Sitting of 18 October 1972

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  ANGLESEY MARINE TERMINAL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order read for resuming debate on Question [17th October], That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  To be read the Third time tomorrow.

PETITION

  Old-Age Pensioners (Television Licences)
  Mr. Lipton: I beg leave to present a Petition which bears some 28,000 signatures. The Petition reads as follows:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of Lilian Ryan, married woman at 58 Chestnut Road, London, S.E.27, sheweth
  That old-age pensioners in view of rising prices have barely sufficient on which to live. live.
  Wherefore your Petitioner prays that old-age pensioners should be granted television licences at half the existing charge.
  Wherefore your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ENVIRONMENT

    Lorries (Limitation on Size)
    Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment
    234
    if he will now introduce, and enforce nationally, limits to length and load of large vehicles in relation to widths of streets and roads and the parking of such vehicles.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is discussing with local authorities the problems of heavy traffic; access of vehicles to particular streets must be a matter for local decisions.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend not agree that there is a need for a comprehensive review of the whole situation permitting 40-tonners to use certain motorways and yet forbidding 10-tonners to use certain streets in our towns and villages? This must be done nationally rather than locally, for the latter would make it too haphazard.
    Mr. Griffiths: I accept that there is a problem in that a large vehicle can be a nuisance; but it is also a necessity, so what my right hon. Friend is seeking to do is to civilise the large vehicle by making it cleaner and quieter and forbidding it in some areas where it is too large to go. When we come to individual streets and lanes, I think this must essentially be a matter for local decision in the light of local circumstances.
    Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Yes, but when will the Minister admit that all he is giving out at the moment are sops to the environmentalists? Is it not time we got down to planning a national lorry grid for heavy goods vehicles? When will there by some clearly depicted signs of no-go areas for heavy goods vehicles in towns?
    Mr. Griffiths: I am afraid that the hon. Member is starting the new Session by being just as wrong as he was in the old one. By-passes are being provided for 89 historic towns; there is a £10 million programme for lorry parks; local authorities are being encouraged to provide them; the road programme is making provision by which large vehicles will be able to move more rapidly and with more adequate parking facilities available in local communities.
    Dr. Stuttaford: When will my hon. Friend announce a decision on axle

    235
    weights? When he does announce his decision, would not that be the time to say whether we need lorry routes?
    Mr. Griffiths: The matter of axle weights is being discussed by my right hon. Friend with our future partners in the European Community and certainly I will convey to him my hon. Friend's suggestion that that might be the appropriate moment at which to make a further statement on national route discrimination policy.
    Mr. Crosland: Speaking as one not always a favourite figure with the environmentalist lobby, may I ask the Minister whether, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) said, he accepts that sometimes sops to the environmentalists are highly desirable? I know that he is concerned with the problem, but will he not accept that there is a growing disquiet in the country about both the length and weight of these heavy lorries, and that this is a disquiet which goes far beyond the confines of the narrow environmentalist lobby and concerns a very large section of the public?
    Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. There is no difference on this point. I am sure that he agrees that it must be the right policy to try to limit size and axle weight, and that power-weight ratios must also be looked at, but that at the same time it is equally necessary to see that, in order that our commerce can be benefited, the large vehicle has a proper route to use but is not encouraged to go into those city centres and narrow lanes where it has no right to be.
    Sir D. Walker-Smithasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the present position in regard to the negotiations with the European Economic Community in respect of the maximum permitted weight of lorries; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Ministers of the acceding States are being invited to consultations with the Six in Brussels on 6th and 7th November. My right hon. Friend will continue to press there our opposition to the weight limits proposed by the Six, particularly the 11-tonne axle limit.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does my hon. Friend appreciate the very widespread concern and apprehension throughout the country over this threat to our environment? Is it not essential that the efforts of his right hon. Friend and mine are successful in this regard and that the increasingly heavy lorries are not allowed to add to what paragraph 10 of the White Paper "Development and Compensation—Putting People First" very properly calls the
    "intolerable noise, vibration, smell, congestion and risks to person and property in many towns and villages"?
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has very much in mind the point that my right hon. and learned Friend has just mentioned, and his policy can be summed up simply. It is to civilise the heavy lorries.
    Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there are already large numbers of heavy vehicles which exceed the present construction and use regulations for overall weights and axle loads? If the Minister cannot enforce the present axle rates, how will he be able to enforce future rates?
    Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman knows of any specific cases, which he can document, of lorries contravening the law I hope that he will bring them to the attention of the proper authority. Enforcement is not easy, but my Department, together with the police and local authorities, inspects a large number of vehicles, and the number is increasing each year.
    Sir R. Thompson: Whatever the outcome of the present negotiations, would not my hon. Friend agree that the right place for these enormously heavy loads which shake our cities to pieces and make driving on motorways a nightmare is on the railways? Will he devise a system of licensing or charges which will make it much more advantageous to put these loads where they properly belong?
    Mr. Griffiths: My right hon. Friend is anxious to give to the railways all the support that makes sense in terms of a viable transport policy, but it is an inalienable fact that most goods that go by rail must first be taken to a railway station and at the other end must be removed by another motor vehicle. It is equally

    237
    a fact that many loads are not capable of being carried through some of the tunnels on our system. My right hon. Friend is anxious to assist the railways, and our record demonstrates that, but, at the same time, one must have some regard to the importance of the road haulage industry to the national economy.
    Mr. Bradley: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why his right hon. Friend abandoned the concept of quantity licensing as early as July, 1970, if he is so anxious to divert traffic from road to rail?
    Mr. Griffiths: Because it was a thoroughly bad concept which was doing no good to the road haulage industry and no good to the efficient distribution of goods and services.

    Housing Finance Act
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have now indicated to him that they do not intend to implement the Housing Finance Act; and what action he now proposes to take.
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list In the OFFICIAL REPORT the local authorities who have intimated to him that they will not implement the Housing Finance Act.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): Thirteen local authorities have informed me that they will not implement the Housing Finance Act, or at least certain parts of it. I will, with permission, circulate their names in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have already given notice to 11 of these authorities that my right hon. friend is considering making an order declaring them to be in default.
    Mr. Rost: Do not these encouraging figures indicate that, despite the deliberate attacks by the Labour Party, designed to frustrate the implementation of the "Fair Rents Act" and to encourage local councils to disobey the law, the majority of councils have seen the sense, the fairness and the advantage of the Act, particularly in so far as it will help the poorer sections of the community to obtain rent rebates?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. But, in fairness to the Opposition, I remind my hon. Friend that the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) has always urged councils to obey the law and that the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) on one occasion said that he was in favour of that. I was pleased to see that Salford Council has been influenced to take the right decision, no doubt as a result of the intervention of the hon. Member for Salford, East.
    Mr. Lipton: Since when and by whose authority has the Housing Finance Act been designated the "Fair Rents Act"? How much money is being spent to advertise this bit of spuriously titled legislation?
    Mr. Amery: There is a Question later on the Order Paper about the advertising, so perhaps I would be out of order to answer it now. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate better than most people, the public determine these things and people have called it "the Fair Rents Act".
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does the total of 13 include the town council of Carnforth, which has now agreed to implement the Act, partly because the councillors are law-abiding citizens and partly because they do not wish to deprive the rent payers, particularly pensioners and others in need, of the generous rebate provisions of the Act?
    Mr. Amery: I had already appreciated that they were implementing it.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Since the Government are anxious to have a prices and incomes policy and want price increases to be limited to 4 per cent., or at most 5 per cent., a year, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to ensure that no local authority increases rents in any one year by more than 5 per cent.?
    Mr. Amery: One of the considerations which most concerns the Government, the CBI and the TUC is the need to help the lower-paid workers, and the rebate and allowances provisions of the Act make a direct contribution to this without in any way modifying the general wage structure.
    Following is the information:
    The local authorities listed below have informed the Secretary of State of their

    239
    intention not to implement all or parts of the Housing Finance Act:

    Barrow-in-Furness County Borough Council.

    Carlisle County Borough Council.

    Doncaster County Borough Council.

    Walsall County Borough Council.

    West Bromwich County Borough Council.

    Camden London Borough Council.

    Eccles Borough Council.

    Bedworth Urban District Council.

    Clay Cross Urban District Council.

    Conisbrough Urban District Council.

    Halstead Urban District Council.

    Newton-le-Willows Urban District Council.

    Skelmersdale and Holland Urban District Council.

    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state approximately how many tenants' rents he estimates he will increase by an average of a further 50p next April under the Housing Finance Act, and how many additional tenants' rents by a similar sum next October; and if, in view of the rise in the cost of living involved, he will now withdraw the requirement to impose these rent increases.
    Mr. Amery: It is not possible to make such estimates. I have no plans to act on the lines suggested in the second half of the Question, more particularly in view of the fact that the rebates and allowances provided under the Act help to stabilise the cost of living for the lower paid.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House of Commons Library staff have been informed that these estimates are readily available in his office? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as these are unnecessary and deliberate increases in the cost of living he should listen to the call of the TUC to suspend all these further rent increases next year?
    Mr. Amery: I have, as I always do, read with attention the hon. Gentleman's comments in public on these matters. He seems to have disregarded the fact that a number of tenants will have reached fair rents before next April or October and will not be called upon to pay anything like a 50p increase, and some no increase at all.
    Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this arrangement is causing a great deal of distress to many people? Will he at least deny the alarming and irresponsible rumour that is per-
    240
    colating around Merseyside that the Government will eventually allocate the tenancy of a house to the highest wage earner in that house? Will he deny that categorically now?
    Mr. Amery: The allocation of council houses is entirely a matter for the local authority.

    Humber Bridge
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of construction of the Humber Bridge and approach roads.
    The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): Construction of the bridge and its approach roads is the responsibility of the Humber Bridge Board. I understand that progress is up to schedule which is to complete the bridge by 1976.
    Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that by that date there will be no northern exit from the bridge because the Beverley south-west by-pass will not be completed until 18 months later? There will also be no north-south exit because the Department has decided that this road should be designated as a county road, which cannot be completed until the 1980s.
    Mr. Page: The northern approach road to the bridge will connect directly with the trunk road A63, and that will be improved by the time the bridge opens. The southern approach road will be linked to a new east-west route M180, leading to the M18 at Thorne, by the time the bridge opens.

    Social Play Centres
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representation he has received from London borough councils regarding a grant from his Department towards the cost of social play centres on local authority housing estates; and what replies he has sent.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): None, Sir.
    Mr. Cox: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but is he fully aware of

    241
    the problems which exist in large housing estates in London and other parts of the country which unfortunately do not have either social or recreational facilities? I am told on inquiry that this is because of the cost involved in the overall cost of a housing project. Is it not possible for the Department seriously to consider making grants available, because such facilities would be a great asset to communities which unfortunately lack them?
    Mr. Eyre: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's views about the nature of the problem. He will be happy to know, with regard to play provision on local authority housing estates, that my Department recently issued recommended standards for the provision of unsupervised but equipped play space, and subsidy is payable on the cost of providing such spaces.

    House Prices
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the figures for average house price increases since 18th June, 1970, both for newly-built and second-hand dwellings.
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment by what percentage the cost of an average house is estimated to have risen since the month of June, 1970.
    Mr. Amery: The average price of new private dwellings mortgaged with building societies was 37 per cent. higher in the second quarter of 1972 than in the second quarter of 1970. The corresponding increase for second-hand dwellings was 45 per cent.
    Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of those figures. Is not he aware that this is Government-sponsored inflation, for which the Housing Finance Act is primarily responsible? What does he intend to do about the property speculators, who are printing their own money? What good is a £2 wage rise when the average semi-detached house is rising in cost by as much as £1,000 a year?
    Mr. Amery: When the hon. Gentleman says that we should be ashamed of the figures, he should bear in mind that, in the first half of 1972 as compared with the first half of 1970—the last six months of
    242
    the Labour Government—31 per cent. more mortgages were given to first-time purchasers, 30 per cent. more borrowers were under the age of 25 and over 40 per cent. more mortgages went to people with up to the average manual worker's wage earnings. What has happened is that there has been an increase in the money in people's pockets and an increase in the credit facilities available, for which this Government, far from being ashamed, can take credit.
    Mr. Janner: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the enormous hardship that is being caused to ordinary People, particularly the young married couples, by the scandalous increase in housing prices? Is not he prepared in the circumstances to stimulate and subsidise local council building so that people who need homes will get them?
    Mr. Amery: The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that, when I point out that 31 per cent. more mortgages went to first-time purchasers, 30 per cent. more borrowers were under the age of 25 and over 40 per cent. more mortgages went to people with up to the average manual worker's earnings, it does not quite reflect the frustration which he has expressed. One thing I am keen to do is to encourage the sale of council houses, and this can be done at a 20 per cent. discount and will tend to stabilise the market at the lower end. What is significant is that the cost of second-hand houses has risen more than the cost of new houses, reflecting an increase in demand at the lower end of the scale.
    Mr. Farr: What will be the effect on the prices of new houses of the recent award to the building workers?
    Mr. Amery: It will have some effect, but I think that the prices reflect rather more the extent and buoyancy of the demand than the cost of either materials or labour.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Does not this fantastic increase in house prices put them far beyond the reach of most wage earners? Does it not stress the need to build more council houses instead of cutting down the council house-building programme, which is what the Government's policies have resulted in?
    Mr. Amery: The figures I have just quoted show that far more people are

    243
    buying their own houses and that far more people at the lower end of the income scale are buying houses than during the last six months of the Labour Government. But this is still not good enough and I want to see more done. The only way to achieve that is to increase the supply of houses in relation to demand, and in the first six months of this year 43 per cent. more private houses were started than in the first six months of 1970.
    Mr. Idris Owen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not constructional costs which have created this fantastic increase in the price of houses as much as land acquisition prices?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. I think my hon. Friend is on to a good point there. But I draw his attention to the fact that 18 per cent. more council houses have gone out to tender than in the last six months of the Labour Government.

    Archaeology
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much extra money has now been allocated to archaeology in the light of his latest policy; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Amery: I have provided a further £125,000 in England this year for emergency excavations in advance of development. This is nearly half as much again as the original allocation and the total is more than twice that for last year. I am glad to say that in consequence no work on important archaeological sites has to my knowledge been prejudiced by lack of finance.
    Mr. Dalyell: Has this £125,000 been found from central Government sources, or is it a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul and doing it at the expense of excavation and consolidation of guardianship monuments?
    Mr. Amery: I know how well informed the hon. Gentleman is on these matters. To the best of my knowledge it comes from central funds.
    Dr. Stuttaford: How much archaeological experiment was carried out in New Palace Yard before the builders started excavating it?
    Mr. Amery: I should like notice of a question as to the exact degree, but this point was uppermost in our minds. Indeed, I specifically asked that the greatest care should be taken not only to avoid any damage to local structures but to ensure that interesting evidence or discoveries would be recorded or preserved.

    M55 (Preston Bypass)
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether it is still his intention that work shall start on the M55 Preston northern bypass motorway early in 1973.
    Mr. Graham Page: Certain advance works started last month. The main works should be started next summer, which is earlier than previously forecast.
    Mr. Blaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply is a very welcome addition to the progress which has been made on this project over the last two years? Will he bear in mind that it is more than 10 years since the county surveyor of Lancashire declared that this was the most important road project in the area? The people of Lancashire will be hoping that my right hon. Friend can keep it up to schedule.
    Mr. Page: Last November, in previous Questions, my hon. Friend pressed me to get this road started earlier. I am happy to say that we have managed to bring it forward six months from schedule.
    Miss Holt: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) in what he says about how welcome is my right hon. Friend's statement. However, I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend would expedite the building of the motorway to an earlier date, if that is at all possible. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Minister for Transport Industries is proposing to raise the speed limit on the Blackpool Road within the Preston area to 40 miles an hour? This is a highly residential area in which a number of people have been killed. It is a most dangerous road with a tremendous amount of traffic and it is vital that the motorway should be started at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. Page: Yes, Sir. As I drive on that road frequently, I know its dangers.

    245
    We have sought in every way to advance the contract. We are erecting a bridge over the main London to Glasgow railway line and the statutory undertakers are diverting all the service pipes and wires that they can before the main contract.

    Housing Statistics
    Mr. Leonardasked the Secretary of State for the Environment why publication of the quarterly periodical, Housing Statistics, ceased with issue No. 24 for February, 1972; and in what form he intends to publish the statistics contained therein in the future.
    Mr. Eyre: Both Housing Statistics and the Monthly Bulletin of Construction Statistics have been superseded by a new quarterly publication, Housing and Construction Statistics, the first issue of which appeared on 7th September. Almost all the data previously included in the separate publications will appear in either quarterly or annual tables in Housing and Construction Statistics.
    Mr. Leonard: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the first volume of the new bulletin he mentioned is considerably thinner than its predecessor, although it allegedly covers a wider range? Many of the tables previously included—for example, several dealing with the details of improvement grants and unfit houses—are not now included, and some of the tables continued now give less information than in the past, since they do not take so early a base year as previously. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that future issues give much wider details than the first issue?
    Mr. Eyre: I will take note of what the hon. Gentleman said but I hope he will allow this new publication to run for a year because the aim is to include the major series which are available on a quarterly basis, and nearly all the other statistics which were in Housing Statistics, including those which appeared annually, will be given in supplementary tables once a year. There is advantage in avoiding duplication, including a reduction in the price from £4 10s. for the previous publication to £3·55p for the new one.
    Mr. Paget: Will these statistics deal with prices? We have heard such very remarkable suggestions about a 37 per
    246
    cent. increase. Speaking as a landlord and property owner, I can say that in the last eight months—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is Question Time, not information time.
    Mr. Paget: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the last six months I have seen the price of houses at least double, and that of building sites go up by about 200 per cent.?
    Mr. Eyre: The hon. and learned Gentleman can be assured that all previous statistics of that kind will be represented in the new publication.

    Peak District National Park (Motorway)
    Mr. Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether the Countryside Commission and Peak Park Planning Board have been consulted in respect of the construction of the Sheffield to Manchester motorway; and what advice they have given;
    (2) what plans by his Department exist for the construction of the Sheffield to Manchester motorway through the Peak District National Park; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Graham Page: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) on 9th August.—[Vol. 842, c. 437–9.]
    Mr. Winterton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I appreciate the important commercial aspects of the proposed road, but does he not feel that those aspects have overidden the amenity interests? Furthermore, is he aware of the deep feelings, both locally and nationally, about the proposed route?
    Mr. Page: Yes, indeed; we have had full discussions with the Peak Park Planning Board and with the Countryside Commission. Although I am well aware that they would prefer the road not to go through the national park, they think that this is the best route. I believe that great benefits are to be obtained from this route because it will relieve the other roads in the park and will concentrate traffic on one fairly sunken road through the nine miles of park in the best place at which we can landscape it.
    Mr. Wainwright: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the M62 is too far away from Sheffield, that the heavy traffic which would go on the M62 still goes on the old roads, and that many of those roads are now more congested than they were and are certainly far more dangerous? Will he try to speed up the Sheffield-Manchester motorway?
    Mr. Page: We must site the road carefully to see that we get the best landscape and the best environmental setting The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is need for this road. The M62 does not take sufficient of the traffic for this connection.
    Mr. Osborn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of those who live in the Peak Park will welcome the fact that this road is to go north of the Peak Park and not through the middle, namely on a Chesterfield-Bakewell-Peak Forest route, which was at one time considered? Will he give some indication about the degree of consideration given to that route, bearing in mind that it would have gone through the middle of the Peak Park near to the place in which I happen to live?
    Mr. Page: I can assure my hon. Friend that the fact he lives on that route did not influence us. We considered a number of routes. The one that was chosen through the Longdendale Valley contains major road and rail routes, a reservoir and a line of pylons. I think that we can concentrate traffic within an area which will cause less damage to the park.
    Mr. Mulley: I endorse the decision to construct a road on this route and welcome the Minister's statement—a statement which is not widely appreciated—that it will add to the amenity of the park area and will take away traffic from the lesser roads. Could the right hon. Gentleman give the date when he intends to hold a public inquiry and to come to a firm decision on the matter, because in the interim period some of the arguments have gone far away from the point at issue.
    Mr. Page: I cannot give that information today, but if the right hon. Gentleman tables a Question on this matter I shall see whether I can answer it.

    A38 (Tideford and Landrake)
    Mr. Hicksasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he hopes to make known the results of the pedestrian and vehicle surveys to be undertaken at Tideford and Landrake on the A38 trunk road; and if he will make an interim statement.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The counts show that a crossing facility is not justified at Landrake, but we are proposing a road widening at Tideford which will allow for pedestrian refuges.
    Mr. Hicks: Since the Minister has just made this decision, and bearing in mind that both villages are divided by a main trunk road, is the Minister aware that. whatever may be his assessment of the official statistics, most local people feel that some form of controlled crossing should be installed rather than adopt the system which the Minister proposes and in the case of Landrake to do nothing at all.
    Mr. Griffiths: The advantages of having nationally consistent criteria are accepted on all sides of the House. In respect of Landrake these are less than 50 per cent. satisfied, but in respect of Tideford I hope that road widening and pedestrian refuges can be put in by the summer.

    Pollution
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that local authorities have sufficient powers under the planning Acts to deal with problems of pollution; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): The purpose of the planning Acts is to secure the proper use of land, but I am satisfied that local authorities can use them effectively to avoid creating new problems of pollution. I shall shortly be issuing advice to local authorities about the use of planning powers in relation to both noise and clean air.
    Mr. Eadie: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many local authorities have contacted him on this matter? Will he agree that many citizens

    249
    are concerned about the implementation of existing planning Acts and are also concerned that not enough has been done to carry through the battle against pollution?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that more could be done. Certainly my Department in its regional offices is very much involved with local authorities in trying to show them the best way to use planning powers to reduce pollution in every form.
    Mr. Bob Brown: Will the Secretary of State accept that there is already legislation to deal with one of the worst forms of pollution—namely that of litter? Will he consider having words with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about cracking down on the whole problem of litter and bringing some prosecutions, attended by full publicity lest we have the reputation of becoming the filthiest nation in the world?
    Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter and I agree with what he said. I have had talks with the Home Secretary on this topic. The "Keep Britain Tidy" campaign is doing more at present than it has ever done before and I hope that nationally we can improve substantially the present situation.

    Council House Rents
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest available estimate of the average increase in the rents of council dwellings which will occur during the current financial year.
    Mr. Amery: It is difficult to make a precise estimate of the increase in the average rent in the current year, since the rents payable will depend on the rebates granted to tenants. However, our first broad assessment of the average increase in rent likely to be paid by all council tenants in 1972–73 is about 35p.
    Mr. Hardy: I asked the hon. Gentleman for the percentage figure. However, does he not agree that the recent estimates do not appear to take account of the hundreds of thousands of tenants who in recent weeks have begun to pay rents which are 50 per cent. higher than they were before the Housing Finance Act
    250
    became law? Will he also agree that this is likely to mean that the Prime Minister's estimate, given to the House on 25th July, is likely to prove to be grossly and wildly innacurate? May we have a guarantee that when precise information is available a ministerial statement will be made to the House, accompanied by the apology which appears to be due?
    Mr. Amery: I shall be very surprised if there were any grounds for apology. I have sought to answer the Question to the best of my ability. I believe that it tallies closely with the Prime Minister's answer, which referred to the period from July this year to July next year; whereas the hon. Gentleman's Question applies to the current financial year. I feel he will find the reply to be accurate, and of course, we shall keep the House informed about developments.
    Mr. Crosland: We shall keep this subject alive and pursue the right hon. Gentleman on it. Is it not now becoming hard to reconcile the various figures which have been given? Is it not the case that the figure of 35p relates to the average level of rebated rents—in other words, rebates are taken into account? Is it not based on the highly unlikely assumption that there will be a 100 per cent. take-up of rebates?
    Mr. Amery: No, Sir; it is based on the best assumptions we have been able to make. It is concerned with rebated rents, taking account of the experience of the 60 per cent. of local authorities which have given rebates. We shall, of course, keep the House informed on the figures. It is difficult to be precise, but I have tried to give the best information I can.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Does not the Minister admit that, even where increases of less than £1 have been agreed this October, this does not prevent the rent scrutiny boards from imposing far higher increases next year? Secondly, may I correct an untrue statement made by the Minister? I have never on any occasion asked councillors to impose rent increases, and I ask the Minister to withdraw this untrue statement.
    Mr. Amery: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I thought I had heard him say in Committee—I have

    251
    not the HANSARD reference before me at the moment—that he had always advocated keeping the law.
    Mr. Allaun: No.
    Mr. Amery: I apologise humbly to the hon. Gentleman if I accused him of such an intolerable action as advising people to observe the law. I thought he had said that. Perhaps what he said was that he had never advised people to break the law. I will withdraw that if it is unfair —[Interruption.] In that case, I withdraw Her Majesty's Government's congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on having advised Salford to take the right course.

    Southern Distribution Road (Norwich)
    Dr. Stuttafordasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a statement on his recent discussions with Norwich City Council on the proposed southern distribution road.
    Mr. Graham Page: Discussions and consultations have been held with Norwich City Council in the course of the study into the possible need and corridor for a southern bypass of the town. The study is being carried out by Norfolk County Council on behalf of the Department. It is proceeding as planned and should be completed during this year.
    Dr. Stuttaford: Will the right hon. Gentleman take particular note of the views expressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) when he paid an official visit to the city this month to hear about our road problems? We feel that this road is the answer to the preservation of the city. We in Norwich and Norfolk also feel that we are suffering from too many study groups and committees and that there are not enough road workers actually doing the work.
    Mr. Page: We are getting on with this study and hope to have the results by the end of the year. In the meantime, the proposals for Thorpe Road, which I know are a matter of much concern locally, have been suspended and the transportation study for the area will be ready by 1973, but it will be affected by the results of this study in terms of a bypass road.

    Council Houses (Sale)
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now take steps to encourage local authorities to build council houses for sale to residents of their areas, particularly to young couples with established local connections.
    Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. I consider in principle it is the task of the private developer to build for owner-occupation, but I am always prepared to look sympathetically at any proposal by a housing authority to building for sale where a particular demand would not otherwise be met.
    Miss Fookes: Will my right hon. Friend actively encourage councils to take such a course, bearing in mind his own admission that there is an increasing demand for these houses and the fact that this would be one way of allowing young couples to find a house?
    Mr. Amery: I hoped that my answer would be encouraging. There are a number of local authorities in London and outside it which have put up schemes. We are looking at them sympathetically and I hope that a number will be approved in future.
    Mr. Freeson: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the matter further and seek to obtain a massive expansion in local authority building of all kinds, where there is need? Is he aware that figures for housing completions currently, both local authority and private, are lower than at the time when the Conservative Government took office? Is he particularly aware that in the local authorities in England and Wales there has been a reduction from the figure of 15,000 completions per month at the time when this Government took office to a figure of 7,400 completions?
    Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman, with his long experience of local government, will know that all these things take time to get on the move. The most encouraging figure is that showing that the tenders for council-house building in the first six months of the year were 18 per cent. higher than in the last six months in office of the Government which the hon. Gentleman adorned.
    Mr. Costain: Does the Minister not appreciate that houses built by councils always take longer to construct? Would it not be better to make a survey of land owned by local authorities and release it to private builders to get on with the job?
    Mr. Amery: I believe that it is the function of private developers to undertake building for sale. There are cases—and at present there are many—when the private developer is not prepared to take on this work. In that case I do not see why local authorities in appropriate conditions should not build for sale.
    Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the Minister aware that there are important local authorities which last year did not build one single council house? Is he also aware that the county borough of Bootle is to amalgamate with the county borough of Southport and will he have a word with these authorities to remind them of their social responsibilities in respect of this whole new social enclave which is to be created?
    Mr. Amery: I will look into that point. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a good deal is being done throughout the country by local authorities of very different political persuasions, not only in building council houses but also in slum clearance.

    Compulsory Purchase (Compensation)
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he can make of the date when legislation will be introduced to up-date and amend the compulsory purchase compensation code.
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has yet reached conclusions about compensation for owners of property deleteriously affected by urban motorways.
    Mr. Graham Page: I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer my right hon. Friend gave on 17th October to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) in which he announced the publication of the Government's White Paper "Development and Compensation—Putting People First". I hope to introduce legislation shortly.
    Mr. McCrindle: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be a widespread welcome for any improvement in the compensation code following compulsory purchase? Does he further accept that in these inflationary conditions the difference between market and replacement value has been considerable and that any opportunity of bridging the gap in the new legislation will be warmly welcomed?
    Mr. Page: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The White Paper and the policy stated therein sticks to market value as the fairest compensation. My hon. Friend will also notice that it gives a payment for home loss in addition to market value where a tenant or owner-occupier has been in occupation for seven years.
    Mr. Cant: Speaking not only as a Member of Parliament but as chairman of a planning council, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is true that the great problem in cases where urban motorways are going through cities is the determination of market value? However much one may appreciate the things that have been done in this White Paper, the parsimony of both city estate valuers and district valuers of the Inland Revenue in many cases brings grave injustice to many people who have purchased their homes and are offered derisory payments in return. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make the interest-only mortgages a statutory obligation upon authorities and, in cases of compulsory purchase in reverse, make it possible for home loss payment to be made?
    Mr. Page: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the district valuer's valuation. The district valuer values on the basis of the market value of the property. It may be an old property and therefore difficult to get reinstatement of that amount. That is why we put provisions in the White Paper for interest-only mortgages and for assistance to those who wish to rehabilitate themselves after having to sell an old house which is not worth very much on the market. I do not think we could have added any value to the normal market value. The normal market value is honestly calculated by the district valuer.

    Non-Registered Ports
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has yet received the results of the survey carried out at his request by the National Ports Council into the rôle of non-registered ports; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Eyre: My right hon. Friend has asked the Council to report by the end of October. I understand there has been a good response to its fact-finding inquiries.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he assure the House that the Government will have no truck whatsoever with the sort of threats uttered on television by Lord Aldington-Jones that the non-registered ports would either be forced into registration or driven out of existence, which would come to the same thing?
    Mr. Eyre: Following the Aldington-Jones Report, it was important to establish the facts about the rôle of small ports and wharves in relation to that of larger ports. The Government cannot prejudge the result of the survey which is taking place, but I am sure the National Ports Council will carefully consider all the information and views put before it. The Government have no preconceived ideas about restricting the rôle of the smaller ports and wharves.
    Mr. Mulley: Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that this survey will be published and that the House will hear about it as early as the Press, which is not always the case with matters coming from his Department? Will the hon. Gentleman also totally ignore the advice given to him by his hon. Friend, unless he wants an out-and-out confrontation with the whole dock industry?
    Mr. Eyre: The report will certainly be published. The Government cannot prejudge the nature of the report.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will my hon. Friend remember that I am behind my Scottish Friend the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne)? Would it not be a good idea for the Minister to let Lord Aldington know exactly what people like me think?
    Mr. Eyre: I have always found that the hon. Lady has been absolutely—
    Dame Irene Ward: I am an hon. Friend.
    Mr. Eyre: I have always found that my hon. Friend, the hon. Lady, has been entirely capable of making anyone aware of her opinion. I should stress that the National Ports Council is the appropriate statutory body to advise and to consider all these complex issues.
    Mr. Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, contrary to the views expressed by the hon. Member for South Angus, the problem is much greater and more complex than he would have us believe? In places like Grangemouth in my constituency and in Greenock on the West of Scotland, where vast amounts of public money are being spent, ports are being undermined by small non-registered ports like Montrose and other places. The Minister should take this into consideration in his deliberations.
    Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the survey is taking place with the aim of establishing all the relevant facts.

