in pledges which had been given.
I am not speaking, my Lords, from prejudice in favour of the British Asians concerned. I think they took a wrong decision when the independence of Uganda, of Kenya and of Tanzania was recognised. I spoke in Kenya with my friend, Mrs. Indira Ghandi, now Prime Minister of India, to thousands of Indians in Nairobi, and I said that they should accept the advice of Pandit Nehru, the then Prime Minister, and become citizens of Kenya, where they were resident and where they were devoting their lives. Similarly, when the independence of Uganda was recognised, I met the leaders of the Indian community there and urged the same point. I want to acknowledge that a good deal of blame rests upon the Indian community for not becoming citizens of both Kenya and Uganda and in their failure to integrate themselves with the African

1109
majority in those territories. One could go to Kampala or Jinga in Uganda and see streets which were Indian rather than African, with Indian citizens segregated from the Africans. Thdrefore, in my opposition to this Bill when I moved its rejection in this House, and in my attitude now, I am not prejudiced in any sense in favour of the Indians concerned.
My criticism preceding the 1968 Bill was that there had been no proper consultations with the Governments of East Africa or with the Indian populations there. Three years have passed and it would be difficult to describe the conditions of Indians who are now denied, because of their absence of citizenship, the right to trade or the right to work. Go to-day to Kampala or to Jinga and you will see the Indian shops closed and the families who lived above their shops evicted from their accommodation.
We have been extraordinarily foolish, because while we have increased the number who are allowed to come to this country, when they come they will be in a far worse condition to become citizens of this country and to contribute to it than they would have been three years ago. There are many of them who had training, experience and high skills. In three years they have lost much of that capacity. Read the report of Mrs. Mary Dines of her visits—Indian families now in one room, everything having had to be sold; all that is left are mattresses on the floor, a few clothes, some religious symbols, photographs on the wall; utterly destitute, the children no longer able to go to school because of the fees which are charged for pupils; young men who have done no work ever since leaving school. In this House, as in another place, we ought to be measuring legislation by the suffering which it has caused.
I am not pretending that this Act created as much suffering as other instances of legislation. But when to the savage cruelty of making those who sought to come to this country return to Uganda and Kenya—sent back here, sent back there—is added the destitution of thousands of Indians without work, with-out any opportunity to gain a livelihood, reduced to a condition of destitution—this is a cruelty of which we all ought to be ashamed. This is an Act of which the House ought to repent, and ought to
1110
repent with the desire to bring in something else.
The Government have now announced that the number of vouchers for these people will be increased from 1, 500 to 3,000 a year. That number is insignificant compared with the need. I find it difficult to estimate the number of British Asians who would desire to come to this country, because those who make applications do not represent them. Many British Asians have given up all hope after months of application. Probably the figure of 50.000 would be an under-estimate—and we are allowing 3,000 of those to whom we have pledged their rights with the British passport to come to this country!
There have been three developments recently which relate closely to the subject. First, the recent immigration Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred, which has placed more restrictions upon those who desire to come here. The second factor—and this is desperately important—is the cancellation by the Uganda Government of 10,000 applications made over many years by Asians to become citizens of Uganda. Third, and I should like the Minister to make some reference to this, is the definition of citizenship given by the Minister in another place which will relate to entrants to the European Community. Even when they get here these British Asians to whom we are pledged will not merely have to wait the five years through which they must pass to have their nationalisation; they must remain here another five years before they will have any rights as residents in this country to enjoy the free movement into Europe.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? Surely it is still discretionary. The Home Secretary has power to refuse them permanent residence in this country at the end of the five years under the 1971 Immigration Act. It could be that if the Home Secretary did not like their faces they would never become citizens and never have free movement within the E.E.C.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am not sure whether it would be due to the fact that the Home Secretary might not like their faces, but clearly what the noble Lord has said adds to the argument that I was trying to make.

1111
The Government are now in this difficult position: the European Commission on Human Rights has considered petitions, and it has decided that there is a prima facie case. With moderation it has proposed friendly discussions with the Government. I wonder whether there is much doubt in the minds of the Government that, purely on the legal grounds of human rights, unless a settlement is reached by the Government with the European Commission, it will go to the superior court. If it goes to the superior court many of those who are familiar with international law and the regulations of the European court, consider it very doubtful indeed whether the decision will go in favour of the Government. There is therefore great pressure upon Her Majesty's Government to take advantage of these friendly discussions to reach some solution of this problem.
I always try at the conclusion of my denunciatory speeches to be constructive. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will immediately begin consultations with the East African Governments, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, and also with India, with a view to reaching some accommodation on this issue. I want to suggest something else. In the case where thousands of people feel issues very deeply from their own experience and suffering it is not enough to consult with Governments. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, knows from his own experience that the voice of these peoples in this country has been expressed by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. There have been quite remarkable reports from its Secretary, Mrs. Mary Dines, after visits to Uganda and Kenya. They were factual as well as human in expression. I suggest that Her Majesty's Government would be well advised if they began some consultations with the Joint Council. That would not merely mean direct information of an authoritative kind, but would also mean that the Council would be able to indicate to the Minister the best sources of information from the people themselves in Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania.
I believe it may be possible if one had such discussions to come to an agreement with Governments and the peoples by which there would be a phased permission of British Asians to come to this
1112
country, beginning with those whose condition is most desperate, and passing to those who have the right because we have given our word which they regard as honourable. I hope the Minister will respond to this appeal and take the opportunity of these friendly discussions to reach a solution to this problem.
8.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, it had not been my intention to speak and I shall make a very short footnote to the discussions which your Lordships have been having. I am doing so because I had the honour of being a delegate of the British Parliament recently in Vienna at a special meeting of the Council of Europe on the Freedom of the Individual. We did not discuss the matter of the Kenyan Asians because the case was, rightly, regarded as sub judice, but I can tell your Lordships that the atmosphere was heavy with the issue. If no agreement is reached and the case goes to the court, then Her Majesty's Government are likely to be in for a very sticky time. Naturally I cannot speak for the other nations present, but as a reporter, which I am by profession, I got the distinct impression that Britain's honour is regarded as being very much involved.
8.40 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it may be helpful if I begin my reply by explaining the sequence of events so far in respect of the 31 applications by United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa whose cases are currently being considered by the European Commission of Human Rights. The first applications to the Commission were received early in 1970, during the previous Administration, and were made by some 20 persons who had arrived in the United Kingdom for settlement but without first obtaining the necessary special vouchers from our High Commissions in East Africa. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, reminded us in asking his Unstarred Question, the system of controlling entry by means of a limited number of vouchers followed on the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968. The level of vouchers from 1968 until earlier this year was set at 1, 500 a year, available to heads of households in East Africa who were United Kingdom passport holders. Together with their dependants, this amounted to about 6,000 individuals per

1113
annum, which was roughly comparable in number to those who had come here in 1965 and 1966.
By February, 1970, the demand for special quota vouchers greatly exceeded the number of vouchers available. Although no applicant for a special voucher was refused, it was necessary for the British High Commissions to issue these vouchers on a priority basis so that they were given to those who were under the greatest pressure to leave East Africa. This unfortunately meant a long wait for some applicants. The 20 persons to whom I have referred were not among those in the category with the most pressing need for vouchers. They arrived in this country without vouchers, and were being detained here for further consideration of their cases when they sent their petitions to Strasbourg.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt. I asked whether these persons might not have been considered as falling under heading (c) of the special priority categories; that is to say, persons unable to obtain employment, in the words of the British Government's statement to the European Commission. And I continue with my quotation:
"(e.g., school leavers who have never succeeded in obtaining jobs because of local policies in their country of residence)."