    Desalination
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for the Environment by what date he expects that the first full-scale plant for the desalination of salt water will be operating in Great Britain.
    Mr. Peter Walker: In the light of the latest information, it seems unlikely that desalination will make any substantial contribution to water resources in the immediate future, although there may be some desalting applications and also some contribution to purification of river water and processing of effluent. I am anxious to examine any developments in this sphere and if viable to give them every encouragement.
    Mr. Farr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a projected shortage of water in the South-East by the 1980s and that the construction of reservoirs is becoming more difficult for geographic and environmental reasons? Will he tell the House what happened to the Ipswich desalination plant which was temporarily

    257
    postponed a year or so ago and of which we have heard no more?
    Mr. Walker: The Government offered to pay the majority of the money required for that project, but the private sector involved was unwilling in the end to put in any money whatsoever. As a result, our judgment was that it was right to obtain from them the technical information they had available, which may be of use at a later stage, and to try to obtain some European collaboration in this sphere.
    Mr. Hooson: Is it correct that research in many countries shows that the escalating costs of desalination virtually rule it out for this century?
    Mr. Walker: Certainly my Department is trying to maintain contact with all developers in this sphere world-wide. We hope there may be a breakthrough, but at the moment there is no indication that there will be.

    M1 (Computer-Controlled Signalling System)
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the computer-controlled signalling system to be in operation on the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire sections of the M1; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Graham Page: The computer is now being installed at Scratchwood and I expect the signalling system to he available for operation in the Metropolitan and Hertfordshire police areas by the end of the year. The section in Bedfordshire is in our forward programme and I am unable at present to give a date for its completion.
    Mr. Madel: In view of yet another delay in getting this system operational in Bedfordshire and the accidents which occurred on the M1 during last winter, will my right hon. Friend consider introducing a winter speed limit or other safety measures so that the M1 in Bedfordshire can be made safer this winter In the absence of this lighting system which was promised for this winter?
    Mr. Page: I will certainly look into that. The record of installing this system is not too bad. By the time we have installed it on the 21 miles between the
    258
    Five Ways interchange and the Pepper-stock interchange and brought it into operation, the total mileage of motorway so equipped will be 196, and a further 290 miles will be commissioned in 1973.

    Rent Rebates (War Pensions)
    Mr. Redmondasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have responded to his circular 74/72 by increasing the disregard of war pensions from £2 to £3 for rent rebate purposes; how many have reduced the disregard which obtained before the passing of the Housing (Finance) Act; how many have made no change; and if he will name those authorities who have reduced the disregard.
    Mr. Amery: I regret that this information is not yet available.
    Mr. Redmond: Whilst accepting that is possibly the position, may I ask my right hon. Friend to keep the matter under careful review? Is it not absolutely appalling to think that some local authorities will reduce the disregard for war pensioners when they have been guided by the Government to keep the figure at £3?
    Mr. Skinner: They have not.
    Mr. Amery: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's view. Our Circular 74/72 instances war disability pensions as one of the aspects of the national scheme where authorities may wish to exercise their discretion to be more generous. It is suggested that local authorities which have hitherto disregarded more than £2 may wish to use this power to continue with their former practice. They have authority to disregard the whole of these provisions.
    Mr. Skinner: Why did not the circular make reference also to other disregards—namely, special hardship and disability allowances—that have been incurred as a result of industrial accidents? Why should there be a distinction between the two? Why does not the Minister be a little more honest in his answer to his hon. Friend and make it clear that there is a limit to how far local authorities can go in using their discretion because they come up against the financial barrier that he imposed in the Act?
    Mr. Amery: I am always prepared to look at suggestions and to discuss any

    259
    other pensions which might be disregarded, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to decry the priority which should be given to war disability.

    Local Government Act (Guidance Circulars)
    Mr. Oakesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now issue a circular to local authorities advising on the operation of Section 100 of the Local Government Act.
    Mr. Graham Page: I will be issuing such a circular as soon as the necessary urgent consultations have been completed.
    Mr. Oakes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as long ago as early July a promise was given by his right hon. Friend that such guidance would be given? Is he also aware of the confusion, amounting to chaos, between local authorities about who will do what after 1st April, 1974? Will he issue this circular for their guidance immediately?
    Mr. Page: I appreciate the urgency of this matter, and the Government's approach to it will be set out in the consultation paper to be issued this month, but we had to wait until another place had decided exactly what the contents of the Bill would be. I cannot promise the Freeman of Hale that it will give him guidance on how to take over Speke Airport.
    Mr. Trew: Will my right hon. Friend make sure that there are adequate safeguards to ensure that county councils honour their agreements under agency arrangements in future years?
    Mr. Page: There is a right of appeal to my right hon. Friend if there is an irreconcilable dispute between the county and the district.

    Pedestrian Crossings (Criteria)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in view of the need to have traffic lights, subways or pedestrian crossings sited where dangers to the community exist, he will reconsider the criteria in operation for agreeing for instance to pedestrian crossings.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The criteria already take into account accidents and risks to pedestrians; but if my hon. Friend has a particular instance in mind I will of course be very happy to look at it.
    Dame Irene Ward: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that statement. I hope he will accept it when I say that I regard the present system as old-fashioned and am glad to know that some progress is being made. There are many examples in the Counties of Northumberland and Durham, so perhaps my hon. Friend will take a much more forward-looking and modern view, bearing in mind that the aim of this Government is modernisation.
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir.

    Council Flats (Hampstead)
    Mr. Jayasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list his reasons for rejecting the proposal of the London Borough of Camden to erect council flats in Branch Hill, Hampstead.
    Mr. Eyre: Because the zoned density for development of this site produces unacceptably high plot costs per dwelling.
    Mr. Jay: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider this, since his own working party has been urging councils to look for more land, and since this site came into the council's ownership at a low price and has been unused for years?
    Mr. Eyre: There are high plot costs in this case, approaching £16,000 per site, and this high cost is directly related to the low density. I am not satisfied that other less costly sites are not available to enable the council to pursue its housing programme.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that this site is in Hampstead and not in Battersea? Secondly, is he aware that this site was acquired for addition to Hampstead Heath? Thirdly, is he aware that the former Labour leader of the Camden Council stated categorically in the Press, and never withdrew the statement, that no municipal housing would be put on this site?
    Mr. Eyre: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning those factors.
    Mr. Crosland: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about zone densities and plot costs in this case, and generally about the environment, will he or his right hon. Friend agree to make a brief statement after Questions on the contribution to the environment that will be made by the proposed new Department of the Environment office block, twice the size of Centre Point, at the Elephant and Castle?
    Mr. Eyre: Relating the right hon. Gentleman's question to the Question on the Order Paper, the zone density here is 30 persons per acre, and it is for the borough, at any rate in the first instance, to take steps to secure an alteration in that.

    Drivers' Hours Regulations
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what procedures are operated by his Department to enforce drivers' hours regulations observance by heavy goods vehicle drivers hired through private employment agencies.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The same as for other lorry drivers—checks on the road and at operating bases.
    Mr. Huckfield: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the existence of firms like Driver Hire and Manpower, which are trying to do for the lorry driver what Brook Street Bureau and Alfred Marks have done for the shorthand-typist? How will he make sure that they do not fiddle their log sheets, and how will he make sure that these people are sticking to the hours when he has to admit that many of them are doing other jobs apart from lorry driving?
    Mr. Griffiths: About 100,000 records are checked annually. As regards Manpower, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that we brought a successful prosecution.

UGANDA (ASIANS)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement to bring the House up to date with
262
the developments arising from President Amin's decision to expel Asians from Uganda.
As the House will be aware, Her Majesty's Government accepted their legal and moral responsibility to allow holders of United Kingdom passports to come to this country in the special circumstances created by President Amin's unjust and inhumane action. At the same time, Her Majesty's Government made intense efforts to enlist the help of the international community in offering to the Ugandan refugees a wide choice of destinations, and, as a result of these efforts, 29 Governments expressed their willingness to help. I would like to give the House a few examples.
Canada imediately offered to receive 6,000 refugees—both United Kingdom passport holders and Stateless people. So far, about 2,000 have been granted Canadian entry permits.
The Government of India have agreed that United Kingdom passport holders may go there in the first instance. Already, 2,500 have taken advantage of that option.
Pakistan also responded generously, and 1,000 have so far chosen to go there.
The signs are that a substantial further number may go to one or the other of those countries.
Other countries that are taking substantial numbers of United Kingdom passport holders or Stateless persons, or both, include the United States, West Germany, Malawi, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden and Austria. A number of Latin American countries have made helpful offers, and the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration is co-ordinating arrangements for putting these into effect.
I want to emphasise that this international co-operation was possible only because the world saw Her Majesty's Government immediately and unequivocally accepting their responsibilities in this matter. The result is that it now appears that the number of Ugandan Asians holding our passports who will need or wish to settle here is likely to be well under half the figure of 50,000 to 60,000 first mentioned.
The position to date is as follows. Our High Commission in Kampala has issued entry certificates to about 23,500

263
people, and of these some 5,000 are likely to go direct to third countries. The High Commission is now issuing entry certificates to wives and dependants who hold United Kingdom passports in their own right. It is also reviewing the cases of a small number of families whose applications for passports were at first questioned but some of whom, we believe, may in fact be entitled to them because they failed effectively to renounce our citizenship after independence. My earlier estimate of the total number of people now likely to settle here takes account of these last two categories.
I want to say at this point that Her Majesty's Government have from the beginning made clear that they do not accept responsibility for those who have been rendered Stateless by General Amin's decree. Responsibility for the Stateless refugees rests in the first place on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who is actively engaged in international discussions about their reception and resettlement.
Turning to the arrangements within this country for reception and resettlement of United Kingdom passport holders, the position at the weekend was that nearly 15,000 refugees had been admitted to the United Kingdom. Of these, 8,500 were still being given shelter by the Uganda Resettlement Board in 11 resettlement centres. I am satisfied that the Board will be able to provide adequate temporary shelter in these and other centres for the increasing proportion among later arrivals who are likely to need it.
The Board's other—longer-term but equally important—task is to resettle the refugees in the community at large and help them find homes and jobs. The Board now has special resettlement teams at each centre which are actively engaged in this task. This is inevitably a slow process, but, having coped successfully with the reception of the refugees, the Board will now increasingly concentrate on the task of resettlement, and is being provided with the additional resources to do this effectively.
The Board is conscious of the need to persuade, but it cannot, of course, direct, refugees away from areas where social facilities such as housing and schools are already under strain. If has been autho-
264
rised to make special and generous grants towards relevant expenditure by local authorities.
I am not complacent about what has been achieved; nor about the problems that still confront us. But I am sure that the House will agree that an enormous amount has been achieved in receiving and beginning to resettle these refugees. This reflects credit on the Resettlement Board and its staff and on the local authorities with which it is working so closely. It reflects credit, too, on the hundreds of voluntary workers and private individuals who also are playing a notable part. I am sure that the House would wish to thank them all.
In this work, I, and all those engaged, have been greatly heartened by the fact that, not for the first time, the British people as a whole have shown themselves ready to respond with humanity and warmth to the plight of fellow human beings who are in need.
Mrs. Shirley Williams: I wish to make clear the Opposition's view that the Government were right to accept the refugees from Uganda, and I join in the Home Secretary's remarks about the British people, who, I believe, have added greatly to their credit for tolerance and for imagination in the way they have accepted these desperate people from Uganda.
I take, first, the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the Stateless Ugandan Asians. I think it right to say that there are three categories of these, and I wish to put some brief questions about them. First, there are those who do not hold British passports but who were not able to renounce their British citizenship and who are, therefore, not regarded by the Ugandan Government as citizens. Are they presently being accepted for the purpose of coming to this country?
Second, can the right hon. Gentleman say something about what many of us regard as a disturbing situation? Is it true that where the wife and children hold British citizenship but the husband does not the wife is being put in the position of having to choose between staying with her husband or coming to safety?
Third, where children are automatically Ugandan citizens but the parents are not, and the children are still dependent on their parents, will the Home Secretary

265
consider treating the family as a unit albeit that they hold passports of a different type?
Further, will it be possible, in consultation with the 27 Governments who have agreed to accept some of the refugees, to enable these people to be got out to safety even though their final destination might not be settled for some time?
Next, has the Home Secretary considered the possibility of extending loans to refugees against sequestered property in Uganda to enable them to obtain mortgages for house purchase in areas which are not congested? We accept that it is important to get the refugees to settle in uncongested areas, and we believe that a loan of that kind, given against property which has been confiscated, would be accepted by the British people as a very fair way of going about it.
Can the Home Secretary give an assurance that offers of accommodation, help and jobs are being taken up quickly by the Resettlement Board? We accept that the Board is doing an excellent job, but the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there have been some complaints that offers of this kind have not been acknowledged, let alone taken up.
Finally, in relation to the troubled question of the refugees' position in respect of housing in the public sector, I must say—this will be my only political point—that if the Government had maintained the level of council housing the situation would be nothing like as serious as it is, but, granted that that has not been done, will the Government consider putting Ugandan refugees into temporary accommodation of various kinds and enabling them to acquire points for permanent housing on the same basis as if they had been residents in this country from the date of their arrival?
Mr. Carr: First, may I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the hon. Lady in that I understand that the normal machinery failed to deliver a copy of my statement. I hope that it will not happen again.
I appreciate the hon. Lady's general support for what we have been trying to do in our basic policy.
On the hon. Lady's question about those who may be Stateless, I sought to make it clear in my statement that we
266
are now reviewing the cases of those who failed to renounce United Kingdom citizenship after independence. Those who we genuinely believe did not renounce and who therefore retained our citizenship will be given entry papers. That was one of the two extra categories that I said that the High Commission in Kampala is now looking at.
The second category was that dealt with in the hon. Lady's second question, namely, women and their dependants who are themselves United Kingdom passport holders but who are married to men who are not—they may be either Stateless or Ugandan citizens. We say that they can come here, so they are not being faced with the prospect of having to remain in danger. We cannot, however, accept the responsibility for the husbands and in the end, with the help of the United Nations and all the other nations, families where the head of household is not a United Kingdom citizen will normally be expected to reunite in third countries, but we are getting them here to safety at this stage.
Third, it is very difficult to treat all families as units. We make it quite clear that dependants of people who have a right to come here also have a right to come. It is always difficult to define precisely who is dependent. As the hon. Lady knows, the normal dividing age is 18. Anybody 18 or under is automatically dependent. We will consider the cases of children of somewhat older age on their merits individually and compassionately. Clearly, when children have established themselves in their own lives and are not our citizens and are not dependants we cannot extend this right to them, but we will consider cases compassionately and try to distinguish people who are genuinely dependent and not work on some rule of thumb.
The hon. Lady then asked how we were to get all the Stateless out to safety. It is noteworthy that a number of the countries I mentioned—Canada, the United States, Germany and Sweden—are offering to take Stateless persons as well as our passport holders. Also, the United Nations High Commissioner is active and is arranging temporary camps, some in Europe, to take those who cannot go to the countries I have mentioned. Therefore, I believe that is in hand, too,

267
but this is essentially a United Nations responsibility.
The question of extending loans to refugees to enable them to take up mortgages is very important. I hope that we can arrange something. Whether it ought to be against sequestered property is an important matter but is not important compared with the fact that loans should be available. I assure the hon. Lady that I will pursue this point.
As to the question of offers of jobs and homes being taken up quickly, I hope that this will now speed up. It was natural that the people who came here first were those who already had families and relatives here. They either did not come to the centres at all or passed through them pretty quickly. We are now left with a pretty large number, a growing number—8,500 at the weekend—in the centres. These are the people the teams are working on. It will not be easy, but it is important that we have centres which I think are not now overcrowded, and therefore it will not be a great hardship if a little time is taken for resettlement, but not months and months.
The hon. Lady asked, finally, about housing within the public sector. I will refrain from having an argument about housing policy with the hon. Lady. However, many councils throughout the country are coming forward with help. Although there are areas, of which the South-East is a prime example—there are also others—where there is great pressure on housing of all kinds, there are other areas where there is not such pressure. If we can get those areas to offer to take even half a dozen or a dozen families each, over a period this problem can be solved.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: As to those Governments who have made a welcome offer to take some of the Uganda Asians, are the offers in all cases unconditional, or are any of them subject to limitation by reference to qualifications or background of the Uganda Asians? Second, since the civilised world seems to have been unable to stop this barbarous act of expulsion, what steps are being taken to ensure that as much as possible of the cost which will be incurred in this country or other receiving countries is met by Uganda or
268
out of funds that would otherwise have gone to Uganda?
Mr. Carr: I cannot say that I fully understood all the implications of my right hon. and learned Friend's first question. I can say generally that the countries which are offering opportunities to these refugees to go to them if they wish to are not making conditions. It is true that some of them, naturally, are looking for people with particular skills, and to that extent perhaps one can say that there are conditions, but generally speaking these countries are not laying down conditions.
I cannot speak about what other countries are doing about the cost, but we have already made clear to the present Ugandan Government not only that we suspended the loan that we were about to make to them but that we were not making any new offers of aid. As I have said publicly from the beginning, money which we might much have preferred to have spent in Uganda on developing the Ugandan economy cannot be spent in both places. Therefore, from the point of view of the British taxpayer I do not believe that what we are doing in this country will add to that burden.
Mr. David Steel: Can the Home Secretary tell us as Leader of the House whether we will have the chance to debate this complex question at greater length in the near future?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was in Kampala last Friday and that I was very impressed by the efficiency and the scale of the operation which our High Commission there has had to carry out and that the processing of some 25,000 individuals has been conducted with remarkable skill and with a great humanitarian approach which has been widely appreciated? The High Commission, from Mr. Slater downwards, has been under considerable strain in recent weeks and those concerned have acquitted themselves, particularly those who volunteered to go out from the Home Office to carry out this task, with great distinction.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question further to his answer to the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) about the Stateless persons? Can he say, first, whether the International Commissioner for Refugees

269
or the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration is yet in a position to screen and document all the Stateless persons and, second, whether, when that has been done, he will be prepared to look sympathetically at what I call the hard cases, particularly those of young people who may, as a result of being defined as Stateless, be split from their families?
Lastly, will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that in Britain other Government Departments will not leave the Uganda Resettlement Board to bear the burden of this task but that the Scottish Office, the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Security are fully engaged in helping in the task of resettlement? It is my view that in my constituency, for example, the local authorities could do with far more specific information from the Scottish Office about the ways in which they could be helped.
Mr. Carr: On the question of a debate, we are very near the end of this Session, but I feel sure that the Leader of the House will consider this matter among many other requests that he receives.
I was delighted to hear what the hon. Gentleman said about what is being done by our High Commission in Uganda. I am sure that it is true and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's tribute was well deserved. I will draw Mr. Slater's attention to it particularly and all of his staff out in Kampala. They have done a massive job in very difficult circumstances.
As to the Stateless people, the International Commission for Refugees and ICEM are having some difficulty. This has been one of the troubles in dealing with, shall I say, a somewhat unpredictable Government in Uganda. We are perfectly prepared to let any of our own citizens who want to come here and those who would like to go on elsewhere to be processed by either ICEM or anybody else after they have come here and then leave here again. However, we cannot as a matter of principle start to issue entry papers to Stateless persons. This would be putting on this country a burden which it is not ours to bear. I think we are already bearing a pretty onerous one as it is.
Of course, when it comes down to the last few hard cases this could be a difficult
270
matter, but we must maintain firmly that the responsibility for the Stateless person must rest on the international community as a whole and not on Britain.
As to the hon. Gentleman's point about the Uganda Resettlement Board, I will speak with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. In my experience, having virtually daily meetings about this, the co-operation which the Board is getting from the Department of the Environment, the Department of Employment, and, I trust, the Home Office and other Departments, is excellent, but I will inquire again about the Scottish Office.
Mr. Powell: Can my right hon. Friend refer to any legal authority independent of government which has publicly expressed agreement with the Government's interpretation in this context either of domestic law or of international law?
Mr. Carr: As a member of the Government, I accept the advice of the Government's Law Officers, which I believe it is the normal constitutional position for any Minister to do. I believe that there is a legal responsibility. I feel sure that when we gave the opportunity to these people who had been either citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies before independence of British protected persons to apply for our passports, we must have intended—speaking for myself, I did intend—that one of the rights that they acquired, but not the only right, would be the right to come to this country if they were expelled and had nowhere else to go.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is not the answer to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that the European Court is likely to rule that there is a legal obligation on us, anyway?
To come to my own question, will the right hon. Gentleman say something about the safety of British citizens, both Asian and European in Uganda? There does not appear to be any other opportunity to ask this question. As even the Chief Justice was murdered when he released a British subject on a writ of habeas corpus, it is clearly a very dangerous situation where any kind of act, however apparently reasonable or justifi-

271
able, may be taken as provocation. In this situation was it wise to remove Mr. Slater? I entreat the Government that in no sense should there be a break in diplomatic relations with Uganda certainly in the near future.
Mr. Carr: Mr. Slater has been recalled for consultation by my right hon. Friend. The High Commission staff is still there, working fully. We must see how it develops from that. We have had in our minds from the very beginning in dealing with an unpredictable Government such as we have in Uganda the safety of both United Kingdom passport holders and also the 6,000 to 7,000 nationals who are working in British companies, teaching, nursing, doctoring and so on in Uganda. That is something which we ought to keep and have kept very much in the front of our mind the whole time. This has in many ways conditioned what we have said and done in relation to the Uganda Government in the last few weeks.
Mr. Blaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread recognition that in the circumstances which they faced the Government were right to act as they did? Correspondingly, is he aware that there will be widespread relief that, owing to the Government's successful diplomatic efforts, the numbers coming here are likely to be considerably less than was at one time thought? Is it not clear that the refugees would place a much smaller burden on our resources if they were able to transfer here some of their assets? Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what the position is about that in international law and in practice?
Mr. Carr: There is little doubt about the position in law and that is that they are entitled to them. If the Uganda Government denies them those assets the Uganda Government would be in breach of their legal commitments. It has to be noted, and I will say no more than this, that President Amin has in the last week or two assured the United Nations Secretary General that he has no intention of seizing their assets. Whether in practice they will be able to gain possession of them is, I fear, another matter. It would be foolish of any of us to imagine that their chances of gaining possession of
272
them in any foreseeable future is anything but pretty remote.
Mr. Guy Barnett: May I ask the Home Secretary to make some kind of statement on the question of the Uganda Asian students? Presumably some will have been studying at Makerere and will be coming to this country. It is vitally important that their studies should not be interrupted. What is the position of those Uganda Asian students who are at British universities? In both cases what is the situation over grants to continue studies?
Mr. Carr: As for the Asian students from Uganda who are already here, we have them specially in mind and are asking local education authorities to waive the normal residence requirements which apply to British passport holders to qualify for grants. So the normal residential qualifications will be waived. The Board will compensate the authorities concerned for the funds for the first year. Let us deal with one year at a time. As for those students from Uganda, those of them who are either dependants or citizens of the United Kingdom in their own right will be entitled to come here. I cannot make a blanket offer to all students regardless of their nationality.
Miss Holt: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the very great disquiet there is in constituencies such as mine where there is a rather high rate of unemployment, a large waiting list for houses and a large colony of immigrants? Will he expand upon the measures which the Uganda Resettlement Board has taken to persuade refugees to go to those many constituencies where there are no immigrants, a very low rate of unemployment and no waiting list for houses?
Mr. Heller: Where is that?
Mr. Carr: Of course there is grave disquiet in many parts of the country and it would be foolish to pretend that there is not. Many people who believed that this was a responsibility and obligation which we were right to accept would have wished that we did not have it and there is nothing dishonourable about that. Those of us who believe most strongly in the reality of this responsibility and in the fact that we were right, indeed compelled, to pick it up, ought to be careful by anything we say or do not to appear to minimise the general concern,

273
particularly in some areas. This is very genuine and perfectly natural. All we can do, via the Board, is to persuade in as effective a way as we can people to keep away from those areas. It was inevitable that the first numbers coming would be those who had friends and relatives here and naturally they went to them. We have no power to direct people and that is what has happened. Increasingly the later entries are accummulating in the centres, in suitable and reasonably humane conditions where time can be taken to inform them about housing and other facilities in parts of the country other than the areas my hon. Friend has in mind.
Mr. Bidwell: As one who has readily condemned the right hon. Gentleman in other respects, may I just as readily congratulate him and the Government on their humane and practical approach to this problem? May I also congratulate him on firmly resisting part of his party which is now in an open alliance with the National Front—[Interruption.]—and is seeking to make a meal of the question? May I ask him to consider the point that, in areas of heavy immigrant Asian concentration such as mine, the principle anxiety is on social rather than racial grounds? Is he aware that so long as the Uganda Asians are able to come and live decently in such areas, to pay their way and be responsible citizens, it makes no difference whatever to the genuine feelings of the indigenous people?
Mr. Carr: I deny absolutely what I regard as the evil totally unwarranted and unjustified allegation against the honour of a number of my hon. Friends—
Mr. Skinner: What about the party conference?
Mr. Carr: I was at my party conference and the hon. Gentleman, thank goodness, was not. If the hon. Gentleman's party had so honest a conference and if its leadership would accept its responsibilities in the same way as we do the country would be a lot better for it.
Mr. Deedes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cost of these camps which
274
may shortly be running at £1 million a month and which may be with us longer than we at first hoped is a factor to weigh? What is the view of Ministers about businesslike, financial arrangements which could assist these Uganda Asians to become independent of these camps as soon as possible?
Mr. Carr: The figure I give must be nothing better than an informed guess at this juncture, but my guess is that the camps are costing us about £1 million a month to run, all in. I think it is probably of that order. It is therefore important, for financial, and above all for social reasons, that people do not stay in these camps for longer than is necessary. We are launching, and I am afraid that this has taken longer than I originally hoped, an appeal which I trust will be backed, among others by members of the Asian community in this country, to help many of these refugees. I hope that we shall soon see that operating.
There is also the whole question of loans through banks which I am pursuing because we should remember that many of our banks have been active in East Africa and have dealt with many of these people as their clients in Uganda. I hope that in that way these people will find themselves credit-worthy to the normal banking system of this country, or if not credit-worthy at least with a record which will encourage some of those banks to take a slightly greater risk than they sometimes do.
Mr. Torney: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the disquiet in some constituencies which has already been mentioned is being fanned by the activity of small but very dangerous racialist groups who are using the unfortunate situation of the Uganda Asians to make a general attack on our society and on democratic society generally? Will he take steps to watch the activities of these very nasty groups and will he also arm Members of Parliament with all the facts at his disposal? In particular, will he give us some indication of the areas in which the Uganda Asians have settled so that we will be in a position, when these nasty little groups are making all kinds of wrongful accusations, to point out that there are only 50 such people in that town, or 100 in this, or whatever?
Mr. Carr: Of course the disquiet has been fanned by nasty groups, but that is so in any activity. It is so with industrial relations, race relations, any form of human relations. It is, alas, typical of our human state. There are always some small numbers of nasty people ready to make mischief out of any situation.
What is far more true is the overall response of the British people to which I referred in my opening statement and to which the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) referred. That response has been extremely balanced in spite of the disquiet. The disquiet is genuine. There are tiny numbers of people trying to make mischief out of it. The great majority of people, in spite of their disquiet, have behaved responsibly and I think it is remarkable how few demonstrations there have been—in other words, how unsuccessful have been the sort of people to whom the hon. Member refers.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling to give on a matter of privilege. Yesterday the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) made a complaint of privilege arising out of a sentence included in a reply given in evidence before the Departmental Committee on Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, 1911—the Franks Committee.
I have studied the passage referred to, together with the remainder of the reply, the question to which it related and the earlier questions and answers which led to that reply.
My duty, as the House is aware, is only to rule whether in my view the hon. Member's complaint should be given precedence as a matter of privilege over today's business. In my opinion, after taking into account the context in which the passage occurs, I do not think that the matter can be given that priority.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES ADMISSION CHARGES BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause 1

  APPLICATION OF NET INCOME FROM CHARGES
  One half of the income accruing to a museum or gallery from charges authorised by this Act shall be retained by such a museum or gallery for its benefit—[Mr. Strauss.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  4.10 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: I formally move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Guy Barnett: It is about two years since the Bill's proposal was first made. Since then it has been the subject of attacks and criticism from trustees, museum staffs, educationists, connoisseurs, the Press and the public generally. One of the reasons the Bill has been subject to such a degree of attack to nothing more than a tax on those who wish to visit museums and galleries.
  It is clear from the Government's statements and the White Paper that such moneys which are gathered through charges at the entrances of museums will be an appropriation in aid of the Vote given to those institutions. The Opposition have consistently argued that that must involve a tax on those who wish to visit our museums. It is commonly understood that the Government's proposal will amount to a system whereby charges which are levied on those who enter museums will benefit the museums. That is not the case. It must be made clear at the outset that the is not so and that when the charges are administered the consequence will be that the Vote in aid will be cut.
  Another feature of the proposals is that those museum staffs who are involved will become collectors of a tax. That is why many members of museum staffs—I
  278
  was one myself—are bitterly opposed to the proposals. I emphasise that in no sense are the Opposition putting forward the new Clause because we are conceding the principle of the Bill. The Government seem determined, despite the delays, to push the Bill through, and we feel that it is sensible to move a Clause which will go some way to improve the Bill and to make it slightly more acceptable in the eyes of the public, especially those who care deeply about our museums and galleries.
  What possible objection can there be to our proposal? First and not least, it will inject some sense into the extraordinary non sequitur which appears at the beginning of Cmnd. 4676, which says at paragraph 1(a):
  "A scheme of entrance charges for the national museums and galleries … In consequence the Government are able to provide additional resources for the conservation and display of their collections."
  There seems to be no logical connection between the first statement and the second. It is like a headmaster saying to a class of boys "If you disobey me, I will punish you." That may be a reflection on the psychology of the headmaster, but there is no logical connection in that statement. The statement in the White Paper has gone a long way to mislead the general public into believing that these charges will benefit the museums.
  The object of the new Clause is to ensure that the charges benefit the museums and institutions which have to make them at the behest of the Government. It has been argued on several occasions, by both the Under-Secretary of State and the Paymaster-General, that to adopt the new Clause would be tantamount to saying "Unto him that hath shall be given." We all know that some galleries and museums are more popular than others. It is argued that they would get more visitors and that their income would be greater, that therefore the money at the disposal of the trustees would be greater and they would have an unfair advantage over institutions that regularly receive fewer visitors.
  Judging by the number of occasions when that argument has been used, I can only assume that it is a popular argument with the Government. However, it is a hypocritical argument from the Government to suggest that some kind

  279
  of equality or equity should exist between institutions. That argument is aduced by the Government which introduced the last Budget. It is odd that a proposal of that kind seems to carry a certain amount of support, judging by other Amendments suggested by Goverment back benchers.
  It is in line with some of the more reputable principles of Conservative philosophy that institutions, including public ones, should be given some measure of autonomy, responsibility independent of Treasury control. That represents a small concession but establishes an important principle, which is already successfully practised in financial transactions between central and local government. Local government is given a measure of financial independence from central government and the rate support grant is used as a means of ironing out serious inequalities of income and expenditure among authorities.
  4.15 p.m.
  It has been said that the new Clause might lead to an unfortunate new precedent—to the hypothecation of revenue to a particular institution, which has never been allowed by the Treasury in any other circumstance, and, therefore, that that precedent should not be followed. Presumably, it is argued that the Treasury has good reasons for preventing developments of that kind, but on previous occasions the Treasury has made such a concession.
  I have before me correspondence which took place in 1920 to 1921 between the National Gallery and the Treasury, the Department then responsible. These documents show that proceeds from admission charges on two days a week were allotted to the galleries for purchasing purposes between April, 1921, and April, 1924. The Treasury originally suggested that there should be three extra paying days. I quote from a letter written from the Treasury on 7th February, 1921 The writer, on behalf of the Lords Commissioners, said:
  "My Lords are unable in present financial conditions to sanction increased expenditure from Public Funds (including appropriations in aid from paying days on the current basis) upon the purchase of pictures etc. for the National Galleries in the financial year 1921–1922. They are prepared to assent to the allocation for this purpose of any increased
  280
  receipts derived from imposing entrance fees on such additional days (or increased rates of entrance) as the Trustees of the Galleries in question may in their discretion (subject to Their Lordships consent) determine."
  That establishes beyond doubt that the Treasury has set such a precedent. Therefore, there seems no reason why that precedent should not be followed on this occasion. It seems that it is administratively possible and there is no reason why it should not be done. If it is intelligently administered, there would be no financial injustice between one institution and another.
  Thirdly, it seems that considerable advantages could flow from the adoption of the Clause. The first, which I have mentioned already, is that it would give institutions a measure of independence such as the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery already enjoy in the sale of postcards and other items, and the retention of the income which they enjoy as a consequence of that. Secondly, it would provide an incentive to trustees and the staffs of such institutions, and encourage them to increase attendance, surely a principle which will appeal to Conservative Members. Thirdly, it would be an important message to the public that by visiting a museum and paying a charge they were at the same time supporting the institution in question, which no one can now say as the Bill is drafted.
  I do not think that any difficulty need arise as a consequence of the issue of season tickets which grant entry to all institutions. The proceeds of that could be distributed on a basis to be agreed between the institutions concerned.
  Last, and very important in view of some of the incredible estimates we have had, it would have the effect of encouraging trustees of the institutions to keep down the costs of collection of the money instead of incurring the absurd costs that have already been mentioned. Perhaps one of the most absurd, which will no doubt be mentioned again in the debate, is that relating to the Wallace Collection, where it appears to cost £5,000 to collect £16,000.
  There do not appear to me to be any serious arguments against the proposal, and there are a number of positive advantages. It has the added advantage of being in line with ideals and ideas which accord with Conservative philosophy. The

  281
  words "decentralisation", "devolution of power" and "responsibility" are constantly being used on Conservative platforms. I am asking the Government on this occasion to practise those sentiments. We have seen precious little evidence of their doing so over the past two years. Instead, the Bill represents an example of creeping State control embodied in the person of the Paymaster-General.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: For once I find myself in fairly broad agreement with the interpretation of Conservative principles put forward by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett), which I do not expect will be the case on many occasions.
  I have no feeling of revulsion against the idea of imposing charges for entrance to museums or galleries. I recall that in 1955 when I visited Leningrad I was charged the equivalent of more than 50p to enter the Winter Palace Museum. Last Monday week I went to Versailles. I was charged when I went into the Palace; I was charged when I went into the gallery there; I was charged when I went into the grounds; I was charged when I went to the Petit Trianon; and I was charged when I went into the Museum of Carriages. In all, the charges that the French imposed upon me again came close to 50p. I feel no sense of moral outrage, therefore, that we should be asked to pay entrance charges. It is common practice within Common Market countries and in most parts of the world where there are museums and galleries.
  But I regret that the Government have presented their policy in a way that appears to have alienated both the establishment of the art world and the informed public. I do not believe that that need have happened. As the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) said in Committee on 2nd March:
  "If the Government had said that the amount of money spent on the national museums and galleries was colossal and something had to be done about it, and that it was proposed to raise a substantial sum of money by charging visitors considerable sums to go into the museums and galleries, and that that money was to be allocated to the museums and galleries themselves, then it would have been understandable and I would not have opposed it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 2nd March, 1972; c. 195.]
  We all know what will happen. For every £100 raised by the museum in
  282
  charges, £100 will be clawed back by the Treasury. In fact, £110 will be clawed back by the Treasury, because on top of the £100 there will be £10 of valued added tax, though I understand that that £10 tax charge will be returned to the gallery in an administrative way. What I object to is that there will be no incentive for the museums to try to attract visitors, a point so strongly made by the hon. Member for Greenwich.
  Over the past 200 years this country has built up a great museum tradition. A great museum curator must have two sides to his nature. He must be part scholar and part showman. In the past we have been immensely strong on the scholarship side and rather weak on the showman side. This is improving. I have been vastly impressed by the qualities of showmanship on display at the Commonwealth Institute near my home, and the British Museum seems to me to have been showing a substantial improvement in the past few years. But there are other museums in London that still manage to give the impression that looking after the public is a bore which must be tolerated with regret.
  I want our museums to become ever more conscious of the needs of the public. If they were allowed to keep the extra money raised by the entrance charges they would have an incentive to give the public the service it needs on such questions as later opening on certain weekdays, but under the scheme proposed by the Government there will be no incentive for the staff, as far as I can see. I had always thought that incentives were the core of Conservative philosophy.
  I am sure we all appreciate that the charges were part of a deal struck by the Paymaster-General with the Treasury in 1970. In 1970 it seemed rather a good bargain that £18 million should be received for expansion in return for £1 million a year imposed in charges, but since then the economic climate has changed considerably. We have become vastly more open-handed. We no longer think of strangling lame ducks but build warm duck houses so that they may be tended with loving care, and what appeared to be a good deal in 1970 is not necessarily such a good bargain in 1972.
  I do not think that the Treasury should now claim its pound of flesh. It should

  283
  be prepared to forgo half, nine-tenths or even all of the charges collected by the museums and galleries. I believe that that is what Parliament wants. The way we can tell the Treasury to take a more generous line in this matter is by supporting the new Clause, and that I intend to do.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. David Price: I must apologise to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have followed the Bill through all its stages that I intervene now for the first time at this late stage in the Bill. The House will realise that I was not available to take part at any earlier stage. I have put down certain Amendments to which I wish to speak. I think it is in order to discuss two of them with this new Clause.
  I should like briefly to say a word on Amendment No. 17, which I would say to the Opposition is infinitely better than their new Clause. Their new Clause is a bad compromise; they would retain only half of the revenue from charges in any museum or gallery. It is to me an important matter of principle that the revenue should stay with the gallery or museum concerned. I am anxious, as indeed is practically every hon. Member present today, that the trustees of each gallery, each museum, should be allowed to retain the revenue arising from these charges for the benefit of the gallery or museum in question.
  I would add little to the financial case, which I thought was admirably put by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett). It was sound Tory philosophy. But the substance of my case—and this is where there may be a slight difference between him and me—is not so much in financial terms as in management terms.
  These charges are not a tax. It is important to realise that they are not a tax, and because they are not a tax it is essential that the trustees should have control over the revenue arising from them. It has been made clear by Government spokesmen in both Houses at all stages that these charges are not a tax but are necessary charges to increase the revenues of our galleries and museums. Therefore, if I may say so with respect to Treasury Ministers, the traditional
  284
  Treasury arguments against hypothecation of taxation, which are strong, do not apply in this case. Indeed, they are totally irrelevant. To put at its simplest, the case we deploy in these several new Clauses and Amendments is, in my judgment, a matter of how far the Government are prepared to trust the integrity and responsibility of the trustees of our galleries and museums.
  Let us remember that they are distinguished men and women who give their service, their energy and their time for the public good in the management of these museums and galleries. As the hon. Member for Greenwich very rightly pointed out, it is a basic concept of Tory philosophy—I hope of Labour Party philosophy too—that people in positions of public responsibility should be given a degree of independence and of personal responsibility.
  Therefore, to me the case for this group of new Clauses and Amendments rests not so much on financial terms; it rests rather on the whole question of trust, responsibility, independence and, I would add, even the self-respect of the trustees of our galleries and museums. It is on those lines that I argue my case.
  We all know that many trustees do not like these charges. They have made this clear. It is also fair to say that most of them, as reasonable and responsible men and women, are prepared to accept these charges, but I think it is important that they should be allowed a minimum degree of freedom of action which my Amendment incorporates.
  My case is a very modest one. I should point out to my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that it is strongly supported by the National Art Collections Fund. If the House would bear with me I should like to read a short extract from a letter to The Times on 24th August this year by Mr. Hugh Leggatt. It says:
  "The National Art Collections Fund passed by an overwhelming majority a motion to the effect that it expresses its support for the Amendment to the Museums and Galleries Admission Charges Bill tabled by Mr. David Price and other M.P.s to the effect that the proceeds from any further charges to the National Museums and Galleries should be at the disposal of the institutions themselves; and approves that the text of this resolution be notified to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a copy to the Paymaster-General"

  285
  It would be interesting to know from my hon. Friend what the Treasury's reply was.
  It was the great G. K. Chesterton who once wrote:
  "Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere."
  I trust the Treasury will agree with us to draw the line where we modestly suggest and not where the Treasury traditionally draws it—somewhere in Great George Street.
  I turn to my other Amendment, No. 16, which deals with a rather different matter. It concerns the implementation of Section 4 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970. I briefly remind the House what Section 4 says:
  "Any person undertaking the provision of any building or premises to which the public are to be admitted, whether on payment or otherwise, shall, in the means of access both to and within the building or premises, and in the parking facilities and sanitary conveniences to be available (if any), make provision, in so far as it is in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable, for the needs of members of the public visiting the building or premises who are disabled."
  We all know that many galleries and museums have not been able to implement Section 4 to date. They are not in any way opposed to the principle of Section 4 but the finance has simply not been available. I know, we all know, that my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts, more properly known as the Paymaster-General, has recognised the importance of improving the buildings in our galleries and museums. He made this very clear on Second Reading of the Bill in another place.
  I am today arguing the case with relation to people in one particular minority group of the community, those who are physically disabled. To me the yardstick of whether a building is available to the disabled is, "Can it accommodate a wheelborne citizen?". It is a fair yardstick to use. If it can accommodate the wheelborne, it can accommodate the semi-ambulant whose disabilities are less severe.
  I must declare an interest. The House knows that I am a member of a disabled family. Therefore I am in a way arguing in favour of my own family, but I think that in this case the House
  286
  will accept that it is not an entirely unfair thing to do.
  This problem of access for the disabled is quite separate from the matter of admission charges. We will return to that later in our discussions today. Access for those in a wheelchair means independence; it means self-respect. This is what the wheelborne citizen desires most of all. He wishes to be a member of the general community, to do what we here are all able to do and not to be restricted by his disability. The wheelchair citizen lives in a two-dimensional world whereas we live in a three-dimensional world. In this modern age the wheelborne citizen no longer accepts the rôle of a third-class citizen. Like the rest of us, he is involved in the revolution of rising expectations.
  I would quote from a very remarkable and very disabled citizen, Mr. Paul Hunt, in a book called "Stigma" which may be familiar to hon. Members:
  "We are challenging society to take account of us, to listen to what we have to say, to acknowledge us as an integral part of society itself. We do not want ourselves, or anyone else, treated as second-class citizens and put away out of sight and out of mind. Many of us are just beginning to refuse to be put away, to insist that we are part of life, too."
  That is really my case for Amendment No. 16.
  If as a society we are to integrate our wheelborne citizens into the community, then we must do much more to ensure physical access to our buildings for them, as Section 4 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act lays down. But Section 4 cannot be implemented without the finance. Therefore, I am suggesting that, at this moment, when we are imposing charges in our museums and galleries, it is appropriate that high priority in the use of that revenue should be given to ensuring access into and within our museums and galleries.
  There are two aspects. There is, first, the problem of converting old buildings. This can be very expensive and very difficult. Those of us who speak for the disabled would not ask that every part of the total collection should immediately be made available. For instance, at the Victoria and Albert Museum, there are little mezzanine floors. The floors containing the main collections, to use an Italian phrase the piano mobile, should be available for wheelborne access.

  287
  Secondly, when we are building new buildings—and one thinks of the many exciting proposals in the White Paper—we must ensure that from the drawing board they are so designed that access to wheelborne citizens affords no problem.
  I will illustrate the dangers from two personal experiences. The first was a few years ago, when my wife and I went to the Tate Gallery on a Sunday. I am luckily still strong so I was able to haul her chair up the front steps. If I had not been strong, God knows how we would have got in. But when we got to the main floor—it was a special exhibition for which payment was charged—we were refused admission because she was in a wheelchair. I was told "We cannot have people in wheelchairs here on a Sunday."
  The other occasion was more recently. The Army Museum, near where I live in Chelsea, has been opened since the passing of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. I took my wife there and found that it is totally impossible for anyone in a wheelchair to gain access unless the accompanying person is strong. Of course, one can get help from the custodians, who are always superb. I took the matter up with the Army Department and arranged a meeting with the director, who could not have been more helpful. But he said that when the old Ministry of Works accepted the building it did so although nothing had been done for wheelborne citizens. There are plans for putting in a lift on the west side which will cost, I understand, about £100,000. Yet the old Ministry of Works accepted that building although it did not fulfil Section 4 of the Act.
  So, even though the Act has been passed, we are still getting new buildings which do not fulfil these criteria. Both the director and the staff of the Army Museum are helpful and sympathetic in every way. There is no discredit to them.
  I realise that this is a narrow enabling Bill. Therefore, my hon. Friend may argue that it would be inappropriate to write in a specific requirement along the lines of Amendment No. 16. I am a reasonable man, as the whole House knows, and I am prepared to accept this argument—provided that he gives me satisfaction in the undertaking that I require, that he, my right hon. And
  288
  noble Friend and the Treasury Ministers will ensure that all galleries and museums for which they provide grant in aid and capital funds will be put in a financial position to implement Section 4 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. He knows me well enough to realise that if he gives me that undertaking I will accept it from him. He is an honourable man, but should his successors fail to fulfil that undertaking I will use every parliamentary device at my disposal to ensure that it is fulfilled. I know that he is an understanding man, so I hope that his characteristic understanding of the problems of the disabled will be exemplified by a precise undertaking along the lines of my Amendment.
  4.45 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have been good enough to indicate that we may discuss a number of these new Clauses and Amendments together, and it might be of assistance if now I deal with them, although not necessarily in the order in which they appear. You will have noticed that no hon. Member has spoken to new Clause No. 3, and I imagine therefore that I would not be discourteous to the House or to any individual Member if I did not make any comment about it. In any case, by comparison with the other matters we are discussing, it is probably a comparative detail, but again I intend no discourtesy in saying that.
  Perhaps in opening it would be right of me to make a point touched upon already by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price). It is one that is very familiar to the familiar faces—if I may put it that way—which I see before me and behind me from the nine amicable Sittings we had in Standing Committee. However, it does need saying at the outset and I shall say it again.
  This Bill is an enabling Bill only. There is not—and there is not intended to be included within it—any detail at all, about the charges and how they operate and the exemptions and the rest. It applies only to a limited number—a very important group but only a limited number—of national galleries and museums in respect of which there is doubt or certainty that they cannot charge. It

  289
  is for that reason that, although, of course, hon. Members, in order to get the arguments on their feet—quite understandably—are seeking to amend the Bill, nevertheless, there will be occasions when I shall venture to suggest—although whether my arguments will be persuasive enough I do not know—that it is not an appropriate way forward in one or other direction by actually amending the Bill. But in return I naturally propose, as I hope I can claim I did in Committee, to answer in broad and general terms, and I shall certainly not stand on the narrow, detailed and legalistic point I have just made, however important it is.
  It seems to me, therefore, that there are two broad categories of new Clause and Amendment to which I must address myself. I take, first, the very cogent argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh about access to buildings by the disabled. He was very clear to differentiate—and I am grateful to him—between charges for admission by disabled people on the one hand and the physical access to the buildings on the other.
  I should like to lend whatever transient authority I have and whatever emphasis I have in support of my hon. Friend's argument. To the very best of my knowledge—and I have made careful inquiry—the most stringent and careful provisions are being made for access by the disabled to the new buildings which are the consequence of the very remarkable advance to which hon. Members have paid tribute. I know, for example, that this is so in the case of the new building at the National Gallery.
  I undertake most clearly and without equivocation that I shall make it my business to draw to the attention of all those responsible for these buildings the words my hon. Friend has used, and I believe and think that all concerned are very anxious indeed that Government buildings shall fulfil the same standards that we ask and require of others under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. I think that this is of immense importance.
  It happens that I have a special interest in this matter, although mercifully, it is not of the same kind as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh. But
  290
  I have come close to it and I am at this moment engaged in a very modest building operation in which I have, I hope, so arranged things that rooms can be used by a disabled person. There is no merit in this because no additional cost in involved. It is just a matter of forethought—the width of doors, the position of the lavatory accommodation, and the rest—and it seems to me right that we should all of us, when we have the opportunity, seek to do these things. So this matter touches a very close feeling in me personally.
  But my hon. Friend, possibly without meaning to, did illustrate one weakness, not of course in his argument, which is unanswerable, but in the method by which he would seek to achieve it. If he will, as I know he does from time to time, look at the Estimates for the national museums and galleries to which we are referring, he will see that it is not in money that passes through the hands of the trustees that the expenditures in which he is interested come.
  For example, my hon. Friend made the right and fair point that the cost of adapting old buildings can sometimes be extremely high. But the adaption of these buildings is not something which falls upon the votes or moneys controlled by the trustees. I need not labour this point. It is clearly set out in the Estimates. It is one of the reasons why, if we were to accept the spirit of Amendment No. 16, we should not with the best will in the world achieve his objective. What we need is greater capital spending, which is, I am thankful to say, being acheved, and even if the money were allocated either in whole or in part from the admission charges, the spending would not be under the head that my hon. Friend is interested in.
  What he and I, if I may allow myself to say so on this issue, because it is a non-party issue, have to do is to ensure that the capital programme does include proper allocations for the disabled. It is for this reason also that the argument that we could somehow improve the buildings if the charges were to be paid in whole or in part falls down as well. It really is extremely important to establish how the matter operates.
  The money received from admission charges will be retained by the trustees.

  291
  This is not a new practice. It has happened frequently with other services in the past. It has happened with things like special exhibitions, reproduction rights, television rights, film rights and the rest. It has been going on under all Governments and there is nothing new about it. The money will be retained in the hands of the trustees or their officers along the lines with which they have long been familiar.
  Nor do I accept the argument of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett) that this is a tax. Admittedly, he and I have had this argument before and he does not seem to have been persuaded by what I had hoped was the blinding clarity of my analogy. The right hon. Gentleman did not argue that charges for spectacles were a tax. He knows a good deal about that subject because the Labour Party took off charges and then put them back. They know a good deal about doing things both ways—and it is becoming a growing practice—but certainly they would not have said that it is a tax. The argument is about what proportion of the cost of the spectacles should be borne by the general taxpayer and what proportion by the user. The same argument applies here in relation to the museum and gallery service. Therefore, I do not accept it as a tax in that sense.
  It will still be true that, even now, the charges meet only about a twentieth of the total recurrent expenditure on museums and galleries. This is a matter of balance. I realise that there are arguments both ways about what that balance should be, but I cannot accept it as a tax in that sense.
  I move on to consider whether it would be appropriate for there still to be some kind of incentive in terms of charges for those who were particularly successful in their operations.
  I have explained that I do not believe we would secure the objective by the total sum of money being retained by the trustees for their own purposes within the museums, certainly not in capital terms. I find attraction in the argument—I say
  this and leave it at that—that in terms of museums and galleries they are less favourably placed. It is somewhat hard, as some of them might feel, if there is a differentiation in this Bill. On the other hand, there is the argument, which is a persuasive one, that it seems hard that every single penny, no matter how successful a gallery is, should be taken into account in the balancing procedures between the Treasury and the trustees.
  I wish to make it clear that the Government are anxious to encourage museums and galleries to earn as much as possible through admission charges—this is not something that should be shied away from, in that the galleries and museums should encourage increasing numbers of people to attend—and also in other ways which have been operating for some time, for example, in the sale of publications. This has enabled them to benefit if the earnings exceed the forecasts. The Government certainly wish to come to an agreement with the institutions about devoting part of the additional receipts to improving facilities for the public. Proposals have already been made, as part of a series of measures, to improve the general arrangements for administering the museums and galleries. I wish to make it clear that although proposals have been made, discussions are still in progress. It would be discourteous to the trustees if I were to anticipate those discussions. I hope that what I have said will show that there is something here for the trustees and that this will be of general assistance to them.
  I end as I began, by respectfully reminding the House of the technical nature of the Bill and of the fact that we shall get greater flexibility, not by writing matters into a Bill, but in the form of administrative arrangements. I have already given two undertakings and have expressed my view. I hope the House will feel disposed to accept my advice that it would not be wise to add this new Clause to the Bill.
  Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 196.

  Division No. 337.]

  AYES

  [5.1 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Barnes, Michael

  Albu, Austen

  Ashton, Joe

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Baxter, William

  Beaney, Alan

  Goodhart, Philip

  Ogden, Eric

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Gourley, Harry

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Bishop, E. S.

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Booth, Albert

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Bradley, Tom

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Hardy, Peter

  Pardoe, John

  Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Pendry, Tom

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

  Hattersley, Roy

  Pentland, Norman

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Buchan, Norman

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

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

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Prescott, John

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Probert, Arthur

  Campbell, I (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Rankin, John

  Cant, R. B.

  Hunter, Adam

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Janner, Greville

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  John, Brynmor

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

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

  Concannon, J. D.

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Kaufman, Gerald

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

  Cunningham, Cr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Kelley, Richard

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kerr, Russell

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Lambie, David

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Sillars, James

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Lamond, James

  Silverman, Julius

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Latham, Arthur

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lawson, George

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Dempsey, James

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Spearing, Nigel

  Doig, Peter

  Leonard, Dick

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Steel, David

  Driberg, Tom

  Loveridge, John

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Strang, Gavin

  Dunnett, Jack

  McBride, Neil

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Eadie, Alex

  McCartney, Hugh

  Swain, Thomas

  Edelman, Maurice

  McGuire, Michael

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

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Torney, Tom

  Ellis, Tom

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Urwin, T. W.

  Evans, Fred

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Ewing, Harry

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Faulds, Andrew

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

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  Marsden, F.

  Wallace, George

  Weitzman, David

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Foot, Michael

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Whitlock, William

  Ford, Ben

  Meacher, Michael

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Forrester, John

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mendelson, John

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Milne, Edward

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

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

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Woof, Robert

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Moyle, Roland

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Golding, John

  Oakes, Gordon

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Brewis, John

  Cockeram, Eric

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Cooke, Robert

  Astor, John

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Coombs, Derek

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Costain, A. P.

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

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

  Crouch, David

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

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

  Balniel, Rt. Hon. Lord

  Burden, F. A.

  Dean, Paul

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Benyon, W.

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

  Dixon, Piers

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Carlisle, Mark

  Dykes, Hugh

  Biffen, John

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Emery, Peter

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Eyre, Reginald

  Blaker, Peter

  Channon, Paul

  Fell, Anthony

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Body, Richard

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Fidler, Michael

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Churchill, W. S.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bowden, Andrew

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fowler, Norman

  Bray, Ronald

  Clegg, Walter

  Fox, Marcus

  294

  295

  Gibson-Watt, David

  MacArthur, Ian

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  McLaren, Martin

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Gower, Raymond

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Maurice (Farnham)

  Rost, Peter

  Gray, Hamish

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Green, Alan

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Marten, Neil

  Scott, Nicholas

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

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

  Gurden, Harold

  Mawby, Ray

  Simeons, Charles

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Hall-Davis A. G. F.

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

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

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Soref, Harold

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

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

  Spence, John

  Harrison Brian (Maldon)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Sproat, Iain

  Harrison Col. Sir Harwood Eye

  Molyneaux, James

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Monro, Hector

  Sutcliffe, John

  Hicks, Robert

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Tapsell, Peter

  Higgins, Terence L.

  More, Jasper

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Holland, Philip

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Tebbit, Norman

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Morrison, Charles

  Temple, John M.

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Murton, Oscar

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Hunt, John

  Neave, Airey

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

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

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Normanton, Tom

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  James, David

  Nott, John

  Trew, Peter

  Jenkins, Patrick (Woodford)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Jessel, Toby

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Jopling, Michael

  Osborn, John

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Waddington, David

  Kilfedder, James

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Kirk, Peter

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Knox, David

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Wilkinson, John

  Lambton, Lord

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

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Lamont, Norman

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Lane, David

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Worsley, Marcus

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Raison, Timothy

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Redmond, Robert

  Mr. Victor Goodhew and

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Mr. Tim Fortescue.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

  LIBERTY TO CHARGE FOR ADMISSION
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, at end insert:
  'but such admission charges shall not be made payable on more than six days in each week unless the trustees or governing body concerned are satisfied that to allow free admission on any day or days in the week would be undesirable'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this Amendment I think we might conveniently discuss Amendment No. 2, in line 8, at end insert:
  'but the trustees or governing body concerned shall have power at their discretion to allow admission free of charge for one hour on not more than two days in each week'.
  and Amendment No. 3, in line 8, at end insert:
  296
  'but such admission charges shall not be made payable on more than five days in each week unless the trustees or governing body concerned are satisfied that to allow free admission on any day or days in the week would be undesirable'.
  Mr. Faulds: It is abundantly clear that a number of the boards of our national institutions wish to have a free day or free times at which visitors can be admitted without charge to view the objects and paintings with which they have been entrusted.
  Eight of these national institutions have made it quite clear to the Minister that they wish to allow free access at certain times to their collections, and the Paymaster-General has had to admit the trustees' right so to do.
  The other institutions have not pressed for free viewing simply because, in the judgment of their trustees, although they nearly unanimously reject the introduction of charges, they are frightened that

  297
  complete security and constant invigilation could not be ensured for their collections.
  The National Gallery trustees have already decided to have one free day a week. The Chairman, Sir Edward Playfair, wrote to the noble Lord stating that his trustees were firmly opposed to any charges, but that they had to accept that the Government were in a position to enforce their policy through financial sanctions against the institutions that did not co-operate. His letter—I am sure the Under-Secretary will recall this—told the Paymaster-General bluntly that it was the trustee's business, not his how they achieved the £170,000 expected of them. Accordingly, they have decided to have free entrance on Wednesdays and to double up the entry charges on Mondays and Fridays.
  The Tate Gallery issued a Press statement on 26th July this year, part of which said:
  "We have not in any way changed the views which we have expressed regarding the undesirability in principle and detail of the Government's scheme of entrance charges. We much regret a decision which will substitute a most illiberal scheme for the present system, which has existed for generations and which is widely admired and envied abroad. … The Trustees have given a great deal of thought to the problem of how they could reconcile the Government's view, which is opposed to a free day, with their own wish to have some time when the public can visit the Tate without charge.
  The Trustees have decided that in present circumstances, and assuming that admission charges are imposed by the Government, their aim can best be achieved by opening the Gallery on Tuesday and Thursday evenings between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. without charge and this they will arrange for an experimental period of one year."
  Of course, the trustees, under the able guidance of their Chairman, Sir Robert Sainsbury, were perfectly entitled so to do, and to tell the Minister, in other words, to take a running jump.
  The trustees of the National Galleries of Scotland, in their report for 1971, state:
  "Nor can we be content with a situation in which we are pressed by the implicit threat of cuts in our grants to impose charges against our beliefs, or to seeing the conditions of past benefactions—where these include free public access to the works of art concerned—overruled by Order under the new legislation. We would strongly press that we should, at our discretion, be able to provide one free day in each week."
  298
  5.15 p.m.
  The trustees of the National Museum, of Antiquities of Scotland state in their report this year that there has been a marked decrease in attendance because there seemed to be a widespread belief that charges had already been introduced; and they deduce:
  "The present figures, however, reinforce the case for at least a weekly free day."
  The situation at the Ulster Museum is that the Government intend, by Order in Council, to scrap the existing legislation, which provides for three days free viewing a week in Belfast. That action will be taken against the wishes of the trustees, and with no public debate on the question in the sad circumstances of Northern Ireland.
  We come then to the Wallace Collection. This is an enormously rich bequest to the nation which must be worth the best part of £200 million. It is a set collection, so has no requirement for a purchase grant, and is therefore happily open neither to the blandishments nor to the blackmail of the Minister. The trustees have decided, rightly and courageously, to have a free day without doubling up the charges on any other day. The probable loss in takings over a year would be about £3,000. This has sent the noble Lord in another place into a terrible tizzy. He complained in the other place, on 10th August, that
  "obviously to have a fee free day without any compensating increase in the charges would mean that the Wallace Collection was not collecting its fair proportion of the £1 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords. 10th August; Vol. 334, c. 1273.]
  I ask the Under-Secretary directly: what is his noble Friend contemplating in revenge? I like that smile. I hope it means that we shall get an answer. Does he intend to cut the Gallery's money with which it pays its staff? Perhaps the Under-Secretary will come clean and tell us.
  What would a free day cost at the eight institutions which have expressed a wish to introduce them? We know, from the optimistic assessments of the Department, what the figures of hoped far takings are. Incidentally, most of the figures which appeared in the Supply Estimates did not originate from, and did not receive the endorsement of, the various institutions, despite—I am sorry to say this—the misleading replies given to me by the

  299
  Under-Secretary. However, the Department's estimates of gross annual takings were, for the four English institutions, £302,000—the figures appear in HANSARD of 18th January, c. 139—and, for the four Scottish institutions, £36,400—HANSARD of 15th March. That makes a grand total of £338,400. Therefore, it is easy to deduce that the loss for one free day a week would be unlikely to exceed more than a sixth or so of that total—about £60,000.
  As I summed up in a rather good article in The Spectator of 14th October this year:
  "Must the Government really insist on penalising the institutions to extort this miserable sum from the public, on the score that the nation cannot face so damaging a loss?"
  Really! Why is there all this outcry from responsible people in the educational, communications and art worlds, at this imposition of charges? I believe it is simply that they realise better than this unfeeling and uncaring Government that many people in our supposedly affluent society simply cannot afford to find the sums needed for a family visit: that many children who would fire their imaginations and sate their curiosity by frequently visiting museums and wandering round them cannot afford to find the fivepences: that those on low incomes, like old-age pensioners, those on supplementary benefit and the widowed, need their carefully collected pennies for carefully calculated expenditure on food and warmth and the necessities of life. The chronically ill are penny-pinched already. Are their misfortunes to be added to by the deprivation of satisfaction of their hunger for beauty and enlightement and spiritual uplift which they can get when they go into a gallery?
  I urge the Government to accept the Amendment. It is already clear that eight of our national institutions are eager to provide free viewing on certain occasions weekly. The Government should consider the informed arguments of the trustees, the informed arguments of the more responsible Press and the informed arguments of educationists. They should not broach the accepted tradition of generations of the public right to free viewing—, and in the case of the British Museum it goes back a couple of hundred years. The Government should considerately
  300
  take into account the sad situation of the impoverished and deprived members of our community who will simply have to do without the enrichment of viewing our great collections.
  I urge the Government to have the sense and feeling to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Goodhart: I am sure that everyone is grateful to the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) for having brought a touch of black magic to our debates this afternoon. I believe that once upon a time a certain Minister—I think that he was a Member of a Labour Administration—got into some trouble because he advanced the doctrine that the man from Whitehall knows best. Many Members who are now on this side of the House thought that that was not a right doctrine to put forward.
  I believe, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price), that in the past our national galleries and museums have been excessively dependent upon the Treasury and I would have hoped that the power to impose charges would have been used in such a way as to give them a certain modicum of independence, but the correspondence which has passed between the Paymaster-General and the Chairmen of the Boards of Trustees of the National Gallery and the Tate on the question of free days suggests that the power to impose charges has been used to decrease the power of the trustees, rather than to increase it.
  It may well be that the Paymaster-General knows more about museums than anybody else in the business, and certainly anyone who has listened to him expound on this subject must have been impressed by his vast expertise, but it seems to me that the principle is wrong when he says "I do not see how I could allow free days at some museums and not at others." That seems to me to represent a wholly undesirable extension of the thesis that, first, Whitehall knows best and, secondly, that uniformity for all must take place because it is more convenient that way.
  I want the trustees to have the power to have a free day without imposing excessive charges on other days. I want the trustees to have the power, if they

  301
  feel like using it, to give a free week, or even a free month, if they decide that the gallery and the public would benefit. I think that this is an instance in which the Government ought to follow traditional Conservative policy and keep their intervention to an absolute minimum.
  Mr. Maurice Edelman: I thought that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) used a felicitous phrase when he said that the Paymaster-General knew more about museums than anyone in the business. I am not sure whether the first part is appropriate, but I am certain that the hon. Gentleman is right when he so describes the mercenary approach of the Paymaster-General to the matters which we are discussing. Nevertheless, we welcome support from wherever it comes, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be warned by the narrow majority in the last Division. I hope, indeed—and perhaps I may recall the couplet
  "Betwixt the stirrup and the ground
  Mercy I asked, mercy I found"—
  that he will be willing to accept the Amendment which, he will recall, was so narrowly defeated in Committee.
  I need not remind the House that this is a Philistinic and reactionary Bill. It is a Bill which has been divisive in its effect. It has produced a confrontation not only between classes, but between administrators and the administered. It is a Bill which has revived some of the worst practices of the past when education and knowledge were taxed. The Under-Secretary of State might call it a charge on education or knowledge, but certainly the effect is the same.
  I make this preamble because I want to deal specifically with Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, though with more sympathy for No. 2, because, as I said on Second Reading and in Committee, I do not regard the free day as something intrinsically desirable. I consider it to be a very second best alternative. If the choice is between people being totally deprived of the opportunity of access to galleries, or only partially deprived, then clearly one would settle for partial deprivation.
  If I may, in one or two sentences, rehearse the arguments which I have used in the past, I am obliged to say that the idea of herding those unable to pay into the galleries on one specific
  302
  day when they will have the disadvantage of not being able to get near the pictures or objects which they want to see and study is clearly something that will handicap everyone who wants to go to museums and galleries.
  The analogy of a sort of Bond Street vernissage, where crowds of people turn up to see the pictures, might be put forward as a reason for herding people into galleries on the free day—after all, these vernissages are free and, indeed, visitors have the opportunity of a free glass of champagne. But I cannot help feeling in the context of a free day for public galleries that all that will happen is that some of the most concerned people, some of those who are best qualified by temperament and by interest to view the pictures and study the objects, will have to see them under conditions substantially worse than those enjoyed by the paying public.
  If I have to make a choice between the benefits of Amendment No. 1 and those of Amendment No. 2, I should be inclined to say that it would be much more desirable for museums and galleries to extend the hours of access to their premises by allowing free viewing after, say, 5 o'clock, or 6 o'clock, as the case may be.
  In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State made the cogent point, which I accept, that administratively it will cost more to arrange for extensions of hours than would otherwise be the case. I ask him to take the analogy—I know that he is interested in analogies—of the great stores like Selfridges, Harrods or whatever it may be, which now have days when their hours are extended so that people who might otherwise be prevented from visiting their premises have the opportunity to do so. These commercial organisations overcome the administrative difficulties, perhaps involving paying overtime rates to the attendants or those in charge of security.
  5.30 p.m.
  I see no administrative reason whatever why the museums and galleries covered by the Bill should not exercise the option of extending their hours so that people, instead of having to say, "I shall go on Tuesday because it is free then ", thus being put into the category of second-class citizen—travelling, so to speak,

  303
  second class artistically—will be able to go on any day of the week during the free hours if the inclination moves them.
  I need not underline what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) when he spoke, in effect—I am paraphrasing his words—of the pleasure of prowling in a gallery or museum. This, surely, is what education is all about. It is part of the quality and life—the slogan on which right hon. and hon. Members opposite were elected.
  If the Government persist in barricading their empire by means of this toll which they will exact from those who want to have access to the heritage of the nation, they will do a great disservice not only to our generation but to generations to come.
  Already, there has been a fall in admissions to some of the museums and galleries named in the Bill. This fall has not taken place because the charges have been applied. It has taken place because, thanks to the debate which has been going on in the nation as well as in the House, there is an impression, especially among young people, that the charges are already in operation, and for that reason young people are staying away. This is to do a great disservice to our nation and to prosperity, and for those reasons I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will think again.
  Mr. Jeffrey Archer: I support the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), but I wish to open by thanking my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for his courtesy over the last nine months when, in private and in public, I have been his aggressor. At all times, I have appreciated the courtesy with which he has treated me, and, even though we have rarely agreed, I have been delighted that at all times he has attempted to answer each case individually.
  I believe in seven free days a week. One free day is a bad compromise, but I shall support it because it is the only compromise which I see on the Paper that I can support. I saw it in New York, in the Museum of Modern Art, which many hon Members on both sides will have seen. It had its free day on a Monday, which appeared to be a very sensible day, after the weekend was over. If we
  304
  have to have the Bill, I am very much in favour of the free day, and I should even recommend that it be on a Monday.
  I am against the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State knows because of the young and because of the old. I have at no time fought for the middle section, in respect of whom, perhaps, there is an argument for it. I have never seen an argument showing why the young or the old should pay.
  Two days ago, I received a letter from an old-age pensioner which finally convinced me. There have been some of my hon. Friends, and even constituents, who said, "If they can spend money on bingo, why should not they be charged to go to a museum or art gallery?". I tried desperately to explain that the very people who go to museums and art galleries are not the people who go to bingo.
  I shall now read this letter, which came to me not from a constituent but from someone who knew that I was against the Bill:
  "Dear Sir, I am appealing as an old-age pensioner for the inspiring freedom of entry into our British national museums and art galleries, as enjoyed by present old-age pensioners, to be continued. During the last years of my life, I have had real and actual experience as an old-age pensioner of glorious freedom to see beautiful things exhibited freely in our national museums and art galleries. It was late in my life, because of a bad education, that I discovered them.
  "This is especially dear to me now, when I realise that I am at the end of my life and must soon die. Please do everything in your power to see that this small pleasure which I still enjoy can be continued. It would be a wonderful action of your Government, and a courageous action for a Minister to stand up and say, 'We have made a mistake and we are going to drop the Bill'.
  Yours respectfully,
  J. A. G. Smith (Aged 83)".
  The Under-Secretary will say, perhaps rightly, that that is one case. I have never minded at any stage fighting for one person who wanted free admission to continue. I never minded fighting for a minority, a minority of young or a minority of old, even if they were a minority within the minority. I was still willing to fight for them, because if there is a section of the nation who will no longer be able to take advantage of the present freedom—or the privilege, as it would become—we are lesser in this House and we are lesser in this country.

  305
  The free day is a bad compromise. I consider this a bad Bill. I was particularly sorry, as, I know, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall was, that the Bill did not disappear quietly. I should not have been surprised because it looked as though, with the legislation for this Session, it could have been left to drift without much being said, and I suspect that the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds), despite much trumpet blowing up to now, would have let it go down fairly quietly if he thought we could have got rid of it that way.
  For my part, I think that it would have done our side considerably more credit if the Minister had said, "We have made a mistake, and we are getting rid of the Bill." One compromise would have been to let it drop. The free day is a bad compromise, but I shall support it.
  Mr. Guy Barnett: I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I must at the outset say how much I support everything said by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer). One outstanding feature of the whole debate so far has been the remarkable degree of unanimity between both sides in opposition to the Bill and the Government's introduction of it. I entirely concur in the arguments put by hon. Members opposite today. The free day is a second best. That is all it is. We should regret the necessity for it, but, it the Bill is to go through, we see it as the only answer to the kind of problem to which the hon. Member for Louth has just referred.
  Apart from anything else, the free day would at least remove the seventh day of the week from the commercialism of the Paymaster-General. Moreover, it would enable great numbers of people such as those to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, when quoting from that letter, to go into our museums and enjoy them at a time in their lives when, perhaps, after years of lack of opportunity earlier in life, they have a chance to expand their education.
  I have drawn to the Under-Secretary's attention the problems faced by large families living, perhaps, in outer London, people with limited means who, if the charges are instituted, will have to find, in addition to the cost of transport to and from, this additional sum. It will be an appalling consequence for them.
  306
  My hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) was right to point out the essential point which we should argue at this stage of the Bill, namely, that we should leave to the trustees a large element of discretion as to the way they handle their business. How much better that the trustees managing museums and galleries are left with the responsibility each to decide on his own and not according to a uniform principle laid down by the Paymaster-General as to what is the right or wrong thing to do.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick referred to the situation of the Wallace Collection. If the Press is to be believed—I quote from Miscellany in The Guardian of 23rd September—a major test of wills is emerging between the Paymaster-General and the trustees of the Wallace Collection. In that test of wills I am on the side of the trustees of the Wallace Collection.
  What is the battle of wills supposed to be about? The Wallace Collection is expected to collect £16,000. It will cost over £5,000. That makes a net income of £11,000. It has been estimated fairly reliably that the cost of a free day at the Wallace Collection would be about £3,000.
  Because I was interested in the negotiations that have been going on between the Paymaster-General and the trustees I asked a Question which was replied to yesterday by the Under-Secretary of State. I asked him whether the projected meeting had taken place between the Paymaster-General and the Chairman of the Wallace Collection. I asked—
  "what effect it has had on the decision of the Board to admit the public free on one clay a week, without compensatory increases in charges on other days."
  I received this almost ludicrous reply from the Under-Secretary:
  "Yes. The Government are considering further under what conditions it would be possible for the trustees to have a free day without endangering the £1 million."
  It is almost as though the Paymaster-General regarded the £1 million as God—it is absolutely sacred. The opportunity to enable people who may be needy and who cannot afford the entrance fee to get in to see these beautiful pictures is being neglected because the Treasury must have its pound of flesh and will not forgo this small sum of £3,000.

  307
  The Under-Secretary should tell us whether the trustees of the Wallace Collection have given in to Lord Eccles, because I received no clear reply to my Question. I was merely told that
  "The Government are considering further under what conditions it would be possible for the trustees to have a free day …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th October, 1972; Vol. 843, c. 53.]
  That reply suggests to me that the trustees have stood firm and that Lord Eccles has had no change out of them. If I am right in that, all I can say is good luck to them.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Chapman: I apologise for intruding for a few minutes in the debate, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows that I felt after much contemplation compelled to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill some months ago.
  I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) said about the courtesy, consideration and patience with which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has dealt with criticisms in both public and private.
  I adopt a slightly different standpoint from that of my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and for Louth. I have never been against the principle of charging to enter these art galleries and museums. Indeed, I can see some consequences that might be agreeable if charges were made.
  However, I have been totally against the principle of denying free access to all people, at least at certain times. We shall break a great British tradition if we do so for the relative pittance of £1 million, remembering that the total administrative costs of the art galleries and museums are £18 million.
  I should therefore be able to support the Third Reading, whereas I was opposed to the Bill's Second Reading, if Amendment No. 1 were accepted. Although in a sense I prefer Amendment No. 3, which would in effect give a discretion of two free days rather than one free day a week, I am prepared to accept Amendment No. 1.
  I appreciate but do not quite follow the argument of the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) in his
  308
  support of Amendment No. 2. I do not disagree with the Amendment, but I believe that it gives discretion for one free hour a day on only two days a week. I therefore think that the hon. Gentleman's arguments against Amendment No. 1 might apply to Amendment No. 2.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who I know is very sensitive and who, as a result of putting forward the Bill, has received much unfair criticism, to see if he can make it possible for the Government to accept Amendment No. 1.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Louth has spoken in eloquent terms, as have other hon. Members, about the need to help the young and the old. I am very chary about picking out the young and the old. These are people who come between those two extreme age groups who also will suffer. Help should be given to those in need irrespective of their age.
  I hope that the Government can make it possible for me to vote with them on Third Reading by accepting Amendment No. 1 which would restore the right of all people to enter these galleries free at least at certain times during the week, the month or the year.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I realise how very sincerely the arguments are held on both sides of the House. I start by reminding the House that we are talking about a free day, in whole or in part. We are not talking about a selective policy for admission of particular groups. I say that to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) in particular, because I must not stray on to that point as there is a set of Amendments yet to come dealing with that. My hon. Friend will acquit me of discourtesy, I trust, if I do not go into detail into the question of differential charging or lack of charging for different groups for that procedural reason. I know that my hon. Friend will be following our proceedings and I undertake to deal as fully as I can with that aspect of the problem when we reach it.
  We are discussing here whether it is appropriate and, if so, on what terms, for those trustees who wish it to be enabled to have a free day. We must start, and we have throughout started, by reminding ourselves that it is only a certain number of trustees who do. This is not inimical to the argument. I state it

  309
  as a fact. There are trustees who have stated in public their trenchant opposition to free days and no one on either side is desirous of forcing them against their will.
  The practice of free days is not as widespread elsewhere as is sometimes thought, though it exists elsewhere. I should be the last to suggest that just because it does not occur elsewhere we should or should not do it. I just say as a fact that it happens.
  I have, for example, enjoyed a visit to the Mauritshuis at The Hague which I personally would acclaim as the most elegant gallery I know in Europe. There is no free day there, though there is a day at half cost. I paid my first and enormously enjoyable visit to the Prado in Madrid where there is no free day.
  Just because in Madrid and at The Hague they do not have a free day is no good reason why we should not have one. I simply say that it is not a widely universal operation in great galleries. I simply establish the fact that the idea that we, if we did not have a free day, would be totally out of step with all the other great galleries is not accurate.
  Mr. Edelman: I am interested in the Under-Secretary's references to foreign galleries. Does he agree that the nature and quality of the attendances in those galleries is greatly determined by the fact that people have to pay? In short, and to use an anomalous term, the attendances tend to be middle class rather than to reflect the nation's image, precisely because there are charges.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I should hesitate to draw that conclusion based on several visits over several days. However, I am glad to say that on the occasions that I went to both galleries, the average age of those attending was remarkably low. That is why we have special arrangements which reflect that in the case of, for example, organised school parties. I am not saying that I believe that conclusions can be drawn from the charging provision, partially because in any case there was no method of comparison.
  Mr. Jeffrey Archer: I had hoped that the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) would add to his list. I believe the vast majority of visitors to the galleries which he has attended and
  310
  which I have had the privilege of seeing are holidaymakers or visitors. What we are discussing are itinerant people in this country whom we wish to protect. I should like to find a way of charging visitors, but I do not know how to do it. We are here to protect those that live in this country.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I went to the two galleries that I have mentioned during the holiday season. I have not had the privilege of being there in the non-holiday season. For all I know, if one went there when "the filthy English" and "the rowdy Americans" were not in Madrid we should find civilised Spaniards enjoying the galleries there.
  I remind my hon. Friend, who has given me a little of my argument, that a large proportion of visitors in at any rate the holidays months—the holiday season is being extended throughout the year—are visitors from overseas, for whom in respect of each visit the taxpayer is paying £1 a head.
  I turn now to the proposal of the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) in Amendment No. 2. I undertook in Committee that we would have a sympathetic look at this problem. The hon. Member will agree that if we were to have a partial free time—an hour, say—administratively, and from the point of view of control, it would have to be at the end of the day. I am not trying to make excuses, because I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I have tried to find the answer.
  6.0 p.m.
  One of the difficulties is the variety of closure times. I had not appreciated, until I looked into it as a result of my undertaking, how great a variety there was. There is a considerable variety and they vary at different times of the year. My noble Friend is proposing to watch this suggestion closely. He will be reviewing it in association with the trustees and if it should be shown that administratively there comes a point of time in the day when it would make sense not to make a charge and that this, in the light of experience is the right way to proceed, then I have no doubt that in consultation with the trustees he will be happy to agree to proposals which are broadly of this nature.

  311
  I make it clear that this is only after a review and seeing how matters proceed. It cannot be other than on the administrative side. I see the hon. Member for Coventry, North nodding. I have attempted to see how we can help in a purely administrative sense at the end of the day.
  Now we come to the major question. I accept and understand that all hon. Members who have spoken about this are against charges. Since, for the moment, I am the Minister, I accept total responsibility for the concept of charges. Against the background of charges there are very real doubts as to whether a free day is wise. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) attempted to put me into the same slot as the gentleman in Whitehall in that famous phrase. The gentleman in Whitehall is entitled to a view. I do not think he necessarily knows best, but he is entitled to speak, just as others have spoken.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: The gentleman from Whitehall is speaking now.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I am glad that I am being heard. I am entitled to say that the arguments against the free day suggestion, put for example by the hon. Member for Coventry, North and others and held by a number of trustees, are persuasive. Let me give an example. We heard a good deal about family parties. Almost everyone is agreed that if we have a free day it cannot be a Saturday. I do not think that any trustees, against a background of charging, are contemplating a free day on a Saturday, for obvious reasons. Self-evidently if there is a free day on a weekday the number of family parties who can take advantage of it is demonstrably limited, to put it no higher. Therefore, we have to think carefully about its wisdom.
  My noble Friend has already agreed to proposals of a different nature from two sets of trustees. The House will know that the trustees of the Tate Gallery, from private funds available to them—I understand generous benefactions—will open the Gallery for two evenings a week for two hours free of charge. They do so against a background of having
  312
  accepted, unwillingly, their commitment to charges. There is no attempt on our part to stop this. It would be interesting to see how it operates.
  The trustees of the National Gallery on the other hand have come up with a different proposal. They are proposing that on one day a week they shall open free and on two days a week they shall charge double. I must make it clear that that will still work on the basis of concessions to the young, the old and so on remaining at half price. I make that clear because I hope the House appreciates what it is that is proposed to be done. The trustees have accepted, again unwillingly, their responsibility for the money to be raised and at the height of the summer will be charging 40p as a standard charge.
  It may be that this is regarded as a sensible scheme against a background of charges. To me it displays a woeful lack of understanding of the sort of people we want to enable to appreciate art. To have to free day in the middle of the week when it can only be enjoyed by a limited social group of people is the very negation of what we should be attempting to do. Frankly, the basis of this whole operation, which includes a massive increase in capital investment, is the much wider use of our treasures and to make them available to a far greater number of people. As an individual I believe that the National Gallery scheme is a very poor one indeed. Far from seeking to exert pressure upon the trustees, my noble Friend, although he has expressed his views strongly, will allow them to proceed and it will be interesting to see how it works.
  Reference was made to a collection of a different nature, a much smaller collection in money terms. If the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett) looks again at the estimates for the Wallace Collection and does not confine himself to the recurrent expenditure, but examines also the increases on capital account in the current financial year which do not come through moneys from the trustees, and if he reflects on the way in which the general body of the taxpayer is quite properly making, proportionately, a substantial contribution to that museum he will perhaps see how the

  313
  benefits of increased investment are being made available in many ways.
  If we are to have this expansion, it is not unreasonable that a certain small segment of this additional expense should be borne by the user of the museum and gallery. If any museum and gallery trustees wish to have a free day it is right that they should do so, as the Tate and National Gallery trustees, to their credit, are doing—against the background of the proportion of charges with which they will produce.
  That is why, apart from the narrow technical point, I believe it would be wrong to advise the House to accept the Amendment. I am not the least concerned about voting figures. It is well known that a substantial and high level group from this side of the House is absent on important business in Paris and it will be quite sufficient for us to be left do the donkey-work.
  Mr. Strauss: We naturally regret that the Under-Secretary is unwilling to accept our Amendment. I am certainly not surprised, because throughout he has shown a strong prejudice against the idea which we think to be important, that every member of our community, rich or poor, however poor, should be able to visit our museums and galleries to see our national heritage of art, historic and scientific exhibits and that nothing should deprive people of that right.
  The hon. Gentleman does not accept that principle and neither apparently does the Secretary of State. We believe that the whole idea of charging our public, for the first time for 200 years, to see the artistic possessions which are theirs, which have been given to them, in buildings which have often been given to them, too, is wholly wrong. It has been admitted once or twice by Ministers in discussing this matter that there may be a few people who will be debarred, because of poverty, from seeing these pictures and treasures. No one should be debarred; everyone should be able to see these things.
  The only way of doing that is by a free day. The Under-Secretary said that other museums and galleries in the world which impose charges did not always have free days. But they usually do. Nearly all the big ones do, but whether or not they do is not important. We
  314
  do not necessarily want to follow what is happening abroad. The hon. Member suggested that we should follow what is happening in Moscow. Because they charge that was a good reason why we should charge, he said. We do not accept that. We say there is an overwhelming case for having, as do most national galleries of the world where there are charges, a free day.
  The Government have argued against this, the Under-Secretary in particular, from the beginning. So determined is he that this proposal should be opposed that he has gone haywire in his arguments. I want to quote the argument he put forward in Committee on this which is utterly ridiculous. He chided us about these proposals and said about the Labour Party:
  "Can one imagine a more middle-class argument than that—splendid for the leisured and splendid for those who do not have to work? Would it be splendid for those who labour at their bench to know that there is a free day available for those who can afford to take advantage of it? The only other group of people who could take advantage of it are school-children because they have school holidays, but I have sought to show how educational interests are to be safeguarded. I find it astonishing to have this proposal pressed by the Opposition when, self-evidently, it could apply to only a small number of people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 29th February, 1972; c. 166.]
  If the hon. Member has any experience abroad he will know that the Louvre and other great galleries are more crowded on free days than on the days when people have to pay. There are hundreds of thousands of people who will take the opportunity available to them. There are a large number of married women who have free days or who can easily spare an afternoon to go to a gallery; there are the unemployed, the ill, those unable to work, the poorer section of the population who do not have work every day and who would be only too delighted to have the opportunity of going to the galleries.
  It is these people, the worst-off in the community from a material point of view, who have the least material benefits, who should be enabled to enjoy the spiritual benefits available by visiting our museums and galleries. But the Under-Secretary of State says "No". He says that one of the reasons is that the proposal would benefit only a small number of middle class people. Even if the people who

  315
  benefited were only a small number of middle class people, that would not matter; but that is obviously untrue.
  The Under-Secretary of State has told us that he has reluctantly agreed to the Tate Gallery's proposal. The hon. Gentleman does not like it because it makes an exception to the general rule which the Government have laid down. Clearly, the Minister believes in uniformity in everything. One of the hon. Gentleman's earlier arguments was that it would be ridiculous and wrong if there were one or two galleries allowing a free day and other galleries not doing so, and the Tate Gallery proposal offended his idea of correctness.
  Uniformity is wholly unimportant and it may be undesirable. The hon. Gentleman does not like the Tate Gallery's proposal, although he has had to accept it because the Tate Gallery trustees said that if the proposal was not accepted the money would have to be found from other resources.
  The hon. Gentleman detests the proposal put forward by the National Gallery. He opposes it but he says that he has accepted it. One of the reasons he did so was that he was fearful of the attitude of the trustees of the National
  Gallery. He was afraid that if the Government did not accept the proposal, the trustees of the National Gallery would impose it and operate it whatever the Government thought, whatever financial penalty the Government chose to impose. It is for that reason more than any other that the Government reluctantly accepted the proposal by the trustees of the National Gallery.
  The essence of the problem is whether special steps should be taken if we have to impose charges, which we deplore, to allow those who cannot afford to pay such charges, who may be just as anxious and eager to see our national heritage of art as anybody else, to enjoy free admission. If they are children, as many are, they are the most likely to benefit from visiting museums and galleries to see our treasures. Are we to take special steps within the framework of admission charges to galleries and museums to allow such people to visit them free? I say that that would be in the social interest, the public interest and especially in the interest of children. The Government say "No". We regret their decision and we will vote against it.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 196.

  Division No. 338.]

  AYES

  [6.12 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Albu, Austen

  Chapman, Sydney

  Ford, Ben

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Forrester, John

  Allen, Scholefield

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Freeson, Reginald

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Conlan, Bernard

  Garrett, W. E.

  Ashton, Joe

  Corbel, Mrs. Freda

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Atkinson, Norman

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Golding, John

  Barnes, Michael

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Gourlay, Harry

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Baxter, William

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Beaney, Alan

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Deakins, Eric

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Dempsey, James

  Hardy, Peter

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Doig, Peter

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Booth, Albert

  Dormand, J. D.

  Hattersley, Roy

  Bradley, Tom

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Driberg, Tom

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)

  Dunn, James A

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

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

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Eadie, Alex

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Buchan, Norman

  Edelman, Maurice

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

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

  Edwards, Robert (Bston)

  Hunter, Adam

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Ellis, Tom

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Evans, Fred

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Ewing, Harry

  John, Brynmor

  Cant, R. B.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Moyle, Roland

  Sillars, James

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Silverman, Julius

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Ogden, Eric

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kaufman, Gerald

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Kelley, Richard

  O'Malley, Brian

  Spearing, Nigel

  Kerr, Russell

  Orme, Stanley

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Lambie, David

  Oswald, Thomas

  Stallard, A. W.

  Lamborn, Harry

  Palmer, Arthur

  Steel, David

  Lamond, James

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Latham, Arthur

  Pardoe, John

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Lawson, George

  Pendry, Tom

  Strang, Gavin

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Pentland, Norman

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

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

  Leonard, Dick

  Prescott, John

  Torney, Tom

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Probert, Arthur

  Varley, Eric G.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Rankin, John

  Wainwright, Edwin

  McBride, Neil

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Wallace, George

  McGuire, Michael

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Weitzman, David

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Whitlock, William

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

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

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

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

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Marsden, F.

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Sandelson, Neville

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Meacher, Michael

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Woof, Robert

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Mendelson, John

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Milne, Edward

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

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

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Mr. Ernest Perry.

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Eyre, Reginald

  Kirk, Peter

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Farr, John

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Astor, John

  Fell, Anthony

  Knox, David

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Lambton, Lord

  Awdry, Daniel

  Fidler, Michael

  Lamont, Norman

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Balniel, Rt. Hon. Lord

  Fowler, Norman

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Fox, Marcus

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Benyon, W.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Loveridge, John

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Biffen, John

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  MacArthur, Ian

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Blaker, Peter

  Gower, Raymond

  McLaren, Martin

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Body, Richard

  Gray, Hamish

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Maurice (Farnham)

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Green, Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Marten, Neil

  Bowden, Andrew

  Grylls, Michael

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Bray, Ronald

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Mawby, Ray

  Brewis, John

  Gurden, Harold

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hall-Davis A. G. F.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

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

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

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

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Molyneaux, James

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Burden, F. A.

  Havers, Michael

  Monro, Hector

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Montgomery, Fergus

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

  Hayhoe, Barney

  More, Jasper

  Carlisle, Mark

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hiley, Joseph

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Holland, Philip

  Morrison, Charles

  Chichester-Clark, R

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Murton, Oscar

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hordern, Peter

  Neave, Airey

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.

  Nicholls, Sir Harmer

  Clegg, Walter

  Hunt, John

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Cockeram, Eric

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Normanton, Tom

  Cooke, Robert

  James, David

  Nott, John

  Coombs, Derek

  Jenkins, Patrick (Woodford)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Costain, A. P.

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Orr. Capt. L. P. S.

  Crouch, David

  Jessel, Toby

  Osborn, John

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

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Dean, Paul

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Dixon, Piers

  Kilfedder, James

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Emery, Peter

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Pink, R. Bonner

  318

  319

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

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

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Simeons, Charles

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

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

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

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Soref, Harold

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Spence, John

  Waddington, David

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Sproat, Iain

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Raison, Timothy

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Sutcliffe, John

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Redmond, Robert

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Wilkinson, John

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Tebbit, Norman

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Temple, John M.

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Worsley, Marcus

  Rost, Peter

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Russell, Sir Ronald

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

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Scott, Nicholas

  Trew, Peter

  Mr. Michael Jopling and

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke.

  Amendment accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Roland Moyle: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 8, at end insert:
  Provided that the admission charge payable in respect of any person in receipt of a National Insurance retirement pension or by any person in receipt of supplementary benefits shall not exceed one penny.
  Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we are to take the following Amendments:
  No. 4, in page 1, line 8, at end insert:
  But no such charge shall be made for the admission of any officially registered Guide of London.
  No. 6, in page 1, line 8, at end insert:
  Provided that the admission charge payable in respect of any person under the age of 16 years shall not exceed one penny.
  No. 15, in page 1, line 8, at end insert:
  Provided that no admission charge shall be payable in respect of any severely disabled person or by a person accompanying him. The definition of 'severely disabled person' for the purposes of this section shall be determined by the trustees or governing body on the advice of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services.
  Mr. Moyle: We are in enthusiastic support of Amendment No. 15 in the name of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price). We argued the principle in Committee but on this occasion we will leave to him the pleasure of stating the case for it.
  I am lost in wonder and admiration at myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends because of the determination with which we continue to press on the Government improvements to this nasty little Bill in spite of an almost complete lack of encouragement by the Government for
  320
  our efforts. The Government richly deserve to face the country with the Bill totally unamended so that the public may know where the true obloquy in this matter should rest.
  This is the last and final attempt that we shall make to endeavour to wring some mercy out of the Government for disadvantaged sections of the community. What we seek is a 1p entrance fee for three classes of people who would like to use museums—children under 16 whether accompanied or unaccompanied, pensioners and those in receipt of social security payments at the time of seeking entry to the museum. Perhaps I should join with the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) and say that the Opposition are in favour of no charges at all but that if there is to be charging we are in favour of completely free entry for the classes I have mentioned and for many others. However, as we have argued those cases at various times at different stages but have failed to persuade the Government on each, we make this last attempt to persuade them to accept a 1p entry fee.
  The Opposition are in a somewhat weaker position in argument than when the Bill was being discussed in Committee. In Committee we were trying to apply Conservative principles and to encourage the Government to apply their own principles to the situation. That was some months ago and Conservative principles are not now as easily discerned as they were last winter. We are now forced to appeal to the Under-Secretary, if he has any sense of nostalgia or any regard for auld lang syne, to advise his colleagues to meet us on this matter. It will be readily appreciated that an appeal to mood does not have

  321
  the same strength and foundation as an appeal to principle.
  There are now 7½ million people in receipt of a State retirement pension, a substantial section of the population, for one in seven are now above the age of 65. Despite the best attempts of many Governments, there is no doubt that the retirement pension is not sufficient to maintain a high standard of living, and that we all regret. When extra earnings beyond the pension are limited to £7·50 a week and with the present rates of inflation going ahead, the State retirement pension, even with the increase which is coming and with the extra which may be earned, is so small that any increase is bound to create a serious financial problem for those concerned.
  At the same time as straitened means, retirement brings psychological problems. I remembered the colourful way in which the Under-Secretary told us how he had been advised to prepare for retirement at the age of 50 and how, when he had realised that he was already 48, he felt limp.
  Mr. Faulds: Not limp enough.
  Mr. Moyle: He will readily appreciate that the retirement pensioner who at 65 gives up employment and making a contribution to the community often has to face a life of idleness and is psychologically not in a particularly good position to face a number of problems. One of the things that we can do is to encourage pensioners to undertake hobbies and interests in order to fill up what would otherwise be a fairly empty life. The letter mentioned by the hon. Member for Louth illustrated the point remarkably well.
  One of the ways in which retired people may spend their leisure time is in visiting museums and art galleries. Given the basic financial situation of the average pensioner at 65, there is no doubt that any extra charges on any activity act as a deterrent to undertaking that activity. That will apply to museums and art galleries as much as to anything else.
  The problem will increase, because life expectancy is increasing and the health of the population generally, even at 65, is improving. On top of that, the social mores encourage people to enjoy leisure to a much greater extent. So the prob-
  322
  lem will increase and more people will face it.
  Under the Government's proposals, I believe that a 5p charge will be levied on retired persons for entry to museums and art galleries. If that is so, I do not see how it can be administratively any more complicated to levy 1p than 5p. On those grounds alone I would expect the Government to concede our case in view of our appeal to their humanity.
  6.30 p.m.
  The case for people on social security benefits, the second group we are considering, is very similar, particularly at this time. We have a substantial body of unemployment, higher than at any time since before the last world war. There is increasing long-term unemployment and many people are moving from the wage-related unemployment benefits to social security, which is a much less happy way of being unemployed than receiving the unemployment benefit. At that moment of psychological shock such people will find that the Government are levying charges on them for entry to museums and art galleries. The charges will be a financial deterrent, particularly for the large family which, even if it has full earning capacity, is drawing social security benefits. I refer to the poor, large family, which is particularly afflicted with such problems. I am thinking of a mother and father and three, four or five children wishing to go to a museum or art gallery. The charge will be substantial, perhaps 70p, which is bound to be a deterrent to a family at rock bottom, drawing social security benefits and least able to afford that sort of pleasure. The Government should meet our case on this point, because such families are in a severely disadvantaged position.
  Finally, we come to persons under 16. Here the argument is slightly different. I suppose that the Government's defence will be that there is provision for students to go to museums by appointment and that there is provision for organised parties to be taken round provided notification is given. I suppose that all of us, apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds), can recall that when we were required to study Shakespearean plays in school the consequence was that we never read them

  323
  for years afterwards. It may well be that taking organised parties of schoolchildren round museums will not have the effect of encouraging the study of our culture, our art and the other treasures in our galleries that a purely individual approach to museums would have.
  What the Government are missing by their arrangements is the element of spontaneity, which is very important to young people. Many young people do not have a particular idea in their head one minute but a minute later are seized with an idea of something they want to do. That idea may well be to go to a gallery or museum straight away. Here again we are dealing with a group that is perennially short of money. The entrance charge which the Government insist on imposing could prove a serious deterrent to young people, because they cannot take advantage of a spontaneous desire to go to a museum or art gallery at the time when that desire is felt. That may deter them from taking an interest in museums and art galleries, from developing an interest in a line of culture, a line of painting or something of that sort that they would otherwise develop. It is a distressing situation into which the Government have brought that group of people in introducing this wretched little Bill.
  There is one thing the Under-Secretary can do if he wants to persuade us that what the Government are doing is correct. He should be able to provide us with the financial calculations as a result of which the 5p charge was arrived at. If it was decided to make a concession in charging less than the 10p, how was 5p arrived at as the appropriate figure? How is it that 5p is so important a matter that a 1p charge cannot be conceded? To have the financial calculation would be a great help to anyone on this side of the House who is still struggling to understand the Government's thinking in introducing the Bill.
  In view of the Government's determined resistance to all the Amendments, particularly the humanitarian Amendments which we are seeking to make, I am beginning to suspect that financial considerations have little to do with the matter. I am beginning to believe more and more strongly that those who control the activities of the Government
  324
  in this matter—I am not necessarily saying that they are in this House—are of the view that the old, the young and the poor are a pretty dreary, dependent sort of group, probably an uncultured lot as well, and that it is better to exclude them from the galleries and museums, so that people whom they imagine to be—
  Mr. Jeffrey Archer: With great respect, I suggest that that is not fair. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has done more in two years for the young and old than the Labour Party dreamed of in six years.
  Mr. Moyle: We are considering not the problems of social security but the origins of the Bill, which comes from an entirely different Department of the Government. We have pressed our Amendments over and over again in Committee, on Second Reading and again today, getting nowhere, though it is obvious that there is considerable support for our arguments. Indeed, I suspect that many Government supporters approve of our approach. Therefore, we must start looking for alternative solutions to the problem. If the cap does not fit, it is open to the Under-Secretary to deploy his arguments on the matter and seek to establish his case to our satisfaction. But my suspicion about what is behind the Bill is growing stronger as our debates continue.
  Is it not remarkable that when the Government have money to hand out to relieve disadvantaged groups there is a substantial and careful means test? Pennies are weighed against shillings here and shillings there, until at last the sum which it is appropriate to give is handed out, after a very careful and prolonged calculation. But when it comes to taking money from people in the Bill, it is done on a broad, sweeping principle. There is no balance of advantage or disadvantage, no consideration of the financial difficulties of the various groups concerned, except in the broadest possible way. That is very significant of the Government's whole approach to the problem. Surely the reverse attitude is the proper one for them to adopt.
  We support Amendment No. 15, and our good wishes go to the hon. Member for Eastleigh who tabled it. We shall listen to what he says with great care.