I asked the noble Lord whether he would tell me how many of the 14 people out of the first 25 who applied for vouchers had not been able to obtain any employment since the time they left school.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I do not have that information without notice, but what I said was that the demand in February of 1970 for quota vouchers was very extreme indeed. One must remember that this is a situation which has altered very considerably over the period since the 1968 Act. The demand in the first six months of 1970, as measured by people arriving without entry documents, for example, was very much higher than in some other periods, and therefore, although some of these people may or may not have been in the third category, it may have been the case that in the period of months before that the available vouchers had been allocated to people in the first or the second category. But so far as I know, the indi-
1114
viduals were not all in the same category. The circumstances were somewhat different. I can look into these cases and give the noble Lord a detailed and written reply.
I was going on to say that they had already been released from detention and admitted to the United Kingdom on a temporary basis by the time the reference by the Commission of Human Rights was received in the United Kingdom. The first duty of the Commission was to seek the observations of the applicants and of the United Kingdom Government with a view to deciding whether or not there were issues to be argued, or, to put it another way, whether or not the cases were admissible. Following written pleadings an oral hearing was held in Strasbourg during 1970 so that the Commission, without assessing the merits one way or the other, could consider this question. It decided that the cases were admissible.
The Commission's next responsibility was to go into the facts by inviting the applicants to submit a memorial, and the United Kingdom Government a counter-memorial, dealing with the points raised in the petitions. In due course an oral hearing was held on the merits of the applications. Before this was held there had been some changes among the petitioners. In the period between the two oral hearings the United Kingdom Government had decided to allow the original applicants to settle here and all restrictions on their stay were removed. When this was done some applicants withdrew their petitions. But further applicants, who had also arrived in the United Kingdom for settlement with-out special vouchers, were joined in the proceedings. The position at the time of the second oral hearing in September of this year was that 31 applications were being considered by the Commission, although by then the persons submitting them had all been accepted in this country for residence. The Commission has not, as yet, adopted a conclusion on the issues considered at the hearing.
The European Convention on Human Rights provides that at this stage the Commission shall place itself at the dis-posal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement. Discussions have taken place in this context, but they

1115
are, like the other proceedings before the Commission, of a confidential nature. This is provided for in the Articles of the Convention. I should emphasise that the Commission has still to give an opinion on whether or not there has been any breach of the Convention. Nor has it yet drawn up a report, but if and when it does so this also will be confidential, unless and until it is published by decision of the Committee of Ministers if the issue comes before them. This, too, is in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.
Noble Lords who have spoken in this debate—the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—have understandably gone somewhat wider and raised the general question of the circumstances of the United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the current estimate is now that there are something of the order of 125,000 people holding United Kingdom passports—this means individuals—in the three East African territories. This is, of course, only an estimate.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, does the Minister mean that the 125,000 are those who have expressed a desire to come to this country?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the figure of 125,000 refers to our estimate of all holders of United Kingdom pass-ports in those three territories, irrespective of what wishes they may or may not have expressed. This question of the British Asians in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, is one to which the Home Secretary and I have given very close personal attention since we inherited this particular problem when the present Government took office in June, 1970. I have explained my own position here before. I made a fairly full statement on October 11. It is all in Hansard at cols. 247 to 248, and I do not think I need inflict it on your Lordships again now. But the outcome of our consideration has been that after having had useful discussions with the Governments in East Africa, and after paying due regard to community relations in this country, the Government decided to make a substantial change in the special voucher scheme from June 1, 1971, and with effect from that date the
1116
number of special vouchers to be issued annually to heads of households has been increased from 1, 500 to 3,000. In addition, there has been a once-and-for-all allocation of 1, 500 vouchers to be spread over a period of six months. The effect of doubling the annual quota is that the rate of entry of voucher holders, together with their dependants, has been raised from about 6,000 to approximately 12,000 a year; and the once-and-for-all allocation of an additional 1, 500 vouchers has enabled our High Commissions to quadruple the rate of arrival during the six months' period.