  325
  But perhaps I may relieve the Under-Secretary's mind by saying that we feel that the whole matter of this group of Amendments is one for the Government's humanitarianism. If they cannot see their way to assisting the disadvantaged groups of people concerned to a greater extent, they must accept responsibility for that before the people of the country. We hope that our appeal on humanitarian grounds can succeed, but if it fails we shall not divide the House.
  Mr. David Price: The hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) will forgive me if I do not join him in discussing the pros and cons of Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6. That, I am sure, will be a great relief to the whole House. I shall limit my remarks to my Amendment No. 15. The hon. Member was kind enough to give me a clear run on it, so it will be only fair to him if I concentrate on it.
  Amendment No. 15 again raises the question of the disabled, and I make no apology for that. In it, I ask that
  "no admission charge shall be payable in respect of any severely disabled person or by a person accompanying him".
  I realise that this matter was discussed in great detail in the Standing Committee so I shall not go over the general argument when deployed.
  I hope that the whole House will agree that disabled citizens should receive special treatment in respect of admission charges, and I ask it to remember that the disabled citizen suffers two obvious disadvantages. The first is his disability, for which society can never adequately compensate him. The second is his economic disabilities. These take form on both sides of the balance sheet. Life is more expensive if one is severely disabled; I can assure hon. Members from my own experience that there is no doubt about that. Life is more expensive. Secondly, if one is fortunate enough to have had the sort of training which means that one's disability does not entirely preclude one from earning, one's potential for earning, given whatever talents one has, is substantially less. One would think that for those two reasons there was a very strong case for giving special treatment to the disabled.
  With all respect to those right hon. and hon. Members who in Standing Com-
  326
  mittee moved Amendments on very much the same lines, I think that my Amendment has technical merit over some of theirs. I wish to draw the attention of the House and particularly that of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to what I think in all modesty are the merits of my wording.
  First, the wording includes all the disabled, not simply those in receipt of constant attendance allowance or those identified by local authorities under Section 1 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970. It is all-embracing. I know that in Standing Committee my hon. Friend made quite a bit of the difficulties of these problems of definition. I would also point out in passing that those in receipt of what I call "Mark I" constant attendance allowance are, of all the severely disabled people, probably the least able to go to the museums and art galleries. It is those who are less disabled who are most likely to want to go and to be able to go.
  The House will note that my wording includes the disabled citizen and a person accompanying him, but I plead very strongly that it is not just the very severely disabled person who needs someone with him but also those whom I call the active disabled, those who are severely disabled but manage on their own, because the whole approach in modern rehabilitation is to try to get the person in the wheelchair to be independent and not to be restricted because of access, and so on. If our earlier discussion bears fruit and access is improved in our galleries and museums, we will reach a situation, I hope, where the wheelborne citizen will be able to go to a museum or gallery without attendance or help. It is therefore important in regard to charges that we should draw the definition wider. This is my objection to the constant attendance definition.
  6.45 p.m.
  Again, my Amendment deals with the difficult problem of defining disability. It does so by the very simple device of leaving it to the trustees of each institution to define the severely disabled—with, of course, the proviso that they can get assistance from the Department of Health and Social Security. I believe that we have a very strong precedent in another

  327
  field to give us confidence that this definition would work. I refer to the special arrangements which are made by many local authorities for disabled drivers, and I will give an example in London.
  We live in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. There the local authority gives any disabled driver parking privileges. The question of defining who is a disabled driver affords, as far as I can see, no difficulty to the borough. Further, and this is very important, the disabled driver is exempt from all parking charges. One knows that when parking meters were first introduced they were a matter of controversy.
  I therefore submit that in the case of parking for the disabled the two things that I have been pleading for in relation to museums and galleries are established and are working and that Amendment No. 15 would apply to museums and galleries exactly what is working now by way of parking privileges for the disabled. So I believe that the difficulties of definition which the Standing Committee found would vanish if my hon. Friend were to accept my Amendment.
  For these three reasons, therefore, I ask that my very modest proposals be acted upon. If my hon. Friend says, as he said earlier, that this is an enabling Bill and that therefore we do not want to incorporate these words into it but that the spirit of my Amendment will be applied, I shall be quite satisfied. Holy Writ tells us that he who asks shall receive. I have asked on behalf of the disabled: I wait expectantly to receive on their behalf.
  Mr. John Fraser: I regard this Bill as one of the meanest and most petty of the Session. Some of the other Measures have been expropriation, but this Bill is just mean and petty.
  I want to restrict my remarks to the question of the access to museums and art galleries by the young on an individual basis. It is no use saying that school parties can go in free, for what really matters is that a child who has gone in a school party to a museum shall go back again on his own initiative; something has inspired the imagination and enriched the child's mind, and he wants to go back in his own time on
  328
  a Saturday or Sunday and so benefit from what he has learned at school.
  We know that no matter how dedicated our teachers may be or how good our schools, there is a financial and cultural poverty which prevents our educational system from achieving what it should. We are constantly faced with the problem of under-achievement by children as a result of environmental deprivation and the financial deprivation of the family, and very often we are seeking to construct an edifice which lacks a foundation either in the school or in the community from which the child comes. In many areas there is multiple deprivation.
  The evidence of deprivation preventing achievement at school is now overwhelming. This is particularly true amongst the working class whose members, cut off from the traditional links with culture, come into the city centres. I do not speak here of culture in any airy-fairy sense; I refer to links with tradition. This results most frequently from migration. Whether as a result of industrial revolution or unemployment, people come from one environment to another. They also come from the Commonwealth. These people are cut off from their culture and tradition.
  What is needed is a stimulus and motivation to back up what is provided at school. Very often it is simply an absence of books and periodicals in the home that holds back the child from reaching full achievement in school. In a wider sense it results from a lack of stimulus in the community outside, and we have to try and build links between the school and the outside world.
  Here we have one working-class inheritance and tradition, and that is free admission to museums and galleries. This is one tradition we have kept. I can remember, as a kid in South Kensington, wandering round the museums from one to another, not going to one for a day but going into the Natural History Museum, the Geological Museum, the Science Museum and the Victoria and Albert, going on from one to another until I found something of interest. It is that culture, that tradition, which is being removed by the Bill. I want to see children going to museums virtually free.
  It may be that at first the child is bored, but then he finds something of

  329
  interest. It may be a dinosaur or a dinosaur's eggs in the Natural History Museum, it may be a pendulum in the Science Museum, but he finds something that fires his imagination. That will have its effect in the classroom, because his imagination is stimulated and he has a motivation. Every educationist agrees that there has to be motivation in the child. Indeed, the Department of Education knows this and has the schemes of compensatory education in the priority areas and the urban aid schemes. Under urban aid schemes children are taken on projects to museums; they are taken on projects to the seaside. They are taken because the children do not do these things for themselves.
  By this Bill the Government are excluding the chance of children achieving their own stimulus and firing their own imaginations by going to museums. A secretary of State for Education who does not allow virtually free admission of children on their own initiative to museums does not deserve the name of Secretary of State for Education but deserves the title, which I think has been earned by this Bill, the title of Treasury bailiff.
  Mr. Jeffrey Archer: I rise again to say that I feel that this Amendment is another compromise. I do not understand the weird rules of the House which make it necessary for something which has failed in Committee to come in the flimsiest of disguises to the Floor of the House. This 1p charge is a flimsy disguise. Lest my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary should misunderstand my intentions, I am against charging. I think that 10p was wrong. I think the Opposition are wrong. I did not have the opportunity to say so in Committee.
  Suffice it to say that I once again thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for bringing the amount down from 10p to 5p. In that, I feel, I played a small part. I wish it had been brought down from 10p to nothing. Perhaps my hon. Friend even tonight will tell the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) that he is wrong, that 1p is wrong. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will say he is going to bring the amount down to nothing. That would please me, and it would also make the hon. Member for Lewisham, North look wrong.
  330
  I cannot add a great deal to the comments by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) because he covered much of what I would have said about education. There is a great deal to be said for the dropper-in, for the casual finder of a museum. That was well expressed by the hon. Member for Norwood. I say that because I sincerely believe that we must have on the record a Conservative who believes this lest at any time people believe that the Bill was a totally party political thing and that people on this side of the House did not feel as strongly about it as do some Members on the Opposition side. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will do me the courtesy of remembering the letter I wrote him and I do not find it necessary to read it out again.
  In my opinion, there is no excuse whatever for making the old pay the charges. The people who have the most spare time and the least money are the people the Government have decided to hit hardest. If this is what Conservative caring for is about, and at the last election I thought we did care, I made a bad mistake.
  I approve the depth of the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) but I do not dare add to his eloquent speech. He speaks on that subject with knowledge unrivalled in this House and it would be impertinent of me to try to add to his speech.
  In the earlier debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, and I do not doubt he will bring it up again, that the old and the young can have special cards and buy season tickets, that they will be able to get in as often as they like at a considerably cheaper rate. I accept that, but this does not allow for the casual person who suddenly discovers that he has arrived at a gallery and would like to go in. The special card or season ticket procedure demands that a person queues up and fills in a form. It does not allow a person, old or young, simply to go into a gallery.
  There are those on this side of the House who think that this is wrong. What I am getting at is this. As the hon. Member for Norwood said, freedom of admission is a privilege in this country. It is a privilege worth keeping. An hon.

  331
  Member in the last debate laid emphasis on what was not done in other countries and said that we should not do it. I would say that the frightening question is, what comes after museum charges? Are we to have library charges next? I would oppose the Government on that as well. They brought in the milk charge. Is the next step the library charge? We must be careful. Men on this side of the House must stand up and say that we will not support that at the next stage and that it must not be allowed. We on this side of the House must fight again and again to hold back from this sort of charge, for one reason and one reason only: this is a civilised standard we have set, and the fact that other countries do not have it does not mean that we should become uncivilised as well.
  I support the hon. Member for Lewisham, North; I support my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh. I want my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to know that there are no circumstances in which I could support the Bill because of the Clauses and Amendments now being discussed.
  Mr. William Hannan: Those of us who have heard the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) on this topic before will want to agree with him, and I personally congratulate him on the tenor of his remarks. His sincerity is quite obvious and I do not want to embarrass the hon. Gentleman. I hope that the Under-Secretary will refer to the remarks with which the hon. Gentleman has just concluded.
  I listened with sympathy to what the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) had to say, but it appeared at one point that he was using against the argument of my hon. Friends the reductio ad absurdum argument to bring our proposals into disrepute.
  The Bill is a small, shabby, niggling Bill which will raise less than £1 million, and what the Under-Secretary and the Government have undergone in this process is nobody's business.
  I want to dwell on the proposal as it affects old people. There are 7½ million pensioners, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) said. One of my own friends, when he retired on his national pension and his
  332
  own superannuation, said he was about to enter upon the best job he had ever had—that of retirement; he was now going to have time in a constructive fashion to do those things which throughout his lifetime he had wanted to do. Considering all that was said in the speeches at the two parties' conferences during the last two weeks, speeches about the better quality of life, I should have thought that here was a constructive opportunity for the Government to do something about it. The hon. Member for Louth could help them in selling to the community, including the retired community, the advantages of greater use of our museums and galleries.
  7.0 p.m.
  In an earlier debate the Under-Secretary of State seemed to express horror that the taxpayer should be asked to foot the bill. My response to that is to ask "Why not?" If the local ratepayers of Glasgow and many other of our good cities can provide these facilities on the rates, with free entry, and with as good a showing of French paintings as can be seen anywhere else in the country, why should they not do so? Why impose a miserable charge like this and make a visit to a museum or gallery into a hardship for so many people?
  I am encouraged to go further in this argument because of the Question addressed to the Prime Minister by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). He asked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been drawn to the publication "Social Trends", in which it was pointed out that a contributory factor to present-day unemployment was the decreasing amount of time needed to produce the same amount of goods. The argument is that if in future we are to have increased leisure, with increased holidays and shorter working weeks, is it not part of our social policy to encourage people to employ their leisure in an attractive and reasonable fashion rather than merely provide more in the way of the candy-floss society—beer, betting and bingo?
  The Government, by forcing through this tawdry little Bill, are thwarting the best efforts of our social workers and others who accept the point of view I am trying to express. We on this side are in principle against any charges, but if there must be charges it is surely not too

  333
  late to make an exemption in the case of the retired and for the Government by deliberate action to encourage retired people to direct their attention to a greater degree to the facilities available to them, thus employing their leisure in a constructive fashion.
  Mr. Joseph Harper: I wholeheartedly support the Amendments. We have been discussing the Bill since 17th February. It came out of Standing Committee on 16th March. As time went on, we on this side were hoping that the Government had decided to drop the Bill altogether. We had high hopes a month or two ago that that would be so. Unfortunately, it has come back to life and we are stuck with it.
  Every conceivable argument has been adduced against the Bill from both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) has made two fine and important speeches today. These Amendments deal with the old, the young—the very young—and the disabled. I endorse everything that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) said about the disabled. I come from the coal mining industry, which has far above the normal ratio of disabled in the working population. I also endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about disablement being expensive. No one without practical experience knows just how expensive disablement is.
  In Committee I got the impression that the Under-Secretary of State—he is only doing what he is told—did not accept the Amendment concerning the admission of the disabled which we had then tabled because if we allowed the disabled free entry the question arose of whether the person taking a disabled person in should be charged or whether that person get in free as well. If that is the only barrier to accepting the principle of free entry for the disabled, as far as I am concerned both the disabled person and the person accompanying him should get in free, because the person accompanying him is doing a service in enabling that disabled person to visit a museum or gallery.
  With regard to retirement pensioners, especially those on supplementary benefit, who are by and large the worst-off group of pensioners, I would agree more with the hon. Member for Louth. As I have
  334
  said, we on this side would prefer no charges at all, but once we start to make charges and part charges we begin to differentiate. But differentiation in effect projects the concept of the second-class citizen. I am against that. I was not very popular for it but I was against old people having to go through a special gate at a football match in order to get in at a reduced price. The same applies to concessionary fares. The same principle applies more recently to the question of television licences. All hon. Members have been inundated with requests to try to get the television licence for a retired person down to 5p. I deplore the whole system but the fact remains that until we get proper pensions for old people—I am not being political, because none of us has done enough, however much we have shouted at elections—we have to rely on fringe benefits in order to make the lot of the old person a little more comfortable.
  There are over seven and a half million old-age pensioners. Not all of them want to visit museums and galleries, but many of them do. The hon. Member for Louth quoted a letter from a constituent aged 83 who deplored the Bill. I deplore the fact that we are now going to charge, especially for old people.
  But even more important than the old people in this context, important as they are, are the young because they are the citizens of the future. When we get topside of 40—I am quite a bit older than that—we begin to deplore the fact that our kids are not as good as we were, despite all the evidence to the contrary. We condemn them for their long hair and their clothes. We are apt to say that they are not deserving. Of course, Socrates said it in the fourth century before Christ, so the idea is not quite correct.
  I, too, have a letter here. I shall not quote it because it is rather long. It is well written and it starts, "Dear Joe", so that indicates that the writer knows me. He had read one of the Standing Committee Reports and wanted to acquaint me of his experience in this matter. This young man left school at the age of 16. He went to work in a factory but did not like that overmuch, so he left to work in a brewery. [Laughter.] It seems facetious but it is true. One of his jobs at the brewery was to take deeds to the local solicitors in Birmingham for signature. He was often told by the solicitors, "You

  335
  can come back in half an hour for the deeds."
  On one of these trips he saw an art gallery. Not knowing anything about these matters and in order to pass the time, he went in because it was free and it was also warm. There he was so captivated by the paintings that he started taking an interest in art, culture and history. Now he is the head of a college department. What is more, he is studying assiduously for an Open University degree. All that happened because he saw an art gallery which did not charge for admission.
  My correspondent makes the point that he, like so many of us, has visited art galleries in Florence, Amsterdam, Paris and elsewhere, adding the important reminder—which is the nub of our discussion—that if he had been an Italian, a Dutchman or a Frenchman he would still be working in the brewery because in all those countries charges are made for admission to galleries and museums and he would not have gone in when he had that time to spare.
  It is all very well for the Under-Secretary to state as part of his case that other countries make charges. So what? I have always thought that in this respect at least we were one up or even two or three up on other countries and that eventually, if we were to continue with no charges, especially when we got into the Common Market, they themselves might eliminate charges.
  No one who has never been culturally deprived knows what it really means. In other words, if one has never been hungry one does not know what it is to suffer from hunger. This is a different kind of hunger but it is nevertheless a hunger. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State, after the many weeks we spent in Committee on this problem and in view of the fine speeches made from his own side of the House, will now decide to accept these Amendments.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: These are extremely important Amendments. As the House knows, I have a deep personal interest in the purpose of Amendment No. 16. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) has made an eloquent submission in its support and in support also
  336
  of Amendment No. 17. The hon. Gentleman is informed by personal experience of the problems of severe disablement in his own family. Few of us on either side of the House can speak with more feeling about the importance of the Amendments.
  All of us on both sides have declared our intention to allow the severely disabled to live more normal lives. Let us not now depart from the purpose we expressed in enacting the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970. Those of whom we speak in Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are the blind, the deaf, the dumb or those who are otherwise permanently and substantially handicapped, by reason of illness, injury or congenital deformity.
  The Under-Secretary must know that every organisation working for the welfare of severely disabled people wants to see this group of Amendments succeed this evening. I appeal to him to consider carefully the arguments which have been adduced from both sides of the House.
  The hon. Gentleman has heard a strong and compelling case from two of his hon. Friends, namely, the hon. Member for Eastleigh and the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer). Very little public money is involved in conceding their case. However, a great deal of happiness is involved for a large number of people in contemporary Britain. I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to respond constructively to the powerful case which has been made from all parts of the House. I hope that he will not let the House down by resisting these Amendments.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I gladly respond to the spirit of the speech made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) and I hope that, in part at least, when I have completed my remarks it will be felt that I have tried to respond.
  There are four groups of people about whom we are talking in this debate. No mention has been made of those referred to in Amendment No. 4, but I shall mention them in a few moments. I am now referring to those mentioned in Amendment No. 5. I feel strongly about one group of people in this category in an absolutely contrary sense to the view

  337
  expressed by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle). I refer to those on supplementary benefit. In Committee the hon. Gentleman was generous enough to concede that to seek to make persons on supplementary benefit identify themselves ran contrary to the general stream of all we have tried to do on both sides of the House about these benefits.
  One of the advantages of the proposals in the Green Paper issued by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that they are one further move in the same direction, and I find this a very attractive attitude. To envisage that entry to a museum or gallery should be reduced, in this case, to 1p for people who, perhaps for a short period of time, shall identify themselves as receiving supplementary benefit is quite unacceptable to me, and I am sure that it would be unacceptable to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer). I cannot believe that that is right and I am sorry that this idea has been persevered with since I believe that it is a wrong judgment.
  I appreciate that there is an argument in respect of the retirement pensioner. Although there is no rule never to alter the situation, it has been our general practice to make concessions for the retired pensioner—concessions which are already in the proposed scheme, but not in the Bill because the Bill does not deal with them—and it has generally been our practice to make these concessions in other analogous fields by reference to a reduction.
  Let us take as an example the bus fare. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North did not do himself justice by his unhappy suggestion that the object of these charges is in some way to keep out old people. This was an unreasonable allegation and, on reflection, I do not think the hon. Gentleman will want to pursue it. Nobody suggested that the system of charging on buses was designed to keep old people off buses. The object of the campaign for concessions for old people was the other way round. The object of that campaign was to give them benefits rather than to keep them off the buses or, as in this case, out of the galleries and museums; it was understood that their incomes were lower. But we must remember that the word "pen-
  338
  sioner" to-day embraces potentially the whole population. Furthermore, we did not give free bus fares, nor did we give free cinema provision; we gave concessionary rates. It is a matter of judgment whether one says that half price is reasonable or that the charge should be 1p.
  We on this side of the House have shown our understanding of, and concern for, the old in making concerns which provide for a charge of 5p which, at the height of the season, represents a quarter price since in summer the costs for everybody else are very much higher. We have paid due observance to the circumstances by making a concession of half price. Therefore, it is not reasonable or consistent with what we have done in the past elsewhere to go any further.
  I turn to the situation as it affects young people. I am conscious of my duties towards the young, and I feel these matters strongly. I am entitled to repeat that it is very important in educational terms that we have secured totally free entry—as was acknowledged, though not very graciously by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) for organised small parties.
  M. John Fraser: The hon. Gentleman means that the Government have not taken anything away from those people.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: There is completely free entry for organised parties and all the best evidence from the Inspectorate, who have no axe to grind, is that this is the right way to approach the matter. Indeed, I wish to see it greatly extended. As I said in Committee, one of the great difficulties in terms of the constrictions on space and building at present is that we dare not harness all that is available to us in educational and other terms—for example, through the media of radio and television. This is a powerful reason for getting on with the immense building programme now under way.
  We have rightly watched the educational case in terms of the accredited students who are important persons in terms of specialised needs. That student is also catered for. Therefore, it is again a matter of judgment.
  I wonder whether the hon. Member for Norwood is up to date about the

  339
  spending power of the modern young. When we talk about "half price" we must keep up with the times. I encouraged a little hostility in Committee when I went to look at the Science Museum. I looked at the price of ice cream being sold outside the museum and found, to my horror, that an ice cream cone, of which I am rather fond when I can get under the wing of my doctor, would have cost me 10p. Had I wanted to be a real devil and have an ice cream covered in chocolate flake, I would have had to pay 20p. I put this forward as background information, having when young entered into a competition and got myself up to 83 ice creams in one day. Therefore, in talking about the young—I am not referring to the rich young person but about working class children—we have to set the consideration against the charge of 5p, particularly when we have taken so much trouble on the strictly educational front.
  Mr. John Fraser: If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that some children would rather spend 5p on an ice cream than the same sum on going into a museum, he does not understand the whole problem of compensatory education.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I understand it, but I also understand that a large number of people think that if a choice is to be made they do not think that they should underwrite it.
  Mr. Jeffrey Archer: In my speech I tried to ask my hon. Friend how he accounted for the child who refused to pay 5p to enter a gallery or museum, but who if the charge did not exist might drift into a museum and discover what a silly boy he was not to have wanted to pay the 5p in the first place. That boy will not now drift into a museum because his stupidity will stop him doing so. We shall never allow his stupidity to become enlightened.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: The answer in part—and I could not possibly cover every contingency relating to every person—will be an increasingly higher standard of education, in the sense that I hope we shall make use more and more of museums and galleries for instructional purposes. I believe that the silly
  340
  boy mentioned by my hon. Friend will increasingly have the impetus to go to a museum, and I am seeking to say that he will go at a charge of 5p. I appreciate that it is a matter of judgment. I do not see why, having made rightful provision for free entry in educational terms, it is reasonable for the general body of taxpayers to underwrite him totally. But I repeat that it is a matter of judgment.
  Let us consider the third category, the disabled, about whom we have heard two powerful and effective speeches. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) did not do me justice in terms of our discussions at an earlier stage. We had established that a person attending a disabled person in a chair did not pay, in the sense that it was unacceptable that a person needing to be pushed had to pay double. I was most anxious to find a way of assessing the situation in regard to the disabled, and I believe I was able to say that the method suggested in Committee, namely that of tying it to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act was not an effective method of undertaking it. I think that both sides of the Committee thought it right in that sense. I hope that we have found a method of covering the situation which I hope will be understood.
  Let us take as our base line the National Assistance Act, 1948, and I emphasise that what I am now going to say has no relation to National Assistance. If we take the definition in Section 29 of that Act, particularly the register, I know we have an ascertainable group. Furthermore, it has the advantage that it is wider than my hon. Friend's drafting. Indeed, I think that it is better. I say that with no arrogance, because I have been assisted in a way that he was not.
  7.30 p.m.
  Would it be fair to place upon the trustees the responsibility of making decisions as between one disablement and another? On reflection, my hon. Friend may feel that would not be a very happy method.
  Disabled people on that register will have the same concession as the other categories for whom we are making concessions—namely, the half or quarter price at the height of the summer months. For example, a person in a wheelchair

  341
  who needs someone to assist him will come in for the 5p standard charge and the person accompanying him will not have to pay.
  I hope that displays the appropriate consciousness of our obligations to the disabled which I was asked to show. Of course, it will appear not in the Bill, but in the administrative arrangements. That is why technically I am rejecting the Amendment. I reject it because the Bill is not the right place. I am accepting the spirit of the Amendment and, I hope, going a long way to meet the lobby concerned which is a very powerful and proper lobby.
  Lastly, I come to the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward).
  Dame Irene Ward: I did not quite understand why the Guides of London, who are paid, were being brought into the section dealing with all these very important people—the disabled, the old and the young. Therefore, I did not, in specific terms, move my Amendment. So, whatever my hon. Friend says, I warn him that if I catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye, I shall make my speech on the Guides of London. Perhaps my hon. Friend would then care to reply.
  It seems most extraordinary that guides, who have nothing to do with the groups we have been discussing, should be included. I feel like Alice in Wonderland. Something has got up and hit me in the face. Therefore, perhaps my hon. Friend could leave that point, deal with these other important groups, and allow me to make my speech after that, because that is what I understood would happen. Of course, one is never quite certain in Parliament whether one understands things rightly or not. At any rate, I understood it wrongly, and I should like to make my speech about what my colleagues and I think about the Guides of London.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that explanation. Therefore, I shall make no reference to the Guides of London. If I meet no resistance from either the Chair or the House, I shall seek to answer my hon Friend specifically on that point.
  Mr. Ernle Money: Will my hon. Friend clarify one point? Did he say 83 ice creams?
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I will discuss that more with my hon. Friend, but the ruin is in front of him for all to see.
  I know this is a matter of argument, but I genuinely believe that we have done appropriately by the old and the young who are not going in educationally. I have sought to find, and tried conscientiously to find in Committee, an equally appropriate way in caring for the disabled in this respect.
  Mr. David Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am grateful for what he has been able to do for the disabled? Although I was arguing for a nil charge, as he is charging 5p for the old, I think many of the disabled would feel it is appropriate that they should pay 5p, given the concession for persons accompanying them. However, we still look forward to the day when the old and the disabled get in free.
  Dame Irene Ward: For a very long time there has been an all-party Committee attached to the House of Commons which is concerned with an important body known as the guides of London. The guides of London are remarkable people. They have to take very enlightening and difficult courses to qualify to be registered as guides. They have special badges and must have considerable qualifications. They have been a great asset in showing the treasures of London to tourists and other bodies, giving specific details of the treasures which we have to display.
  The chairman of this Committee is my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker). The Committee regularly meets the guides. We know of their interest, knowledge and enthusiasm. A great deal of their work is connected with foreign languages, which many of them speak.
  As soon as the Bill was introduced and it looked as though it would become the law of the land, representations were made asking that the guides be precluded from having to pay when conducting parties into the various museums, galleries and buildings for which charges are made.

  343
  We were told that this would not be possible. This was met with great regret by those who have knowledge of the quality of the guides of London.
  It seems most extraordinary that when a person has paid for courses, qualified, and become a representative of a body, for which those who employ the guides have to pay, the individual concerned should pay a museum and gallery charge. The Committee, which has a very good body of presidents and vice-presidents—I happen to be a vice-president representing my party—thought it most extraordinary.
  A great deal has been said about what goes on in Europe. I understand that legitimate, recognised, qualified guides in Europe—of course, ours are registered under the tourism business—do not have to pay entrance charges. It seems to me most extraordinary that on this relatively small matter my Government, who were and are enthusiastic about entering Europe, should want to go contrary to the European system. But the British are never consistent. In my view, no Government are consistent. I think my Government can be as inconsistent as the Labour Government were. It seemed to us extraordinary that these highly qualified individuals, who were recognised as such by the tourist industry, and in respect of whom the tourist industry asked the Government to take action, should be expected to pay an entrance fee to museums and galleries.
  We have continued to make our representations. On the last series of Amendments my hon. Friend was most helpful, for which I am very much obliged because I support what has been said about the disabled. I do not think that my hon. Friend would have left this group of people to the end if he had meant to say "No", because that would be bad psychology. Whether or not one agrees with my hon. Friend, on most subjects he is a pretty good psychologist. It is no good being in politics if one is not psychologist, and I therefore do not think that he would have left this group of people to the last if he was going to refuse our request.
  I did not know that the Amendment was in my name. I happened to be looking at the Notice Paper to see what
  344
  Amendments had been tabled, and I noticed this Amendment in my name. I am delighted that somebody thought of putting it down. One never knows what is going to happen in this place and when I saw the Amendment I hoped that the House would excuse my not making a long speech because I cannot remember all the facts and figures anyway.
  This is a good cause. We do not want the Guides of London to have to pay an entrance fee to museums and galleries. Those connected with the committees to which I have referred do not want these guides to have to pay this charge. The London Tourist Board does not want to have to pay the charge. Having got to almost the last group of Amendments my hon. Friend must be in a benevolent frame of mind, and I hope that he will accept my suggestion.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I join the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) in acknowledging the concession which the Minister has announced for the severely disabled. This is a step forward, and I thank the Minister for his gesture, just as I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh and my right hon. and hon. Friends for the pressure which they have exerted on the Government.
  If there is any difficulty of definition of entitlement, the Minister may like to look at Section 28 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, which provides a means by which the Secretary of State for Social Services can resolve any difficulties of interpretation or definition arising from the provisions of Section 29 of the National Assistance Act, 1948.
  I feel sure that the definition suggested by the Minister will work reasonably well and that his statement tonight will be widely welcomed by those who, in organisations throughout the country, work for the welfare of disabled people.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, may I first thank the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) for his kind references to me. To the best of my understanding the method suggested, tied to the register, with a statement to that effect, will be sufficient, but I am obliged to the hon.

  345
  Gentleman. I shall examine what he said in case it may go yet further towards tying the matter up.
  7.45 p.m.
  The last thing that I have to answer is the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), and I have to let her into a little secret. As the House knows, I am inexperienced as a Minister. I have here some notes which, as happens from time to time, say "Resist", but I must concede that I can no longer resist the case put forward by my hon. Friend. She has persevered admirably, and she did not do herself sufficient justice because she did not tell the House that during the Recess, and so on, she has continued the argument in correspondence. I speak as a junior Minister who has to sign quite a number of letters, and I can tell the House that there is no more persistent Member than my hon. Friend when she thinks she is on the right track on behalf of her constituents or for any other cause. I am therefore willingly prepared to make a change in this respect.
  Dame Irene Ward: I thank my hon. Friend.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: The administrative arrangements will follow consultation with the trustees, and the Government are prepared to propose that guides who are examined and registered by the London Tourist Board should be admitted free to museums and galleries on presentation of their registration card and official badge. Parallel arrangements will be made for Edinburgh and Cardiff.
  The case has been made not so much on grounds of finance as on the status of and work done by these people. My hon. Friend has been very persuasive, and I willingly make it clear to her that what she wants in terms of the Amendment will be reflected in the arrangements to be made once the Bill becomes law.
  Dame Irene Ward: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. John Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 1, line 24 at end insert:
  'and shall lay before Parliament a statement as to the views expressed by such governing body'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I think that it will be convenient if with this Amendment we take the following Amendments:
  No. 12, in page 1, line 16 after 'State'. Insert:
  'and of the governing body concerned'.
  No. 13, in page 1, line 22 at end insert:
  Provided that the parties to any such contract trust deed or other instrument concur in such variation or revocation.
  Mr. Smith: These Amendments relate to a part of the Bill which has not received as much attention in the House as the earlier part. They relate to subsection (2) of Clause 1.
  Broadly, what the Government have proposed—and I put this forward as background material so that the House will understand the Amendments—is that the Secretary of State for Scotland should have power to make an order varying the provisions of a trust deed or other instrument which are inconsistent with the making of charges. This is an important principle and an attempt was made in Committee to amend the Bill.
  The principal ground of objection put forward forcefully by the Opposition in Committee was that it was wrong for the Government to seek power to vary the provisions of contracts, trust deeds or other legal instruments which stipulated that a gallery given a gift should exhibit it free to the public. This is not an academic argument because, in the context of the National Gallery of Scotland, the Erskine of Torrie Collection and the Vaughan Bequest relating to the Turner pictures are both affected by this provision.
  Amendment No. 13 seeks to put some restriction on the power of the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a varying order by saying that he should do it only with the consent of the parties to the legal instrument. What the Government are seeking to do is nothing less than legal vandalism. They are trying to tear up the provisions of trust deeds which lay down specifically that gifts are to be shown free to members of the public. This arbitrary power is a piece of legal destructiveness which will tear out of the provisions of legal instruments the very thing which the makers of gifts wished to see enshrined for posterity.

  347
  Many people make it a solemn condition of a gift that it is to be shown free. The Erskine of Torrie Collection lays down that the pictures are to be shown free and also that if they are shown with other pictures, they too should be shown free of charge. In this case, however, the Secretary of State takes power to destroy such a provision through exercise of his order-making power.
  This will not apply merely to old bequests such as those I have mentioned. It would apply to any one making a gift now to the national galleries of Scotland. Any person who seeks to put a provision in a trust deed that a gift which he makes to the National Gallery shall be shown free to the public cannot rely upon that condition being put into effect by the trustees because the Secretary of State may at any time, in effect, tear up that condition.
  This is a serious matter. It might well affect the attitude of people who might be disposed to make bequests of pictures to the National Gallery. It would be a most regrettable step if it had the effect of discouraging people from making such gifts. For instance, the owner of important works of art who wishes that they should be enjoyed by the public after his death may prefer to make his donation to a municipal gallery where his wishes would be respected rather than to the National Gallery where the Secretary of State can step in and tear up the provisions of his trust deed.
  The Bill has been described on occasion as an enabling Bill. In many respects it is a disabling Bill. It disables the trustees from carrying out the conditions upon which their predecessors accepted many gifts. In the other place, my noble Friend Lord Gardiner said that he thought this provision in the Bill created a situation both illegal and dishonourable. It is certainly dishonourable to take powers to defeat the high public-spirited intention of people who make bequests to our National Gallery by giving the Secretary of State power to avoid the conditions in the relevant trust deeds.
  It is a simple point. I am sure that there are many people who wish that the Government had not sought this power. But since they want to have
  348
  charges imposed at our national galleries, they had to take steps to vary the constitutions of the galleries. Then they came up against the problem of the trusts, and they had to take power to vary the trusts as well.
  It has been said in the Government's defence that there is a precedent for what they propose to do. The Lord Advocate and I had a long argument about this in Committee. In my submission, there is no proper precedent for it. The precedents to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred—namely, certain provisions of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1962—are not apt because in that case it is clearly said that attention must be paid by the Secretary of State to the intentions of the people who made the bequests which are affected by that Act. There is no such qualifying provision in the present Bill.
  Undoubtedly, this part of the Bill is repugnant to the trustees of our national galleries. In their 1971 report, the trustees of the national galleries of Scotland made clear their objection to what they call
  " … the conditions of past benefactions … overruled by Order under the new legislation."
  Many of the trustees felt that they were being put in the position of being forced, by order of the Secretary of State, to dishonour provisions which they had accepted in respect of gifts made to them by many benefactors.
  A great number of the pictures in our National Gallery arrived there by bequest rather than by purchase. I am sure that the trustees will feel that what the Government propose will be an impediment to their obtaining further bequests. I hope that that does not turn out to be the case, but I fear that it may.
  Now that the Bill has reached this stage, the best that the Opposition can do is to try to insert a provision which will minimise the damage that is likely to be done. Amendment No. 13 is designed to do that by making it a condition of his exercise of the order-making power that the Secretary of State shall be able to proceed in that way only if the parties concerned concur in the variation or revocation. This would give the trustees some lever in their arguments with the Secretary of State.

  349
  Amendment No. 14 would require the Government to lay before Parliament a statement of the views expressed by a governing body when the Secretary of State proposed to make a change. One concession which the Government made in Committee was to allow a statutory consultation with the governing body of a gallery before making any change under the terms of a Bill. Since Parliament has power by negative resolution to overrule the Secretary of State and refuse legislative sanction to an order, it would be useful if it knew clearly what the trustees' views were before exercising its powers under the negative resolution procedure. If that were done, it would become clear that the trustees regarded this whole operation on the part of the Government as dishonourable and repugnant. The best the Government can do at this stage is to accept these Amendments.
  I do not wish to say anything about Amendment No. 12. On reflection, I do not think that it is an important Amendment. But if the Government were prepared to consider Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 they would go a little way to minimise the dreadful damage which may be done by this part of the Bill. In many ways it is the worst feature of the Bill. It has encountered stout opposition from this side of the House and stout opposition from the trustees of all the galleries. It has been a little overshadowed by the question of charges themselves, but it is in itself a disgraceful provision which the House should not accept.
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. Norman Wylie): This short debate has followed the lines of our earlier debate in Committee. I note what the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) said about Amendment No. 12. Amendment No. 13, as he well knows, would have virtually the same effect as one of the Amendments—Nos. 27 and 28, I think—which were discussed in Committee. Those Amendments related to the variation of trust deeds being prompted only at the initiative of the governing body, and the effect of Amendment No. 13, which would require the concurrence of the governing body, would be to produce the same result.
  The hon. Gentleman must face up to the logic of Clause 1(2). He understands the position very well. Indeed, I thought
  350
  that he would make a complete concession and agree that the provisions in subsection (2) were necessary, standing the principle enunciated in subsection (1), since, as he said a moment ago, once the decision is taken to make museum and gallery charges, standing the fact that there are provisions in certain deeds, to some of which he referred, which conflict with that principle, some machinery must be evolved to deal with that conflict. This is as much in the interests of the governing bodies themselves as of anyone else, for if a governing body makes charges—or, as the hon. Gentleman would fairly prefer to put it, is forced to make charges as a result of Government policy in this matter—unless something is done to vary the conditions or, in certain cases, perhaps, to revoke them altogether, the trustees themselves would be open to criticism and, possibly, legal action. Some machinery must, therefore, be devised to deal with that conflict flowing from the principle enunciated in subsection (1).
  Although, in his usual way, the hon. Gentleman wrapped up his proposals in such a way as to create the impression that they were only marginal in effect, they would, as he knows, completely destroy the machinery which subsection (2) sets out. If the governing body has to give its concurrence—I am referring now to Amendment No. 13—the Secretary of State is, in effect, precluded from taking the necessary action in respect of prior deeds which is required as a result of the decision to make museum charges.
  8.0 p.m.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to our discussion in Committee on precedent. I am sorry that he adheres to the view that the precedent which was quoted is not a proper one. That is nonsense. The hon. Gentleman referred today, as he did in Committee, to what is set out in Section 118 of the 1962 Act and pointed out, as is the case, that, where educational endowments are being varied which are not related to grant aided colleges, the Secretary of State must have regard under subsection (2) to the wishes of the testator.
  That is perfectly correct. We are not dealing here simply with funds. We are dealing here with museums and galleries, and the proper analogy is not Section 118 but the precedent that I quoted on Second

  351
  Reading and in Committee, namely, the precedent set by Section 81 of that Act as it was amended by the 1969 Act.
  I do not wish to take up too much time, but I want to put this on record as a proper precedent which has received careful consideration in the light of all that was said on Second Reading and in Committee. Section 81 of the Education Act provided that the Secretary of State is given power in the case of grant-aided colleges to make regulations. The regulations which the Secretary of State is empowered to make cover a very wide field, a much wider field than that with which we are dealing. We are dealing in the Bill with museum charges and regulations which are required to vary prior deeds as a result of those charges. The regulations that the Secretary of State is entitled to make under Section 81 are very wide indeed and, for interest, include regulations about making provision with regard to fees and other payments.
  The important analogy arises in subsection (4)(c) of that Section which says:
  "Regulations made under subsection (1) . . may—
  (c) vary or revoke the provisions of any enactment (including any regulations under subsection (2) …), scheme, articles of association, trust deed or other instrument related to any grant-aided college to which the regulations apply, in so far as those provisions are, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, inconsistent with the regulations."
  That was the pattern on which this subsection (2) is based.
  The draftsman drew this subsection from Section 81(4). The analogy is quite clear. It is true that in dealing with educational endowment funds in the ordinary way the Secretary of State must operate Section 118: he must have regard to the intentions of the testator. There are three grant-aided colleges and colleges of technology of which the governing deed is an endowment scheme under the Education Acts. In one case it is an Act of Parliament. In most cases it is a memorandum and articles of association registered under the Companies Act. In three cases—the Robert Gordon's Institute of Technology in Aberdeen, the Dundee Institute of Art and Technology, and the Paisley College of Technology, the governing deed is an endowment scheme.
  In 1969 Parliament did not say that, if trust deeds are to be varied affecting
  352
  colleges which proceed on the basis of educational endowments, it must be done under Section 118. Parliament deliberately included in its definition those colleges which I have mentioned which are based on endowment schemes. For the purposes of varying or revoking these trust conditions, the Secretary of State is perfectly entitled to operate under Section 81 and ignore the provisions of Section 118.
  Be that as it may, I say after due consideration, discussion and consultation, because no one would take lightly the kind of criticisms that have been repeatedly made about the proposition that I have sought to enforce, that this is precedented. I want to make it perfectly clear once and for all that the provisions of subsection (2) of the Bill proceed on the same kind of basis as the provisions of Section 81 of the Education Act, 1962, as it was revised in 1969, and the similarity in language alone is very pronounced. It is obvious where the draftsman drew his analogy.
  There is only one difference which we incorporated in this legislation. We wrote in a statutory duty to consult. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), who was Under-Secretary at the time, repeatedly resisted the Opposition demands for this statutory right to be included in Section 81. I am not saying necessarily that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong. It may be that there was substance in the argument that was adduced that one does not write into Acts of Parliament what Governments do in any case. This was the argument that the Minister in the last Administration put forward.
  However, for the avoidance of doubt in the matter and to make the Government's bona fides perfectly clear, we have incorporated a statutory duty to consult before the Secretary of State proceeds by making any orders under this legislation.
  Mr. John Smith: So that we can give some validity to this proviso, may I ask whether it is the Government's policy that they will have genuine consultations with the governing body and they contemplate the position that, if a governing body puts good objections to the variation of its trust deed, the Government will

  353
  accept the recommendation of the governing body?
  The Lord Advocate: The statutory provision is, in statutory form, what every Government, including the last one, exercising statutory powers of this nature always accept, namely, that there is consultation—proper consultation, certainly. It is not a rubber-stamping exercise.
  The main purpose of consultation must be to satisfy the Secretary of State that he has properly identified the deeds that require variation. In many cases the governing body may be the only people who can assist the Government on this.
  The only difference between these provisions and the provisions on which they were modelled is the one I have mentioned. I am not criticising the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, for whom I have always had and expressed the highest regard. All I am saying is that we have gone further in this subsection to allay fears on this matter than he was prepared to go on the very analogous Section 81 which he enacted in 1969.
  Mr. Buchan: I do not want to examine all the references in detail, especially as I do not have them before me.
  We cannot get away in the House with trying to defend the indefensible on the grounds that the same tactical procedural measure has been used in different circumstances. It is not good enough to say that, even if the tactical, legalistic precedent has been met, the two agencies may be totally different.
  The Lord Advocate has failed to defend this part of the Bill in its own right. I understand his difficulty. He said that, even granting that this provision were bad and monstrous, nevertheless it followed from the previous subsection and, therefore, the Amendment cannot be looked at because this subsection is an inevitable consequence of the first basic subsection.
  We have had so many monstrous examples which have been excused only on the ground that they followed from the first main section that it calls into question the first main section. It is not good enough merely to rest on that legalistic ground. Second, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must pay some attention to the views which have been
  354
  expressed that this is a kind of legal vandalism.
  In relation to another analogous Bill we used the term "a welshing subsection". This is the welshing section of the Bill, because it welshes on all the good faith and philantrophic intentions of so many people. It does something worse, and this is where the Lord Advocate's analogy totally and absolutely falls. The 1969 Act, which he quoted, dealt with an ending situation. The point about this subsection is that it deals with the present and continuing situation, because it will have the effect of damming up the supply of gifts and everything else in the future.
  The Lord Advocate: Section 81 could equally well operate in the future.
  Mr. Buchan: The Lord Advocate knows the circumstances of the 1969 Act. I repeat what I said, that Section 81 dealt with a past and ending situation. This one is damning the possibility of future bequests of one kind and another. That is the difference and that is why the hon. and learned Gentleman's legalistic argument does not stand.
  The third point is that the Lord Advocate said that Amendment No. 13 could not be accepted because it would destroy the basic purpose of the first subsection. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes credit for writing in that the Government will consult the governing body concerned. Either "consultations" means what it says or it does not. The Lord Advocate claims that it means what it says and that the Government shall consult and that, if a case is put forward, the Government may take the view of the governing body. Amendment No. 13 had to be resisted precisely because if the Government took the view of the governing body it would destroy the Bill.
  The Lord Advocate cannot have it both ways. By his own argument, lines 23 and 24 would equally make nonsense of the Bill if they really mean that consultations will successfully take place. Either the Lord Advocate is trying to con the country and the trustees with this assurance and it does not mean anything or, if it does, it means that there is no argument on his own terms against

  355
  Amendment No. 13 and I hope that he will withdraw his objection to it.
  Amendment negatived.
  8.15 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I should make clear that the two concessions that the House has accepted tonight concerning disabled persons and guides will apply to Scotland, too, particularly in relation to guides through the scheme that is operated by the Scottish Tourist Board.
  The purpose of the Bill is a restricted one, namely, to ensure that the powers of the governing bodies of the national institutions to make charges are adequate. The Bill seeks to do no more than that. The charging itself will be by administrative action and is not in the Bill.
  At present the national museums and galleries are financed almost entirely by the taxpayer. Some of the trustee bodies are fortunate in having available to them resources from private trust funds. But the whole of the running expenses of the institutions, and in recent years the whole of the capital expenditure, is met by the taxpayer. The Government have decided that in the interests of limiting the burden on the taxpayer at a time when the institutions require increasing resources that part of the burden—I accept it is a very small part about one-twentieth—should be shifted from the taxpayer to those who actually use and directly benefit from the institutions.
  That is the issue at stake. There is no doubt about the pressures on museums and art galleries. For a long time the attendances have been rising, not always constantly but the trend is upwards. I accept there is some doubt about the position in Scotland but this is because of the counting methods that have been used in the past. As the facilities improve, and they will with capital expenditure that is increasing substantially, with new and attractive layouts in museums and galleries, and with special exhibitions and better publicity, I believe that the numbers attending in Scotland will move constantly upwards, on a par with the English and Welsh trend.
  Mr. John Smith: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the report issued by the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland which states its belief that the announcement of the admission charges has already led to a drop in people attending the galleries—before charges are imposed?
  Mr. Monro: I can only give my own judgment which is that I do not feel that that comment is justified. Tourism continues to expand. The effects of higher standards of education will also be felt. There is no doubt about the widespread demand for improved museums and galleries and the Government are determined to play their part in meeting it.
  The acquisition grants of £2 million each year will help to raise the quality of exhibits but the galleries must have additional resources for general expansion, for alterations, new buildings, facilities for the disabled and so on. The introduction of charges will enable the Government in part to provide these, as set out in the White Paper. This is the purpose of the Bill, to give enabling powers to the trustees to charge. It does no more and no less and I commend it to the House.
  8.17 p.m.
  Mr. Faulds: This is a very gymnastic Government. The Prime Minister and his team are renowned for the somersaults they have turned on every aspect of policy. They have stood on their heads on issue after issue. They have tossed aside broken promises like discarded gymslips. On one policy they have stood firm through all the acrobatics. They still intend to bully the trustees of the various museum and gallery boards into introducing charges for admission which will break the traditions of generations of free viewing and which will exclude many people from the educational use and enlightenment of our great heritage of collections.
  Against all informed opinion the Government intend to plough ahead with their cultural tax. Regardless of the educational damage these charges will do to the bright and inquiring child, they intend to see that the thirst for knowledge is taxed. The Treasury is to have its whack from the great collections that have been left to the nation by our forebears who realised, as this Government

  357
  do not seem to realise, the value of the dissemination of knowledge and who ensured its free availability to all. Now that availability of those collections is to be curbed by the ability to pay. The sad fact is that for all our talk of an affluent society there are many in our midst who simply will not be able to fork out the necessary.
  Perhaps if Tory Members had more contact with the poorer sections of our community, the members of society who do not vote Tory, they would understand this. Perhaps in that case they might net even be Tories. It would be fatuous of the Government to pretend that these charges will not affect attendances. They know that in the past charges were levied explicitly for that purpose, to limit attendances, so that the cultural élite could enjoy viewing the galleries without the sweaty press of the hoi-polloi upon them. The Paymaster-General adumbrated this in another place in a debate some months ago.
  These charges will lead without any doubt to a fall in attendances, a fact that has already been proved, quite contrary to what the Under-Secretary maintains and very much in line with the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) a moment ago. During the three summer months of June, July and August attendance figures at the National Gallery fell by about 53,000 in comparison with the previous year. Then someone in their administration, deeply concerned at this decline, had the idea of erecting a huge "Admission Free" sign on the façade of the building. We have all seen it. With what result? In September alone there were 37,000 more visitors than in the previous September.
  The Scottish experience, which the Under-Secretary ought to know, but apparently does not, underlines this lesson. The annual report of the National Galleries of Scotland for 1971 expressed concern about what it termed "the severe falls" in attendance at its galleries. During 1971 admissions to the Portrait Gallery in Edinburgh dropped by almost half, from 106,712 the previous year to 56,850. But the reduction in the numbers at the Gallery of Modern Art was from 218,728, to 93,812—a really drastic and dramatic fall.
  Mr. Monro: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would check on how many months the gallery was closed.
  Mr. Faulds: Which gallery?
  Mr. Monro: The Gallery of Modern Act.
  Mr. Faulds: I cannot off the cuff give the figures. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us the figure.
  Mr. Monro: If the hon. Gentleman would give me a second—
  Mr. Faulds: Do not bother.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. Having given way the hon. Gentleman must allow the Under-Secretary to make his intervention.
  Mr. Monro: The Gallery was closed for three months at the end of last year, and for three months at the beginning of this year.
  Mr. Faulds: That might account for some of the fall, but I do not think it accounts for the dramatic and drastic fall I mentioned.
  Let me pursue my argument. Mr. Hugh Scrutton, the Director of the National Galleries of Scotland, thought it likely that the public were in a state of confusion about admission charges, and it is not surprising because we have been lumbering on with the debate about these dreary charges for the best part of two years. Mr. Scrutton reported:
  "There has been some diminution in attendances since admission charges were first proposed. This may well be attributed to people wondering if they have to pay."
  Is this the result the noble Lord intended? Is this really what this mistake-prone Government meant to happen? Do they really have to wait for the three years which the Paymaster-General said should pass before the situation is reviewed? Cannot they draw the obvious deductions now about the damage that will be clone to the work of the galleries and museums? They should withdraw the Bill tonight.
  This ineffable little Measure—and one could describe it in other terms—the object of widespread and reasoned opposition for a full two years will constitute a classic example of the solemn enactment of humbug, hypocrisy and

  359
  double-talk. It brazenly purports—we have only to look at the marginal summary of Clause 1—graciously to confer "Liberty to charge for admission" on such boards of trustees as are impeded by the existing state of the law from doing so. Everyone knows who has followed this debate over these two years that the vast majority of these long-suffering unpaid public servants would be hugely relieved if this whole, thoughtless venture could be consigned to the burning fiery furnace.
  The Measure is not mandatory, it does not lay down a legal obligation on the trustees which must be accepted. It takes the cowardly way and adopts the backstairs approach. It contrives to remove such legal protection as some of the institutions happen to enjoy, that is to render them all equally exposed to financial blackmail by an irresponsible Minister. The Government's ideal was enunciated with delighted relish many months ago by that would-be cultural Duce the Paymaster-General. He stated that since the trustees of the national museums and galleries "get all the money from the Government they always agree with the Government." The latter assertion it may be noted is wishful thinking, which events have proved not to be altogether accurate over the last few months.
  Trustees have hitherto been seen to occupy an independent position between Government and public, mediators between the one or the other and sometimes deserving the respect of both. The trustees of the future are here billed in this dreary little Measure to he faceless front men of the Government, puppets manipulated by financial leading-strings from behind the scenes, to carry out policies contrary to their beliefs, which is the case with this Bill.
  But will the goodwill, and even the prestige, which some trustees have enjoyed with the public and the art world, survive this emasculation of their powers and responsibilities? In the long run it certainly will not. As Lord Gardiner implied most pertinently in another place the recruiting of trustees of real calibre, capable of independent thought and judgment, will become increasingly difficult.
  360
  No doubt the more trustees approximate to unpaid sycophantic servitors the better it will suit an arrogant and self-opinionated Minister's book. But it will not redound to the advantage of the institutions and of the general public.
  A letter from the Paymaster-General to the chairmen of all the museum boards of 9th December last, and fortunately published in the Press in February, turned out to be a typical exercise in his sort of double-talk in that it allegedly proposed "a major change in the responsibilities of governing bodies", by purporting to give them more liberty, just as this squalid little Bill does. In this process however the Minister contrived to refer to certain powers as "belonging" to the Department which had never done so. This missive which became notorious for its confusion, inaccuracies and its bombast now seems to have become more or less a dead letter. At any rate nothing more has been heard of this "major change".
  Since then the relationship between the Paymaster-General and the boards has steadily and constantly deteriorated and has now achieved a record low. It is no secret, indeed it is a matter of common knowledge, that they neither accord him their trust nor retain any respect for his judgment, his ability or even his mere competence.
  It is amazing to what lengths arrogance, bluff and obstinacy can take a minor Minister and, more is the pity, in the process, the most serious and lasting damage is sustained by the whole system which we have evolved and inherited. What an epitaph for two years of meddle and muddle, with resort to bullying and blackmail to achieve it. Now the crowning monument to this brash and specious smart-alec is to be enshrined in the British Statute Book—but only temporarily.
  I fear it may be too late to suggest that just for once the noble Lord might haul down his false colours and sail his rotten hulk under its true colours. This should not be the Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges) Bill but the Museum Trustees (Facilitation of Financial Blackmail and Debilitation of Powers) Bill. The Government should be ashamed of their obduracy in this matter when they have stood on their head in practically every other. This is a miserable, mean Measure, a damaging Measure, a piteously

  361
  ludicrous and petty Bill. Let the House and country be assured that when we come again to Government we shall erase its nasty traces from the Statute Book.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I have always been against the Bill and nothing which I have heard in the Chamber or in Committee has changed my mind. Most of the debates have been concerned with attempts to obtain some form of concession or compromise on the terms of the proposed charges. I have not been interested in those debates because in this case compromise is objectionable. The whole principle of charging, of penalising public access to our cultural heritage, is wrong at the present time.
  Obviously we need to spend more money on our cultural heritage and on education for the purpose of appreciating it. It cannot be denied that some part of the public revenue should be devoted to it. In particular, I should like to see more spent upon museums. However, it seems that the Government are endeavouring to make a balance and that having spent so much upon museums there comes a point at which it is not possible to spend more unless there is some compensating revenue which can be derived from charges. The true balance is whether we get as much value out of the money which we spend on museums without charging as we get for equivalent expenditure on other cultural objectives.
  Every penny which we spend on museums and public galleries enabling us to give the public free access to them is worth more than every penny spent on the experimental theatre and some of the other objectives of the Arts Council expenditure. Money spent on keeping museums free and open and allowing the public access to pure and wholesome culture is desirable. But it is not right to suggest that once £1 million has been raised from museums it will be possible with good conscience to continue spending millions of £s in other directions which are less worthy.
  The maximum which can be raised out of admission charges to museums and public galleries is about £1 million. Any attempt to gain more than that involves
  362
  a higher standard rate of admission charge. A higher charge than the 10p or 20p. whatever is proposed under the arrangements, is sure to be a positive deterrent to the public in visiting museums and galleries. We have placed ourselves in a false doctrinaire position whereby it is necessary that there should be some contribution from this source so that more money can be spent elsewhere. We are forgetting the balance of value which is desirable. When one considers the thousands of millions of £s which we are at present expending on public objectives, this is not the time to penalise access to our cultural heritage merely in order to satisfy some sort of principle under which everybody who benefits must in some way pay a surcharge or penalty for the privilege of doing so.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. Edelman: In listening to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) I could not help feeling, as on previous occasions, that Orpington had travelled a long way since the days of the late Sir Waldron Smithers. But I could not help hearing a few ghostly echoes of that distinguished voice when the hon. Gentleman started making a false antithesis between his very proper argument in favour of keeping access to museums and galleries free and his attack, as I took it to be, on the work of the Arts Council. The Arts Council has done and continues to do a great deal of good. While this is not the occasion for me to defend it, I would protest against the suggestion that somehow, by defending the principle of free admission to museums and galleries, we should in some way compensate for that by applying restrictions to other worthy purposes.
  Indeed, there is a paradox in what the Government are now doing. That paradox is illustrated most clearly by the fact that while on the one hand they are trying to extract £1 million from all classes of visitors to the museums, without hesitation they are spending £250,000 on the "Fanfair to Europe", money which is to be spent within the space of a few days. I declare straight away that I am pro-European and I welcome the fact that our entry into Europe will be appropriately signalled, but I cannot reconcile the fact that the Government—upholding the quality of life, as they purport to do—are spending £250,000 on a single fanfair

  363
  while being so ungenerous, mean and parsimonious. I was not surprised that the Under-Secretary moved the Third Reading so perfunctorily. I can well understand that he has no pride in this short, nasty brutish Bill and I can well believe that if he had had the opportunity he would have walked away from it and disowned it, but that was not to be.
  The fact remains that we are now approaching the moment when one of the most Philistine and reactionary Measures of all time is to be put on the Statute Book, a Measure that totally reverses the whole process of enlightened thinking for the last 150 years. Studying the evolution of thinking about popular education, from the original Acts dealing with free education and throughout the enactments concerned with free libraries right up to the present-day Education Acts, one sees this single Measure as a reversal of all the principles embodied in that progressive legislation.
  It is easy to see how the Bill has come about. In the first champagne flush of Tory victory, the Prime Minister suddenly looked round and asked his various departmental Ministers how they would apply the traditional Tory philosophy. They conjured up the magic figure of one million and, having established that as a target, they sought measures to correspond with that idea. They thought that first they would spend £1 million on the Civil List. They then decided that they would create about a million unemployed. Finally they decided that they would extract £1 million in charges from people going to museums and galleries. In that way they would have three magic millions, which would be their target.
  But the noble Lord in another place had overlooked the fact that a revolution had been going on on the benches opposite and those high Tory principles had been reversed. Instead of the old laissez-faire attitudes, laissez-faire attitudes applied with meanness—depriving the children of milk and making them pay more for their school meals—a revolution has been going on by which, instead of trying to extract from the poorer section of the community the means for supporting their more ambitious projects, the Government are now in a position, through legislation such as the Industry Bill, in which they are making
  364
  contributions. We are left in the extraordinary position that the Bill is left over from a previous mode of thinking and the unhappy Under-Secretary has the thankless task of trying to justify a Bill of which privately he must be ashamed.
  The most evil thing about the Bill is the injury that it will do to young people, for it is the young people who are the inheritors of the past and the trustees of the future. Hitherto, the young generation has had free access to museums and galleries and young people have gone to them sometimes to look at pictures, sometimes to hold hands with girl friends and sometimes even to seek warmth from the wind outside. I am sure that as they have stood in the presence of great works of art their lives have been enriched, in precisely the same way as were the lives of some notable men. I think of men like Henry Moore, for example, who in their autobiographies have explained how in their childhood, often poverty-stricken, the museums and public galleries were places where they could find shelter and have their lives made richer, by being able to contemplate some of the great creations of the past.
  Now, suddenly, instead of the worthwhile society, we have the turnstile society. Instead of our having a society in which people could think of ennobling and fulfilling their lives, raising them to a higher power through the greatness which belongs to the nation—certainly not to the Paymaster-General—people find that they are in the presence of barriers. If there is anything which can divide the nation, which can frustrate the ideal of one nation to which members of the Government Front Bench pay lip service—I am not talking about the courageous back benchers—it is the existence of barriers, not even sentimental barriers but physical barriers, between the haves and the have-nots.
  It is all very well for the Under-Secretary to talk about the smallness of the charge, to say that 10p or 5p, or even 50p for a season ticket, is no hardship. The fact is that it is. Many people who would like to go to the galleries and museums will be prevented from doing so. It is not just because they cannot raise the 10p but because, as the Under-Secretary must know, when people go to a gallery they like to go accompanied, to share the pleasure of contemplation

  365
  with their husbands, wives or children, with their boy friends or girl friends. If the hon. Gentleman went to the Tate Gallery any afternoon he would see dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of young couples who go there to enjoy the opportunity of standing in the presence of great works of art. They are people who will in great measure be deprived of those opportunities. It is no good the backwoodsmen and backwoodswomen inveighing at Tory conferences against the youth of today, complaining of their violence, their irreverence and their lack of manners, when the Tory Government are depriving those young people of the opportunity to enjoy the benevolent influences of the works of art contained in our galleries.
  We are reaching a most interesting crisis in the matter of patronage. In the past there were many of us, certainly on this side of the House—and I count myself among them—who felt that when the age of public patronage came the problems of both the artist and the observer would be solved. But not a bit of it. The patronage exercised by the noble Lord the Paymaster-General is of a harsh and unconscionable kind, which so far from enriching the life of the country is impoverishing it, of a kind which, by placing a mercenary and meretricious valuation on matters of access to the heritage of the past, is presenting us with a kind of negative patronage. He as assembled patronage at his hands and has used his power to deprive the nation of the benefits which patronage could offer.
  I have already said that tonight we have been debating the nation's heritage, not the Paymaster-General's private collection. We are concerned not simply with the fact that we have a Paymaster-General who in his temporary power is capable of putting down a barrier between the public as a whole and what rightly belongs to them. A museum or an art gallery should not be a place of fossilised relics; it should be a centre of community, a place where people can assemble and communicate with each other, fulfil themselves, open doors to great new vistas for themselves and their families. Every restriction, however petty—and these restrictions are petty—is something which lowers the quality of our national life.
  366
  I believe that the Prime Minister himself is one who is concerned with the arts. I am astonished that the Under-Secretary has not yet been advised by the Prime Minister, who has such a deep concern for the art of music, that the plastic arts, too, have their place in the national life. I am surprised that the Prime Minister who very properly, and I certainly would be the last to sneer at him, presents himself to the nation whether he is standing on a podium conducting or whether he is extending his sympathy to musicians, should take such a parochial view. I am astonished that while the right hon. Gentleman gives such encouragmenet to the art of music he should at the same time show such a narrow indifference to the plastic arts which are so much more accessible to so many more people.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: It so happens that, under my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's overall direction of course, I have in detail been responsible for the greatly increased grants, the rightly increased grants, to the two Royal Colleges of Music, and the matter is therefore of very great interest and concern to me. I should be very grateful to know the hon. Member's view on the fact that when the products of those two great colleges and they are great, perform for the enormous benefit of us all, none of us contemplates being allowed to go to listen to them for free.
  Mr. Edelman: When a musician performs he is not performing as one who has been handed down in person from the past, where he has been paid for, preserved and sheltered in the interests of the nation. The performing musician is quite different from the artefact which belongs to the nation, which is held in trust for the nation and which is a legacy bestowed on the nation. The Under-Secretary uses a completely false analogy and I am afraid that when he uses that kind of bogus analogy, sympathetic though I am to him generally, he and I must part company.
  We are dealing tonight with a legacy to the nation. I believe that the Conservative Party is in the process of betraying that legacy and I am glad that my Front Bench has given an assurance that when our party is once more in

  367
  power we shall repeal this mean and iniquitous Measure.
  8.48 p.m.
  Mr. Money: The House always listens with interest and respect to the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) and when he spoke just now of the ideal that a museum should be and what it should do to serve, he struck a very warm note for me. It is for that reason that I find it puzzling that so many people in the House whom I admire and respect, including my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer)—
  Mr. Faulds: And myself.
  Mr. Money: I will reserve my remarks in relation to my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) for a moment—have not faced up to the real crisis that exists in the museum service or borne in mind the real steps that are now being taken to cope with it. Let me say at once that I should have been far happier had it been possible to get this form of money in as is done in the Museum of Modern Art and other American galleries—that is to say, in the form of having a box rattled very heavily in front of the noses of those who go to the gallery. That, in my view, would have been a far more effective way of dealing with this problem.
  However, I find it sad that in the emotional problem this has become, and which has reached the epitome of the use of more adjectives by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick this evening than I have every heard him use on any previous occasion—
  Mr. Faulds: Appropriate adjectives.
  Mr. Money: I do not think the hon. Gentleman ever uses appropriate adjectives though he uses a great many.
  However, in the emotional atmosphere, the long-term, basic problem here is being overlooked, and that is that the presentation of the arts in this country is not a static affair. To listen to hon. Gentlemen like the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) one would think, I say with respect, from the somewhat narrow legalistic argument he was putting forward, that all one
  368
  had to do about any works in public keeping was simply to accept them on behalf of the nation and that that was the end of the day. When he spoke with keen emotion of the national galleries of Scotland, what he did not give full weight to was the fact that large sections of the collections in those galleries, including large parts of the public bequests, cannot be shown very largely because of the inadequate facilities there are to put them properly before the public to whom they belong.
  I would ask the House, therefore, this question. Is it worth making some form of sacrifice—and sacrifice, I accept, this is—in order to establish, if this can be the only way of making sure of it, that the Treasury is regularly going to be prepared to degorge, that the advance of a reasonable subsidy to the arts does take place?
  That is why I think that the strictures from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, North were a little less than generous when he spoke of the Paymaster-General in terms only of this Bill and did not mention the fact that under his administration more money is being spent on the arts, and in particular more money is being spent on the building programme for the fine arts and the applied arts, than has ever been spent by any Government before.
  I come back to what the hon. Gentleman spoke of, and spoke movingly of, the value of a museum as a living project, something which can enrich our lives. So often in the modern State, I believe, that is failing now, because not enough money is being provided and not enough facilities are available. In particular, when one views the building programme which now exists one can see what that will hold out, and I hope there will be adequate money for preserving works of art in the other sense of keeping works of art in this country, and by getting an adequate grant to keep up with the effects which inflation has had. It is against that background that if by this Bill we can make sure that there will be a perpetuation of the tradition that the Treasury will make an adequate contribution, I believe it is reluctantly worth it.
  I want to stress one specific matter to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I ask him to bring his influence

  369
  to bear on his colleagues in the Treasury with regard to the increasing importance, against this background, of the National Art Collections Fund. I welcome, like others, the concession he was able to make about the disabled, a case close to my own heart as well. Another most valuable concession earlier was with regard to the National Art Collections Fund. But it is surely ridiculous in these circumstances that what should be given with one hand should be taken away with the other in the sense that the fund is now liable to pay value added tax.
  This is an age in which, as the hon. Member for Coventry, North rightly reminded us, there are more and wider problems about patronage, particularly with regard to the applied arts, than there have been in previous generations. The National Art Collections Fund needs every sort of support that it can be given, and the best way to do that would be to let it have the full effects of the money it collects, with considerable dedication, from its private supporters and members.
  Like the hon. Member for Smethwick, I too pay my small tribute to the great number of public spirited persons who serve our galleries and museums as trustees and in other ways. I hope that after these debates all those concerned with the arts will at any rate appreciate that there is great concern for the future of their institutions, for their work and for the arts generally. I hope that increasingly will come the knowledge that we are to perpetuate the generous principles that were adopted by both parties during and after the war, with the work of Lord Keynes and the founding of the Arts Council, that there has been established in this country something which is to be given permanent and increasing support. I hope that it will be recognised that, whatever bitterness there may have been on this occasion, both parties will continue to support the principle as they have done in the past, and here one also pays tribute to the work of the right hon. and noble Lady, Baroness Lee and to that of my right hon. and noble Friend the Paymaster-General. Let it continue to be realised that both Houses of Parliament will make it their duty to get as much money as they can from the Treasury for this great part of the country's life.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) argued that to get money from the Treasury it was necessary to pay it a tribute of £1 million so that it would be prepared to give more money later. I do not want to get involved much in that argument because I want to speak particularly about the Scottish galleries and museums and how they are affected. But it is an odd idea that somehow in the Government there is this institution of the Treasury, totally without political control, to which tribute has to be given before it will give money to the arts. That is simply not the case. If they so willed it, the Government could spend much more money on the arts without having to apply admission charges.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland adopted a wise course in speaking briefly. A Minister can take up one of two positions when faced with the difficulty of defending a Measure like this. He can either speak very briefly or, like the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, get involved in very long and convoluted apologies and analogies for what the Government are seeking to do.
  It is unfortunate that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland did not say more about the effect of these charges on the galleries of Scotland. It demonstrates clearly the futility of this operation. It is one thing to impose charges at the Tate Gallery and the National Gallery in London, where there are more than a million visitors a year, but quite another to impose them on the smaller galleries in Edinburgh, for example.
  The National Gallery in Edinburgh has about 500,000 visitors a year. The other galleries affected are much smaller. The latest figure for the Gallery of Modern Art is 93,000 visitors a year and for the National Portrait Gallery and the Musuem of Antiquities, which have the same entrance, the figure is about 56,000. I want to show how paltry are the sums that the Government will recover by way of admission charges.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett) referred to the cost of collecting admission charges

  371
  in respect of the Wallace Collection. The figure was over 30 per cent. and no doubt he thought that was probably the highest figure. In fact, the highest proportion of costs of collection relates to Scotland and its National Portrait Gallery. The Government estimate—this was given in a Parliamentary Answer by the Secretary of State for Scotland on 15th March—that their gross annual receipts for the National Portrait Gallery and Museum of Antiquities will be £5,400. The cost of staff, equipment and amortisation of capital costs is such that the net proceeds, after costs have been taken off the total of admission charges, amount to only £2,960. The cost of collection is 45 per cent.
  There should be somebody in the Government who is prepared to tell them when they have reached the stage of absolute absurdity. There can be no defence in terms of introducing charges at a gallery where the cost of collection is as high as 45 per cent. and the net proceeds are under £3,000 a year.
  If this were not bad enough, it must be pointed out that the National Gallery of Modern Art will get as gross annual receipts from admission charges only £5,000. Taking into account the cost of collection, which is 27 per cent. the total will amount to only £3,640. This situation beggars belief.
  Mr. William Ross: The Government could save that by getting rid of one Under-Secretary of State.
  Mr. Smith: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) says, by removing one Under-Secretary the Government could pay the cost of these two galleries. The public would thereby benefit in two ways: first by gaining free admission to the galleries, and secondly by not being burdened by another Minister. There are easy solutions to some of these problems if the Government have the will to face up to them.
  I quote these figures to show the reductio ad absurdum of the whole proposition when applied to galleries in Scotland. In total the gross figures of receipts in respect of all galleries in Scotland will be about £36,000. It is bad enough to impose these charges to rake in
  372
  £1 million in the rest of the United Kingdom, but it is absurd to impose charges on galleries in Edinburgh to rake in only £36,000. In respect of the Gallery of Modern Art there is an admission charge of one-half. We have the ridiculous situation that a child can go into the Botanical Gardens free, but to go into the Gallery of Modern Art he will have to pay 2p entry fee. What an immense amount of administration and staff will be required to collect 2p from a child who goes into that gallery!
  These examples demonstrate that this is not a matter of the Government approaching this Measure from any considered view. It is a case of an obsession which took root deep within the Government at an early stage and which is now being pursued like a relentless juggernaut, with absurd results. This is true of the whole of the United Kingdom but the situation as applied to Scotland is even more within the realms of absurdity. If the present Secretary of State and his Ministers had any political guts or gumption they would have seen that Scotland was exempted from the provisions in the Bill.
  In the light of the figures I have quoted, there is no reason for Scotland to be subjected to those provisions and there is ample ground for exemption for Scotland. This is a piece of madness which has afflicted the Paymaster-General and its contagion has spread to his colleagues. Nobody in the Government has been prepared to fight the Paymaster-General's obsession over this scheme. I hope that the House will bear these points in mind in regard to Scotland because I regard this as a classic example of a Government which are not prepared to recognise an absurdity when they see one.
  9.7 p.m.
  Mr. Jeffrey Archer: I rise to oppose the Bill again. I will try not to rehearse to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State the entire argument since it has been dealt with so ably by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I should like to add one or two comments which have not arisen in this debate.
  I, like the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), believe that the Bill was an unfortunate start to Parliament, and that if the Conservative Party

  373
  could have its time over again this situation would never have arisen. I may be wrong, but that is my assessment of the situation.
  I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, quite rightly, to his Cabinet colleagues, "We must make cutbacks and must save money". Ministers were called upon to save money in their own Departments and did so. Equally, I believe that there was a cry, "We must bring more money in", and that is how the magic figure of £1 million arose. I am of course surmising completely here, but I believe that it was agreed that in the arts a figure of £1 million must be raised. I do not think they ever said that there must be a 10p charge and that that will total £1 million. I think they said, "The figure we have in mind is £1 million, and therefore there will be a 10p charge".
  The tragedy for my party is that this petty little measure will bring in its £1 million, but it will lose us more prestige and good friends in the middle-thinking society than we shall probably lose on any other measure than school milk. For that reason alone I was sorry that we ever saw fit to pursue it.
  The Under-Secretary knows that my personal feelings about the Bill are heavily levelled down to the position with the young and the old. I still hope that in his final speech tonight we shall see some change. I still hope that he will find it possible to rise at the Dispatch Box and give back a little. We have all told him that we believe this charge for the young is anti-education in its own way and the charge for the old is a charge on the poorest section of our society with the most time. I have nothing to add to those two cases. I just hope the Under-Secretary will be able to rise at the Dispatch Box and say that the weight of argument has changed the 10p to 5p to nothing. I thank my hon. Friend yet again for having changed it from 10p to 5p during the nine months we have been at work, but I hope that he will yet, even now, be able to bring it down to nothing.
  Unusual though it is, I am afraid that I found myself in disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money). I found his arguments facing the wrong direction. When people
  374
  left to the nation their great works of art, when they left, as a bequest to the nation rather than to their children, a privilege, they did it because they knew that it was for free and that the rest of the nation could see those works of art. That was the privilege they were able to give. Were many of them alive today, knowing there would be a charge to see those things, they may well think a second time about giving them to the nation.
  Mr. Money: My hon. Friend stressed the word "see". Surely he would agree that that is the important thing here. There are large proportions of bequests and other sections of the national collection which cannot be seen at all because of inadequate facilities for display.
  Mr. Archer: I agree totally with that argument, but I do not see it as an argument for us collecting money in order that it should be done that way. If there is not enough room to see our works of art, we must build more places for them to he put in.
  In the latter part of his argument, which he developed with great sincerity, my hon. Friend said that on balance he would vote for the Bill because, when the money had been collected, it would mean that a few more things could be seen and the whole ambience would be better in which to see them. I accept that argument. What I do not understand is that my Government should put up a higher percentage for the arts, for which I am greatly in praise as I am sure the Opposition are, and at the same time claw back this measly £1 million. I could understand if the Government had kept the amount they gave to the arts the same as under the last Administration, but to put up what was given under the last Administration by vast amounts, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, and then to claw back this measly £1 million is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) suggested, Alice in Wonderland; it is Alice Through the Looking Glass.
  The whole thing is wrong. If my hon. Friend is right—he has greater knowledge than I on this subject—we need to build more and let people see more of

  375
  the works of art that are underground and hidden, but not at the expense of the old or the young and not at the expense of education. So I am quite unable to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich.
  My attitude is one of civilisation. This is a privilege—a heritage I think it was called by the hon. Member for Coventry, North—passed from generation to generation. I suggest, obviously not knowing, that my personal hero in the world of art, Turner, would be appalled to think that his entire collection in the Tate, one of the finest collections of paintings in the world, will now cost 10p per person to be seen. I believe that were he alive and in a position either to withdraw them or to make a speech in this House, he would be the first to insist that something be done.
  I want to mention, because so many of the arguments have been so ably and competently rehearsed, the position of the backbencher in relation to the Bill. We have heard it said again and again in this House, and it was tragic to hear the hon. Member for Coventry, North say with sincerity that he was full of respect for the courageous—that was his word—Members on this side of the House who had the courage to fight against the Bill and to abstain or vote against it. What a dreadful time we have reached if backbenchers need courage to vote against a Bill like this. What a time we have reached in this House of Commons that we have become "Yes" men, that we crawl into the corridors whatever and whoever says what. I shall have none of it. I am appalled by this argument.
  Many hon. Members seem to have forgotten that half the Members of Disraeli's Cabinet voted against him, and they were not thrown out. Today it is taken for granted that a Member of the Government can never vote against his party. That we have to accept, but it is fast becoming accepted that a backbencher cannot vote against his Government on major issues, on minor issues or on something about which he feels sincerely. If that is extended from the Disraeli era through the Heath era to another generation, we shall be nothing but a bunch of puppets pretending to represent our constituents.
  376
  I am against the Bill. The Whips will never change my mind on that. Perhaps if we ever see the return of a Labour Government they will take the Bill away. I am sure that we shall not, but on this Bill, and on this subject, no Whip will make me crawl into any corridor, and no man saying that we might lose the Bill because some Members are in Paris will make me crawl into a corridor.
  I was disappointed to hear my hon. Friend ask us to take note of the small majorities because some of our Members are in Paris. This is the House of Commons. If the majority is low, it is a disgrace, but the majority is low because Members feel strongly about the Bill. The majorities have been consistent—3, 4, 5, 7, 5, 4, and so on, in this House and in the other place. The reason is that this is a shoddy Bill, a second-rate Bill, and also that it is a Bill which we regret ever bringing to the Floor of the House.
  The personal tragedy is that we did not have the courage to drop it, to forget it, six or eight weeks ago. I repeat what I said to the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). I honestly believe that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would have remained silent, if we had quietly let the Bill go. They would not have leapt up and down saying that we were weak. The right hon. Gentleman is an older and more senior Member of the House than I am.
  I believe that the day that a Minister stands up at the Dispatch Box and says "We have thought about this, we rushed in too fast and we made a mistake", he will capture the respect of the entire country. It is a wrong attitude to think that one always has to be correct once one has made a decision. I feel that even more than being told that I must crawl into a corridor. It is worth fighting for, even if it is not on this Bill. I shall abstain. I think that this is a Bill of no significance. I have voted against three Clauses and two Amendments, and when the final vote comes I shall abstain.
  9.19 p.m.
  Mr. Buchan: The last few words spoken by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) have put me in an immense quandary. I was going to pay my respects to his fine statement and say—I shall not call it courage—that it was

  377
  very good speech, but the hon. Member ended by saying that he would not crawl into a corridor; indeed, that he would not crawl into either of two corridors.
  Mr. Edelman: Perhaps my hon. Friend did not quite hear the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) say sotto voce that he was going to crawl into the Library.
  Mr. Buchan: Whatever embellishment is given to his statement, the facts remain. The hon. Gentleman at first convinced me that he would stand up for what he believed in. That was the message of the greater part of his speech.
  The significant thing about the hon. Gentleman's speech is that he has got through to some of his hon. Friends the importance, the seriousness and the depth of the issue we are debating. I do not think he will help his case if after that, he does not stand up and vote. I hope that he will. I respect the hon. Gentleman for what he has done in the past and for all the arguments he has put before the House.
  The hon. Gentleman's closing remarks have made my task a little easier. I had thought that there was no point in going on after 99·9 per cent. of what he said but, clearly, all has not now been said and there are one or two matters which we must take up. First, it should be re-emphasised that no case has yet been made for collecting that £1 million. No case has been made for the principle of charging. We have been told that, if we raise the £1 million through charges, more money will be made available by the Treasury for the galleries. This has been the "sprat and mackerel" argument, the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money).
  With respect I do not follow that argument. The hon. Member for Ipswich mentioned Scotland, where the gross amount coming in will be £36,000. As one of my hon. Friends said, if the Government sacked a few Under-Secretaries of State they could easily cover that—and high time too. But such a sum will not give us the buildings we need to show all the pictures which we have in Scotland. It is argued that we need to raise the £1 million because we do not have enough money to show all the pictures we already
  378
  have, but plainly £36,000 will not do that in Scotland.
  Neither do I follow the argument that the Treasury will not give any money unless charges come in to the tune of £1 million. Who on earth is the Treasury? It seems to be some sort of mousetrap—put the cheese down, snap goes the Treasury and out comes some money. I thought that decisions were made by the Government, not by some mousetrap mechanism of that sort. The argument makes no kind of sense. I do not understand it and I do not believe that hon. Members on the Government side understand it.
  I think that this all comes from the days of what has been described as the champagne flush—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) called it the winey head. or the heady wine—both, I suspect—when the Government thought that they would make all manner of cuts in public expenditure and the museums and galleries had to take their share. There was no principle in it at all.
  Let us consider for a moment the effect of what the Government are doing. As soon as cash is introduced in this way, it completely distorts what many of us had regarded as one of the great opportunities of our century, the whole idea of popular or public patronage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North said, it becomes a negative patronage as soon as cash is involved. And what cash—10p for a Rembrandt. As soon as cash is involved, the whole sense and value of the thing is vitiated, and the meaning goes.
  The Government ought to recognise the strength of the counter-argument based on the need to recognise that these things should be free. If it is argued that £1 million is needed in the form of collections so that more money may be raised for building and other things, the whole subject becomes confused. It is not just a question of compromise. The introduction of cash in order to achieve a quantitative effect in the provision of more money produces a qualitative effect. The thing itself is altered. I would far rather have £1 million less in the total of moneys given to the arts than that the principle of free access should be breached. That is what matters.

  379
  One of the problems is that many hon. Members opposite—I except the hon. Member for Louth, despite my regrets about his closing remarks, and I except other hon. Members opposite who have fought nobly—have given no sign, as Ministers have given no sign, of understanding the real importance of free access. It is not just that charges will keep away those who are too poor to pay, and there is no doubt that they will keep some away. Above all, they will stop the beginning of the art gallery and picture-going habit. They will stop its growth at the source.
  It will be a problem for many people, including families with children. They will not save up and say "Next Sunday we will go in from the suburbs with our three children to the art gallery." A visit to an art gallery will not seem in the same category as a picnic outing or a walk. It will no longer be seen as just as natural as a walk to drop in on an art gallery. Hon. Members opposite have not understood this, and this is one of their errors which has led to the Bill.
  It has been pointed out that we are in general dealing with the artefact whereas a concert is a living thing. I have no objections whatever to free concerts. The highest point of popular participation in the arts in Britain was during the war precisely when the nation was paying attention to bringing the arts to the people free. We all heard Myra Hess "up the road".
  We give a great deal of money to assist those who can often afford to go to concerts. I do not begrudge that. Scottish opera is in a very fine condition just now. Much money is given in subsidies. Prices remain so high that it is a subsidy towards middle-class and upper-class attendance. I regret this. I would welcome higher subsidies if that meant that more people who were less well off could go. I repeat that I approve of the subsidy, but nevertheless in qualitative terms it is a subsidy to those who are already well off, because people are still left with the problem of finding anything from £2 to £5. However, the analogy was truer than was perhaps realised and perhaps the task in the twentieth century is not to diminish the principle but to extend it.
  380
  I do not blame the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office, for his perfunctory and disgraceful speech. The hon. Gentleman was ashamed of the Bill. We have a long tradition in Scotland in education and other spheres of the provision of these things free. We have our Carnegies, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the State from the sixteenth century onwards. Of course, the hon. Gentleman was ashamed and perfunctory.
  I go further and say that I feel equally sorry for the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. I feel sorry for the hon. Gentleman if he believes in the Bill. I feel sorry for him if he does not believe in it. He has been hooked on the face by the noble Lord in another place.
  I hope that some day the Government will say "We were wrong. We withdraw this Measure." I do not believe that they would lose any credit if they did that. However, to save the face of the noble Lord, the poor old Under-Secretary has been put through all this. If a dirty, nasty, squalid, petty, mean, shabby little thing like this had to be done, the Government should not have asked a junior Minister to do it. As the noble Lord could not present it to this House, the Secretary of State for Education and Science herself should have been here. It was disgraceful for the Government to put the Under-Secretary through this so that he comes in for all the contempt. Poor people in generations yet unborn will have to read the rubbish that he spoke today about the National Portrait Gallery and his argument about the trustees with their scheme for the free day and the 40p charge on other days.
  The argument against it was that this would deprive those people who deserve to get there. The whole Bill will deprive those who deserve to get there. If that is the Under-Secretary's argument, he should drop the Bill. The price of admission to the Tower of London is to be doubled: 20p goes up to 40p next year. That will make it eight times greater than the Prime Minister's norm. Even entrance fees going up to 10p is an increase of infinity; it is the Prime Minister's norm multiplied by infinity. Where is the sense in that?

  381
  9.30 p.m.
  As the hon. Member for Louth said, it would be earth-shaking if a junior Minister were to say that in the absence of his master he would drop the Bill and face the consequences. We know that the hon. Gentleman cannot say it. I have been through the mill. I know that the hon. Gentleman is terrified—"feared", as we say in Scotland—to go back to his Department and say "I got beaten". This is the difficulty in government. Junior Ministers do not like to lose the argument. However, were he to do so his courage would not be diminished in the eyes of his friends and it would be an historic day.
  What a tragedy it is that at the fag end of a Session in which the Government have turned tail on major issue after major issue they cannot turn tail on this one. Mr. Rees-Mogg, that well-known polemicist, talked in The Times about the Government's U-turn. When we change our policy, we have turned a somersault. When the Tories do it, they have done a U-turn even though they move from the horizontal to the vertical back through the horizontal.
  It is a little thing that we are asking We have 30 minutes or so in which it can be done. Drop the Bill, lad, and go down in history.
  9.32 p.m.
  Mr. Guy Barnett: I felt that there was a ready response by Ministers on the Treasury Bench to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), not least because of his vital point that no argument has been produced all the way through our discussions for raising the £1 million. No argument has been produced in favour of charges. This debate and previous debates have indicated beyond doubt that the Bill and its proposals produce problem after problem. The Under-Secretary has been able to make concessions, which we welcome, as to the disabled and as to guides. This is excellent.
  Everyone can think of cases which deserve concessions. They need to be made to scholars. The discretion as to who may be admitted into a museum or gallery free of charge should lie with the trustees. Concessions are needed for members of the International Association of Art Critics. I have a letter written
  382
  by the secretary of the association saying that the consequence of the Bill is that Great Britain will be the only country where the association card will not be accepted. It seems that the Government have no concession to make in that direction.
  An essential task—and I speak with feeling as a formed member of the Civil Service Union and of a museum staff—for members of the staffs of museums, whether we did it during working hours or when we were free, was to pay visits to other museums to gain ideas. Yet we have had no definite indication from the Paymaster-General as to what the situation will be for museum staffs. As soon as the principle of charging is introduced concession after concession has to be made, and in general the consequence of this is an atmosphere of meanness. The Under-Secretary has had to argue this impossible case. I can only sympathise with him.
  It is important that the House should recognise the kind of consequences that these proposals are likely to have on the trustees of some of our institutions. I should like to illustrate this by mentioning the situation of the National Maritime Museum in my constituency. I shall seek to show that in a real sense the Secretary of State for Education and Science has exercised improper duress over the trustees of this Museum in the last few months. The trustees are governed by the National Maritime Act, 1934, by which they are granted power to manage and control their museum. It is specifically stated in the Act that they have power to make regulations as to charges. This is their business, their decision and as trustees they have a duty to the general public. If in their view they believe that the general public is best served by free entry then their view should prevail. What happened? The Under-Secretary—he is on record to this effect—has no intention of altering the Statute governing the National Maritime Museum. He made that clear on 17th January.
  The Secretary of State was questioned during the debate on the White Paper about precisely what the situation was for the museum. She made it abundantly clear in her reply that she "required"—that was her word—the trustees to administer charges. She made it clear and unequivocal that that was in a real

  383
  sense an order given to the trustees of the museum. What were they to do? The Paymaster-General, with whom I have had correspondence on the subject, has written to say that the trustees did not oppose the administration of charges. Yet when I read the annual report for 1971 of the museum I see these words:
  "It is not possible for the trustees to predict the effect on attendance of the requirement to charge visitors for admission which has been placed upon them by the Department of Education and Science but they are prepared for a substantial reduction. The effect of this requirement will be somewhat unfortunate at the National Maritime Museum. The buildings have a total of ten separate public entrances. Clearly to staff each entrance with ticket sellers and checkers would be to make it unlikely that any substantial net income would result. The Department of the Environment has been obliged, therefore, to fence off parts of the Royal Park in which the museum stands in order that charges for entry can be made at only four points. This has involved, besides the fences, the building of unsightly huts which in the entrance to the Old Royal Observatory has deprived the public of the unimpeded view of the Meridian Line in the Courtyard which was one of the museum's most popular exhibits and spoiled the delightful eighteenth century courtyard which was restored only three years ago. The trustees deplore the necessity for these developments."
  The whole tenor of those remarks in the Annual Report indicates to me that the trustees were entirely opposed to the idea of charging. They saw that the Secretary of State was requiring them to administer charges; they knew the extent to which they were beholden to the Treasury for the sums of money necessary to administer the museum and therefore as trustees it seems they were forced into taking a decision which was contrary to their best judgment of their duty towards the public. I believe that this has resulted in the kind of things that have happened ever since that requirement was laid down. It resulted in the erection of obscene kiosks at the various entrances of the museum and to the Royal Observatory. As I understand the sequence of events, the Department of Education and Science required the huts to be in position by 1st January of this year, long before Parliament had made a final decision as to what ought to be done. In law the trustees have a right to make the decision whether charges should be administered, but they were under duress as a consequence of the words of the Secretary of
  384
  State for Education and Science. I felt it right to follow that up and I have come into possession of a letter written by the chairman of the trustees of the National Maritime Museum that establishes beyond doubt that the majority view of the trustees was opposed to charging. The chairman of the trustees, in a letter of 26th September, 1972, written to a Mr. Hugh Leggatt said:
  "As regards the major question of charging admission, when this intention was published the trustees discussed which course of action to take at length. Opposition to the idea of charging for admittance was by no means unanimous and the chairman, then Lord Runciman, decided we should not oppose the Government on this issue. This still remains our policy."
  The only interpretation which I can read into those words is that when the discussion took place there was widespread and almost certainly a majority opinion amongst the trustees of their responsibility towards the public, that it was wrong for them to charge and their responsibilities demanded that they should not do so.
  Kiosks have been erected in various places round the Maritime Museum, only for it to be discovered at a late date that it is illegal to erect these things in a royal park. They are now being dismantled, but I discovered yesterday that three are still left. The total cost of erecting them and taking them down, on the admission of the Government, is £10,000. These events are only an indication—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this in the Bill?
  Mr. Barnett: It seems relevant to the principle of the Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: On Third Reading we can discuss only what is contained in the Bill.
  Mr. Barnett: I apologise for straying from the principle of the Bill. The purport of what I was saying was that the consequence of the Bill was to lay duties upon the trustees which they should not be expected to undertake and which in their position was harmful. Nevertheless, the consequences of the introduction of the Bill in Parliament and its passing into law can do nothing but damage to our museums and galleries.

  385
  We could continue debating the Bill and in doing so we would continue to discover further exceptions which would need to be made to minimise the damage likely to be done. In doing so one reaches a highly complicated situation. Everything will be lost by the decision which the Bill embodies to end the principle of free entry to these institutions, which seems to have been one of the finest principles governing our museums.
  9.44 p.m.
  Mr. Strauss: The most remarkable feature about this debate is that it is taking place at all. When the proposals were first introduced about two years ago they were met with such a storm of opposition and derision by everybody in the art world, the education world, the trustees of the museums and galleries, artists and practically all educated people, and almost without exception every newspaper, that it seemed clear that these proposals, which were thought out and produced in the heat of the moment shortly after the election in an atmosphere of euphoria, would be shortlived and that sense would come into the minds of the Government and they would say "We will not proceed with this Measure."
  But that is not what has happened. In spite of the fervour of the opposition, not only of all the trustees of the museums and galleries, which has continued unabated during the last two years, and although public opinion has continued in strong opposition, the Government have persisted with the Bill, and now submit it to us in its last stage.
  It may well be said that public protest today is muted compared with what it was two years ago. That is inevitable. The public has to put up with evil that is imposed upon it and in the course of time, when it comes to believe that the evil in unavoidable, it accepts it. It would be quite wrong, however, for the Government to think that the strong feelings of opposition, resentment and indignation that existed when these proposals were first put forward have abated or that the public will forgive or forget what the Government have done.
  I should like briefly to recall the main reasons why the Labour Party and most people outside the Labour Party interested in art affairs consider the Bill an anti-art and anti-social abomination. The
  386
  first reason has been stated many times this evening and I will not develop it. I should have thought it would be undeniable that the Bill reversed the civilised tradition of our country to allow free access to the nation's art treasures, free access for everybody in the country, rich and poor, native and foreigner, a tradition we have had for 200 years and one which was worthy of preservation unless something so dramatic or important happened that forced the nation to reverse it: but nothing of the sort has happened.
  The tradition of free entry to our national museums and galleries has operated for 200 years, in times of the greatest economic stringency. No Government before ever thought it necessary to put a tax on visitors to museums and galleries to gather in a little money for the Exchequer.
  I anticipate an argument which I know the Under-Secretary will make, as he has made it on every occasion, and I deal with it once more. He will tell us that there have been entrance fees for many years into places such as Hampton Court and the Tower of London. Of course there have, but the situation there is entirely different. Entrance fees for tourists visiting the Tower of London and to see the Crown Jewels, or the State Rooms at Hampton Court, are one thing, and there may or may not be a case for charging.
  But here we are dealing with our great treasure houses of art, owned by and belonging to the nation, and exhibited in our national museums and galleries. Never before has there been a tax on visitors to these major institutions.
  Why have the Government caused all this disturbance, annoyance and anger in order to rake in £1 million a year? What nonsense it all is! One million pounds! It costs £18 million a year for the upkeep of those galleries and museums, so the contribution of £1 million is insignificant. Moreover, when compared with the £1,400 million of tax reduction which the Chancellor announced to the House earlier this year the raising of this £1 million of extra money for the Treasury is utterly illogical. It is economic and social lunacy.
  The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) says "But we are to develop the visual arts. We shall require more space,

  387
  more galleries, to house the exhibits. It is therefore essential to raise this money." That is a ridiculous argument. First, it muddles annual expenditure and capital expenditure. It is ridiculous to suggest that because the Government will spend many millions of pounds during the next 10 years on necessary buildings to house our art, engineering and scientific exhibits the money must be raised by taxing museum-goers to the extent of £1 million. Many more millions of pounds will be paid by the Government to develop our existing schools and to build new schools—tens of millions every year—but it is not suggested that that money should be raised by a special tax on the parents of the children going to the schools.
  Up to now it has always been regarded in this civilised country as one of the duties of the Government to house the arts, most of which have been given to the nation and belong to the people—that the housing of the arts is a duty of the Government so that the people shall be able to go freely to enjoy what is theirs. That has been our tradition, and a very fine one. Now, however, on the ground that we must spend money to provide new buildings, this £1 million tax is to be imposed.
  We were told today that the housing of the Asian refugees from Uganda in the camps will cost £1 million a month. No one objects to that. It is necessary and that money will come from the Treasury. At the same time the Government insist on raising £1 million a year from gallery and museum visitors. It is ridiculous.
  Another reason why we object to the Bill is that it plainly erects a divisive financial barrier against the poorest section of the community, those on low wages, those on social security benefits, and children. They will have greater difficulty than ever before in visiting our museums and galleries and enjoying the art treasures there. Instead of creating greater equality of opportunity among the classes, the Government are deliberately by the Bill creating an inequality which did not exist before.
  Contrary to what Ministers speaking on the subject in the past have told us, the entrance charges are keeping people out of the museums. My hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds)
  388
  quoted impressive figures showing quite clearly that because of the belief now generally held that the entrance charges are already in existence the number of visitors to the National Gallery and other galleries fell substantially during the summer months, by tens of thousands. But as soon as the trustees put up notices saying "Entrance Free", the number of visitors rose substantially above that of last year. The Government may be pleased or sorry about it, but the result of these entrance charges will undoubtedly be to keep a large number of people away from the galleries, to stop them viewing the possessions they own.
  We have been told that this has been done because of a bargain which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made shortly after the 1970 election by which the Minister for the Arts undertook to provide the Treasury with £1 million a year. This is an extraordinary situation. I have never before heard of a situation in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said to a Minister "Your Department has to provide me with a certain figure by taxing people who use the benefits it provides, and that figure has to be a minimum". The Chancellor of the Exchequer said to Lord Eccles "You have to provide me with £1 million" and Lord Eccles promised to do so. As a result, when we press for some concession for children, for old-age pensioners, or for someone else, we are told "We cannot do that. My promise to the Chancellor must stand".
  But who is the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Ministers talk as though he were some foreign bankers consortium but he is the Government, and Government decisions and administration are the collective responsibility of all Ministers. To say that one Minister has to do something because he has promised another Minister to do so, and to use it as an excuse to ask for the sympathy and support of the House in order that he may discharge an obligation to another Minister whose word is final and to whom a promise cannot be broken, is utterly ridiculous. But that is what has been happening.
  When we urge that children should be allowed to go into museums and galleries free—children on their own, apart from school parties—and that plea has been made a number of times from both sides of the House today, we are told "That

  389
  is not possible. That will cost the Chancellor of the Exchequer £150,000 a year." What absolute nonsense that is. It is a terrible thing for the Government—not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the Government—to say that children are to be deprived of their ability to go to museums and galleries free and thus, as one of my hon. Friends so aptly put it, have their museum-going habits inhibited while they are still children. It is a grave indictment of the Government that for the sake of £150,000 they are adamant in their determination not to allow children to enter free as this would be breaking a promise made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  This is the argument used moreover by the Minister of Education, one who is responsible for the good education of our children. If a Minister of Education knew his or her stuff properly, rather than charge children to go into museums, he or she would pay them to do so.
  I remind the House that the cost of collecting this tax will be immense. The Under-Secretary of State keeps on saying that it is not a tax, but of course it is. It is a tax in exactly the same way as entertainment duty was a tax. People going to theatres, concerts and the like had at one time to pay an entertainment tax of a certain amount. In just the same way, visitors to museums and galleries will have to pay the entrance tax before going in.
  As I say, the cost of collection will be immense. The average cost of all our museums and galleries together amounts to 16 per cent. of their total income. In the case of the Maritime Museum it will be 32 per cent., and in the case of the Wallace Museum 33 per cent.
  I want to say just a word about Lord Eccles and his relationship to this proposal. It is one of the most remarkable features of the Bill that it was brought in by Lord Eccles. He was chairman of the British Museum Trustees for a long time, and a very able and effective chairman he was. When he was chairman he made a statement—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That the Museums and Galleries Admission Charges Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with
  390
  at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Gray.]
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Mr. Strauss: Lord Eccles made a statement in which he said he was opposed to charging visitors to the British Museum to go in. When the Government tried to override decisions of the trustees, Lord Eccles became very angry. He fought the Government—it was the last Government—and said the trustees would not put up with that, that they must exercise their own discretion over functions for which they were responsible and that they would not accept the Government's decisions. That was in connection with the development of the Bloomsbury site. He stood up for the right of the trustees to decide important matters themselves. I am certain that if Lord Eccles were still chairman of the trustees of the British Museum he would fight these proposals with passion.
  There is another reason why I find it strange that Lord Eccles should take this line. He is, as we all know, a lover of art and he is a connoisseur of art. He has, moreover, a very fine private collection of art in his own home which he is able to enjoy at leisure any time he likes, every day. He is a fortunate man in being able to do so. But it seems to me that it ill behoves someone in his privileged position to introduce a Bill which makes it difficult and often impossible for the poorer sections of the community to enjoy the beautiful pictures in the national museums and galleries and to sponsor a Measure which deprives them of a centuries-old right to do so. It is wrong that someone in his position, with that fine collection of art in his own home, should stop other people who are not so well off from enjoying art in the national museums and galleries.
  It is no use at this stage asking hon. Members on the Government side to turn the Bill down. I know that such an appeal would not be listened to. I believe that if at an earlier stage there had been a secret ballot of Conservative Members of the House, asking them "Would it not be wise to drop this unpopular Measure before too much damage is done to your party's public reputation?" there would have been an overwhelming answer of "Yes". It is too late now. The Government have insisted and have been

  391
  obstinate in the matter, and Lord Eccles or the Prime Minister has been too small minded to come to Parliament and say "We will withdraw the Bill". At the present moment I cannot hope to appeal to the House on that ground to vote the Measure down, though I would like to do so.
  All I can do, therefore, is to ask hon. Members who support the Bill tonight to bear certain things in mind. One is that the measures in the Bill are still today strenuously disliked by practically every trustee of every museum and gallery in the country and that the art world and the educational world are today in as much opposition to the Bill as they were when it was first introduced. Secondly, I would ask them to bear in mind that the Bill is erecting a very real barrier against access to our museums and galleries by the poorer sections of our community. Thirdly, I would ask them to bear in mind that it is violating the civilised tradition which we have had for many years of free access to our museums and galleries, a tradition which has been a source of pride at home and of respect and admiration abroad.
  One further thing I ask hon. Members opposite to bear in mind. The proposals in the Bill are diametrically opposed to the philosophy of the Labour Party. I am not in a position to pledge the next Labour Government, but hon. Members opposite know as well as I do that at the first opportunity that Government will repeal the Bill.
  10.5 p.m.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: We come to the end of a day-long discussion, and of many discussions before that, of this simple and short Bill, which, of course, has considerable ramifications beyond the wording strictly within it. I will do my best to deal with the principles that have been erected but it may be convenient if I do so with reasonable briskness.
  Dr. Tom Stuttaford: I hope my hon. Friend will not be too brisk, because many of us on this side are anxious to hear what he has to say so that we may know which way we are going to vote.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I am glad to know that, but it would have been helpful if such hon. Members, in addition to
  392
  the few who were here today, had been also present to hear the matter more fully discussed.
  There have been various references to principles. I will take first the three final points put by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). I still do not believe that anyone in the debate has identified the principle that really matters. I simply do not accept that a principle is involved in the charging for admission to our national museums and galleries. As the right hon. Gentleman has freely conceded, at times past in some of them charges have been made, and with a large number of the others the power to do so has been there by their enabling Acts, and when almost identically parallel galleries and museums in other parts of the country do charge, on this occasion I cannot see the matter of principle.
  I cannot see a matter of principle on the basis that there is something exceptional about the visual arts. We do not claim this principle with ballet, with music or with other arts. Yet we subsidise them heavily and many of us would like to do increasingly better. Indeed, that is happening through the media of the Arts Council and so on. But I cannot find some special principle in the selection of this particular form of art.
  Where I do find the principle is against the background of a massive expansion programme—and massive it not only is but is conceded to be by the Opposition. That principle is whether it is right that the entire weight of the expansion should be borne by the taxpayers or whether it is reasonable that a single small segment of it should be borne by those who enjoy the galleries and museums. That is the principle and on that basis it is reasonable to proceed as we have proceeded.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer), whose splendid speech we listened to with the closest of attention, except for the disaster at the end, that he represents a very large number of people in Louth who are taxpayers who have, regrettably, no more than an occasional ability to see these splendid collections. He also has a duty to them and not just to those like himself and like myself who enjoy these collections.
  I am asked whether there is not grave discourtesy to trustees in making a

  393
  request to them which it is felt carries something of the iron in the velvet glove. But who is talking when this accusation is made? Does the House not remember how the Labour Government, in an exactly parallel situation, worked? The financing of the universities is almost precisely the same in principle as the method by which the Treasury finances almost exclusively the trustees we are now talking of. The Labour Government made a precisely similar request in terms of the fees charged at universities. Quite understandably, since they were wholly dependent on Government finance, the university trustees agreed to it. There is no new principle involved here except that against the background of expansion, which is the key to the situation. If we cannot get these new galleries and cannot have the new buildings set out in the White Paper, to which great tribute has rightly been paid, if we cannot expand the physical facilities, we shall not be able to give people the opportunities they should have of enjoying the visual arts.
  Increasingly, the visual arts will be contributed to from abroad. I wonder how many hon. Members, for example, have enjoyed the incomparable richness of the neo-classical exhibitions at Burlington House and the Victoria and Albert Museum, and the delightful little one at Hampstead, where it is possible to see Mr. Hugh Leggatt's generous gift to the nation in very pleasant surroundings. In all three places, large numbers of people are paying.
  The right hon. Gentleman at an earlier stage reckoned that he would think that charging was all right for special exhibitions. I take the diametrically opposite view. I trust that we shall move to a state when, with the new arrangements, at special exhibitions, when incomparable art is brought together from all over Europe for the enjoyment of us all, large
  entrance charges will not be appropriate. How there is a hunger for it in the year of the Tutankhamen exhibition it is hardly necessary to say. That is the principle involved against a background of expansion.
  On the charging system itself, once again on behalf of the Government I have responded today in terms which have been generously welcomed. I am thinking of the special provisions for the disabled and so on. This is why a fair and responsive charging scheme makes a deal of sense against this background. That is why I commend the Bill to the House.
  10.13 p.m.
  Dr. Stuttaford Dr. Stuttaford rose—
  Hon. Members: No.
  Dr. Stuttaford: I was not called earlier, and there are one or two points I must take up with my hon. Friend. There is a great difference between the specialised exhibition and the constant exhibition. The paintings with which we are concerned were given to the nation to be looked at by the nation when people want to see them. It is as absurd to charge people to look at the paintings which belong to the nation and which hang regularly in museums as it would be to expect those who live in the richer households to pay to see their own paintings hanging in their own drawing rooms.
  This Bill has little support in the country, whether it be at the bottom or at the top of society. I have not been moved one inch from my original view by the speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 228.

  Division No. 339.]

  AYES

  [10.13 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Blaker, Peter

  Burden, F. A.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Body, Richard

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

  Astor, John

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Carlisle, Mark

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bowden, Andrew

  Channon, Paul

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Bray, Ronald

  Churchill, W. S.

  Balniel, Rt. Hon. Lord

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Clarke, Kennet (Rushcliffe)

  Benyon, W.

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Clegg, Walter

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

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

  Cockeram, Eric

  Biffen, John

  Buck, Antony

  Cooke, Robert

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Coombs, Derek

  Cooper, A. E.

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Costain, A. P.

  Kilfedder, James

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Crouch, David

  Kimball, Marcus

  Raison, Timothy

  Crowder, F. P.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

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

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Dean, Paul

  Kirk, Peter

  Redmond, Robert

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Dixon, Piers

  Knox, David

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

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

  Lambton, Lord

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Emery, Peter

  Lamont, Norman

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lane, David

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Farr, John

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Fell, Anthony

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Rost, Peter

  Fidler, Michael

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Royle, Anthony

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

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

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Fortescue, Tim

  Luce, R. N.

  Scott, Nicholas

  Foster, Sir John

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

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

  Fowler, Norman

  MacArthur, Ian

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

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

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Simeons, Charles

  Fry, Peter

  McLaren, Martin

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

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

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Maurice (Farnham)

  Soref, Harold

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Spence, John

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Sproat, Iain

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maddan, Martin

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Gorst, John

  Madel, David

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Gower, Raymond

  Maginnis, John E.

  Stokes, John

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Sutcliffe, John

  Green, Alan

  Marten, Neil

  Tapsell, Peter

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Grylls Michael

  Mawby, Ray

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Tebbit, Norman

  Gurden, Harold

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Temple, John M.

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Hall-Davis A. G. F.

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

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

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

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Money, Ernle

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Monro, Hector

  Trew, Peter

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Havers, Michael

  More, Jasper

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Hawkins, Paul

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Vaughan, Gerard

  Hicks, Robert

  Morrison, Charles

  Waddington, David

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Murton, Oscar

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Neave, Alrey

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Holland, Philip

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Warren, Kenneth

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Normanton, Tom

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Hordern, Peter

  Nott, John

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Hornby, Richard

  Onslow, Cranley

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Wilkinson, John

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Hunt, John

  Osborn, John

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  James, David

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Jenkins, Patrick (Woodford)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Jessel, Toby

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Jopling, Michael

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Mr. Marcus Fox and

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

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

  Mr. Hamish Gray.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Albu, Austen

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Booth, Albert

  Cohen, Stanley

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Bradley, Tom

  Concannon, J. D.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Conlan, Bernard

  Ashley, Jack

  Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)

  Corbel, Mrs. Freda

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Buchan, Norman

  Cronin, John

  Barnes, Michael

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

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Dalyell, Tam

  Baxter, William

  Campbell, . (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Beaney, Alan

  Cant, R. B.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Carmichael, Neil

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  396

  397

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

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

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Probert, Arthur

  Deakins, Eric

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Kelley, Richard

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Dempsey, James

  Lambie, David

  Richard, Ivor

  Doig, Peter

  Lamborn, Harry

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lamond, James

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Latham, Arthur

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

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lawson, George

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Driberg, Tom

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rose, Paul B.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Eadie, Alex

  Leonard, Dick

  Rowlands, Ted

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Sandelson, Neville

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Ellis, Tom

  Lipton, Marcus

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  English, Michael

  Lomas, Kenneth

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

  Evans, Fred

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Ewing, Harry

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Faulds, Andrew

  McBride, Neil

  Sillars, James

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McCartney. Hugh

  Silverman, Julius

  Foot, Michael

  McGuire, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ford, Ben

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Forrester, John

  Mackie, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Freeson, Reginald

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

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

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Marsden, F.

  Strang, Gavin

  Golding, John

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Gourley, Harry

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Meacher, Michael

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Swain, Thomas

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mendelson, John

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

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Milne, Edward

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

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

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

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Morgan, Elysian (Cardiganshire)

  Torney, Tom

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Moyle, Roland

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hardy, Peter

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Varley, Eric G.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Hattersley, Roy

  Oakes, Gordon

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

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Ogden, Eric

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Hilton, W. S.

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Wallace, George

  Hooson, Emlyn

  O'Malley, Brian

  Weitzman, David

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Orem, Bert

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Orme, Stanley

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Whitlock, William

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Paget, R. T.

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Hunter, Adam

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Janner, Greville

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Woof, Robert

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Pendry, Tom

  John, Brynmor

  Pentland, Norman

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Mr. James A. Dunn.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Prescott, John

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (ZAMBIA) ORDER
10.26 p.m.
The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. John Nott): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Zambia) Order 1972 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 8th August.
It gives me pleasure to bring before the House a new double taxation convention with Zambia. This convention will replace the agreement that was made in 1956 with the former Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and continued in force with Zambia after independence.
This new convention with Zambia follows the general pattern of our recent conventions, with which the House will be familiar, and I do not propose to take up the time of the House by going into a detailed summary of all the articles in the order.
I should, however, like to mention one point, and that is that this is probably the last convention to be negotiated and signed before the enactment of the corporation tax reforms in this year's Finance Act. My hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said during the debate on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill that in the next year or so the Inland Revenue would be renegotiating the material parts of existing conventions to fit the new imputation system of corporation tax. The relevant orders will come before the House in due course.
I hope that this new double taxation convention will meet with the approval of the House. If there are any particular points which any hon. Member wishes to raise I shall, with the leave of the House, do my best to answer him.
Question put and agreed to.

VALUE ADDED TAX
10.28 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): I beg to move,
That the Input Tax (Exceptions) (No. 1) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1165), dated 1st August 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th August, be approved.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I outline briefly the purpose and effect of the order. It is made under Section 3(6) of the Finance Act, 1972. It disallows the deduction of input tax by builders on certain articles incorporated as fixtures in dwelling accommodation in which they hold or own a major interest.
The order is necessary, as hon. Gentlemen opposite will realise, following the Finance Act, to maintain parity of treatment between articles installed as fixtures in speculative building and similar articles installed in buildings constructed to a client's order on land he owns himself and also articles bought by a householder subsequent to the purchase of a new house. The need for the order was explained at some length by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in Standing Committee on 24th May and in further detail by myself on Report on 11th July.
Schedule 4, Group 8, Item 2 of the Finance Act, 1972, zero-rates construction services, and Item 3 zero-rates the supply, in connection with such services, of articles of a kind ordinarily installed—and the House will recall that that is the crucial expression—by builders as fixtures. Items such as washing machines, television sets and fitted carpets are not ordinarily installed by builders and so are excluded from the zero rate if they are installed by a builder in a house which he builds for a client.
Items 1 of Group 8, however—which zero rates the granting of a major interest, by a person constructing a building, in the building or its site—does not impose any similar restriction on articles installed as fixtures. Therefore, without this order, a speculative builder would be able to supply at the zero rate anything which he was able or willing to install as a fixture, and there would then be an anomaly in the taxation of such articles, depending on whether the builder owned

401
the land on which he was building or not; and a serious loss of revenue could develop.
The order applies only to articles installed in domestic accommodation. As regards other buildings, the House will appreciate that the operation of the credit mechanism applies, and there is thus no tax incentive for a builder to install fitted carpets and so on in such a case.
The items which are regarded as ordinarily installed by builders as fixtures include bathroom fixtures, work units and cupboards in kitchens, central heating equipment and water heaters, and not things like washing machines, waste disposal units and cookers. We have issued Notice No. 708 on the Construction Industry, which illustrates the kind of thing which is in one category or the other.
These lists are intended to be regarded as illustrative and representing Customs' current interpretation of the law. It may be argued that one item or another ought to be in the opposite list. This does not strictly arise on the order. Such matters are, in the first place, within the discretion of the Customs, but, consistent with our overall Green Paper approach, we have discussed the matter with the main trade associations, and they will be kept under review. Any decision of Customs on the matter in an individual case is open to appeal to a VAT tribunal or a court. We envisage that, when a new ruling is given, we shall publish this by means of Press and public notices.
I hope that, with that explanation, the House will feel that this is consistent with the line which was taken during the Finance Bill debates, which, I think, was generally understood, and I hope that the order will be approved.
10.33 p.m.
Mr. Joel Barnett: We have heard this before. In effect, this is where we came in—or, rather, where we left off. The order demonstrates the failure to clarify how the system would work, and it emphasises the chaotic state of unpreparedness both in the Customs and Excise and in the Government, and among the traders who will have to operate the system.
The documents which are supposedly issued by the Customs and Excise in relation to this tax, as set out on page of Customs and Excise Notice No. 700,
402
so far as I have been able to ascertain, are not even all available. They are not available in the Vote Office. Of Nos. 700 to 711 of the guides, five were not available in the Vote Office yesterday. One of those five was available in the Library. They are certainly not all available in the various VAT offices throughout the country.
Where they are available, many of them—this order is one example—are utterly incomprehensible to the people who will have to deal with them. I take the example of the retailers who will have to deal with the four schemes. How are they to be able to cope with the so-called simple scheme 2? All I can say to the Financial Secretary is that he should go round and talk to some of the small retailers.
As for registration, it is early days yet, but the As to Cs are supposed to be registered by the end of October, and it would be interesting to know how many have yet registered, and how many are aware that, if they do not register, they will be liable to a fine of £1,000 and up to two years' imprisonment.
I know from personal experience that many small trades and industries are unaware of how VAT will affect them. I do not exaggerate when I say that there is a chaotic state of unpreparedness.
The order relates to the construction industry. The Minister of State said on 24th May that as much guidance as possible would be given. We know now what that amounts to. We have heard the exposition of the guidance by the Financial Secretary and we have the guide for the construction industry. This is what the trade will have to use in the operation of this broad-based, comprehensive, anomaly-free tax, to use the language we heard so often from the Financial Secretary. I do not know whether it means anything, but I noticed that tonight the Financial Secretary did not tell us once more that this was a broad-based, comprehensive, anomaly-free tax. I do not know whether that means that the hon. Gentleman, too, has recognised what we told him repeatedly throughout the debates we had on the Floor of the House and in Standing Committee.
From the guide and from what the Financial Secretary said this evening, the

403
trade will know little more than we had in Committee and on Report. Yet houses are being built now that will be sold after 1st April, 1973, and builders will not know for certain which of those items will be subject to VAT and which will not. This will be in effect a marvellous excuse for builders to do what many of them are, unfortunately, doing today, namely, increasing the price from that first quoted. The gazumping going on in the building trade now by builders and others will be given a boost by VAT.
We are left with the basic problem from this industry under VAT, namely, what is "ordinarily installed" and what are luxury fittings? In the debate on 11th July the Financial Secretary gave us some examples. He spoke of washing machines, television sets, carpets, cookers, and a few more which are now referred to in the guide.
I will give a few examples of what I mean when I say that we are not much further advanced with the guide or with the Financial Secretary's exposition. We are told that carpets are to be disallowed as an input but tiles are to be allowed. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), who is experienced in the building industry, told the Minister at the time that we debated this matter on Report, in a phrase which the Minister will no doubt recall, that there would be a "hubble dubble" in this industry. I have no doubt that after this explanation there will be a hubble dubble.
How will builders distinguish between carpets and the sort of tiles which are frequently fitted in the building industry? We are then told that bedroom furniture is to be disallowed. What about cupboards? That will be an interesting situation. Cupboards are allowed. When a cupboard is a piece of bedroom furniture will be an interesting problem for the building industry to decide. Kitchen furniture, on the other hand, whether it be a cupboard or anything else, is apparently to be allowed. Baths are to be allowed. What about fancy baths? What about a black bath as opposed to a pink one? Is that "ordinarily installed"? What about the round baths which I understand are now being installed? I am sure that the hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner) is
404
very concerned with that type of bath. I understand that refrigerators and cookers are to be disallowed, even though many are, and will be in future, fitted with the kitchen.
Sinks are to be allowed, but waste disposal units which are being more and more frequently fitted with sinks, are not to be allowed. I do not know how the builder will sort that out. A garden shed and summerhouse is disallowed, while a garage is allowed. There will be some interesting distinctions between garden sheds and garages when builders are constructing houses in future.
On the general question of "ordinarily installed" there is a considerable difference between what is ordinarily installed in a house costing £4,000—there are still a few of those in my area, but none in the South—and one costing £40,000. There is a considerable difference in the type of fittings ordinarily installed in those different types of houses. I would be interested to know how it is suggested that the building industry will decide on a distinction.
I recall that the Financial Secretary said in our last debate that this great tax would at least remove the bad purchase tax line-drawing in furniture. If he believed that I hope by now he is disillusioned. All this simply emphasises more than ever the need for much more time for the Government, traders and the public to prepare for the massive upheaval there will be with the introduction of this tax. Apart from anything else, a time of rapidly increasing inflation—when it is as the Prime Minister constantly tells us, the major problem of the day—is, I would have thought, precisely the time to do nothing to make the problem worse.
No one can doubt that VAT will increase the inflationary spiral. There is a tremendous case for postponing VAT altogether. Even at this late stage I appeal to the Chancellor to give serious consideration to delaying the introduction of VAT for at least a year.
Mr. Higgins: By leave of the House, may I reply to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett).
The first point to be made is that it would not be to anyone's advantage to create uncertainty at this stage by delaying the introduction of VAT. We have

405
made the timetable clear. We have taken into account throughout the views expressed to us, and it is true to say that this tax had had more careful preparation before introduction than any other in this country.
As to the general position of trade, I have met a large number of businessmen who are concerned with the introduction of the tax and they did not reflect the kind of view which the hon. Gentleman, perhaps in rhetorical phrases, has put forward. If it is the case that in a particular instance the information required is not available at the appropriate moment then I hope hon. Members will bring these cases to my attention and I will certainly look into them. It is true that the explanatory literature is long, but it is also true that if the matters are spelled out at length it facilitates understanding of the tax where a short explanation might have the opposite effect.
If particular people have questions about certain items, it is open to them to go to the local office of Customs and Excise, which will be glad to give any help it can. That is the general approach we have adopted, and it is one which has been generally appreciated by traders. This has taken me a little wide and I do not want to go out of order. It is right to stress that we have carried out consultations with the trade and trade associations particularly concerned in the area covered by the order. Their views are reflected in the position which I outlined in my opening remarks. The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton made considerable play, as he did during the Finance Bill debates, with the expression "ordinarily installed" and asked precisely what it meant. It is right to stress that the words
"builders' hardware, sanitary ware and other articles of a kind ordinarily installed by builders as fixtures"
are taken from purchase tax law. They have been judicially considered. There is a body of case law and administrative decisions which are likely to be helpful in this matter. As the hon. Gentleman and the House will know, we have not felt it inappropriate, where there are purchase tax precedents and where matters have already been judicially considered, to ensure that they can still be the basis
406
for interpretation either by the VAT tribunal or the courts.
We have indicated in Notice 708 a broad classification, but if there is any doubt on a particular instance, the Customs and Excise will be glad to clarify the position, if a query is raised with it, or the matter can go to appeal. There is a distinction between individual cases which is brought out in paragraph 5 of Notice 708, which excludes bought-in articles of furniture other than those specified in paragraph 4. There is a distinction between bought-in furniture if it is installed as a fixture and the airing cupboards and other cupboards which the builder would make himself.
I do not accept that there is likely to be a massive upheaval. That is not the impression which I have gained from talking to traders. However, we will look into any cases which hon. Members would like to bring to our attention.
We are not complacent. It would be remarkable if in introducing a new tax there were not instances where communications were not as good as they should be. I shall be happy to look into any instances where that is so and deal with them as rapidly as possible to ensure that the situation is clarified. For those reasons, I hope that the House will feel able to approve the order.
10.48 p.m.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Financial Secretary is right in saying that the local officers of Customs and Excise have been helpful. Certainly that applies in the area which I know and I am sure that it applies throughout the country. However, the Financial Secretary is far less right in suggesting that there is no uncertainty. There is still a great deal of uncertainty judging by correspondence which I have received. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) has an argument when he suggests that there is uncertainty.
I should like to know to what sort of business men the Financial Secretary was talking. I suspect the truth is that a good job has been done by the big business men at the centre of things, but it is a different story with small traders who are dependent on their trading associations. The fault may lie in poor communications between such traders and

407
the professional and trading associations to which they belong. Some of the trading associations have not distinguished themselves by the help that they have given to their members. That is by the by. The fact is that there is a great deal of uncertainty amongst small traders.
I have formed the impression that the big builders have arranged matters rather better than some of us thought likely during the passage of the Finance Bill. I know very well what the medium and smaller firms are doing—they do not have any kind of idea of what costs there are and they are therefore thinking of the maximum charge that can possibly accrue to them, and therefore prices are rocketing because of the uncertainty.
Brought-in fitments have been mentioned. The truth is that the picture is not as the Financial Secretary sees it, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton sees it. I cannot think that the Scots are very different from anybody else and I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is considerable lack of understanding about what is to be disallowed and what allowed. For the Treasury to say that everything is taped is, I will not say complacent, but an optimistic attitude and wide of the mark.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved
That the Input Tax (Exceptions) (No. 1) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1165), dated 1st August 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th August, be approved.

VALUE ADDED TAX
10.51 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): I beg to move
That the Input Tax (Exceptions) (No. 3) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1167), dated 1st August 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th August, be approved.
It may be appropriate if again I say a few words about the Motion and then answer any questions that hon. Members may put. I should like to clarify what was said a few moments ago. What I said about uncertainty was related to the suggestion that the Government should delay the introduction of the tax. The Government's timetable has been set out
408
clearly and we see no reason for not going through on schedule.
This order is particularly concerned with a number of matters that we discussed in the Finance Bill debates. The normal way in which VAT works is that a taxable person may under the operation of the credit mechanism take credit for the tax invoiced to him on the goods and services that he purchases for the purpose of his business. But all countries with a VAT have found it necessary to restrict this right to claim credit for tax in the case of certain goods and services, particularly those likely to be used for both business and private purposes. In such cases there is scope for inequity between individuals and for tax avoidance.
The order provides that the tax on goods and services supplied to a taxable person and used by him for the purposes of business entertainment—other than that provided for overseas customers—shall not be deductible as input tax. The intention to make the order was announced in the White Paper on VAT Cmnd. 4929, at the time of the last Budget.
"Business entertainment" covers entertainment and hospitality of any kind provided by the taxable person or a member of his staff. It includes not only the provision of meals, drinks and so on, but accommodation, entertainment at theatres and so on. The scope of the order is similar to that of the provisions under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act. 1970, which withholds income and corporation tax relief from business entertainment expenses. The wording of the tax provisions is not identical, however, as the bases of the taxes vary, VAT being a tax on consumer expenditure and income and corporation taxes being taxes on income and profits.
We believe that the order implements the proposals that we put forward in the White Paper and subsequent financial debates. I believe that it is well understood by the House, but if there are any matters that hon. Members would like me to explain, I will certainly attempt to do so.
10.55 p.m.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In paragraph 2, sub paragraph (3) we have this fascinating phrase: "hospitality of any kind". I was just a little curious

409
to know why the Treasury should add words which may be considered gratuitous: "of any kind". Why not just say "hospitality"?
It is a bit of a give away. Here we are in the middle of the week of the Chequers talks, arguing about £2 a week extra. I shall not try to expand this—it would be out of