I can tell your Lordships that these measures have had a marked effect on the waiting list for vouchers. Although fresh applications have continued to come in, the number outstanding has dropped from 8, 655 on January 31 this year to 6,083 by the end of November. This compares with approximately 9,000 12 months before. Not everyone on the waiting list wishes or needs to come here at present: many are still in employment. If we exclude those who are not under notice to leave East Africa and who are not in economic difficulty, the number of people remaining on the list is roughly the equivalent of the new annual quota of 3,000 vouchers, taken together with something under half the once-and-for-all allocation of 1, 500. In other words, it is reasonable to expect these to be admissible to the United Kingdom with their dependants within a period of rather over one year.
I should make clear that this refers only to those people who are in conditions of urgent need; that is, those who have been given notice to leave, or who have been prevented from earning their livelihood or are in conditions of economic hardship. Nor, in the nature of things, can one be certain about fore-casts of this kind. New applications continue to be received and it is significant that they are being made at an in-creased rate since the quota of vouchers was doubled. Some of these will be from people who are under greater pres-sure than some of those who are already on the list. But I hope your Lordships will agree that the position has improved.
May I now deal briefly with one or two of the points which have been made in the course of the short debate. The

1117
noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about United Kingdom passport holders who have gone to East Africa and are now in India. I can confirm that they are eligible for the same vouchers, but of course in many cases the urgency is less than for those who have remained in East Africa.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, asked me about the definition of United Kingdom nationals under the E.E.C., following the statement that was made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster last week and repeated in this House by my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir. It happens that there is a Question on this exact subject down for debate in your Lord-ships' House to-morrow, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and so per-haps I may hold my reply until that time.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is not correct in what he said about citizens from the United Kingdom and Colonies from East Africa who have come to this country with a voucher. He suggested that after a period of five years the Home Secretary would still have discretion as to whether or not they should have free movement of labour conditions. That is not so. Under the Immigration Act 1971 people in that particular category acquire the right of abode automatically after a period of five years. The noble Lord may have had some confusion in his mind with Commonwealth citizens, be-cause it is they who will be registered, at discretion, in the future.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, but before he passes from that subject I should like to ask him whether it is the case that an additional five years will be necessary before they have the right to move about Europe.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it will be five years from the date of admission if they are admitted for settlement. In Clause 2, as the noble Lord will remember from his close scrutiny and knowledge of the Immigration Act, patriality, the right of abode, is automatically extended to citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, for ex-ample United Kingdom passport holders, five years after they have been in this
1118
country. They cannot be registered as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies because they already automatically hold that citizenship.
I return now to the subject of the cases before the Commission on Human Rights, the matter raised in the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. As I said earlier, the Government are currently engaged in confidential discussions with the Commission, and your Lordships will understand my difficulty in commenting on these discussions while they are in progress or in anticipating their outcome. While proceedings of this sort continue cases are, as the noble Earl, Lord Arran, told us, in a sense sub judice, and this prevents me from discussing the merits of the various arguments which have been deployed; but I hope noble Lords will have found the information which I have given the House this evening helpful as a progress report.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords. before the noble Lord sits down may I ask him whether he will take some notice of the suggestions I have made which will not be sub judice, of consultations by Her Majesty's Government with those who are in touch with peoples in Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is not with us, but as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, knows, he is extremely vigilant on procedural matters. But if I may just finish my reply by including something which perhaps I should have included in what I had to say, the Government—other Ministers, and myself in particular—are always accessible to the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. We know of their knowledge and concern in this matter as in other matters concerning the welfare of immigrants, and we are available to them at any time, as indeed we are to anybody else with first-hand knowledge. For example, I was fortunate enough to meet the Reverend David Mason (who I have no doubt is known to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway) both before and after he went recently to East Africa on behalf of the British Council of Churches. But on the substance of the Question the difficulty is that there is a carefully laid I down procedure and we are some way

1119
along the various stages. We are currently discussing the matter with the Commission.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Message from the Commons, That they concur in the Resolution communicated to them on Wednesday last.
  CROWN AGENTS INQUIRY
  CROWN AGENTS INQUIRY
  PENSIONS AND SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT
  PENSIONS AND SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT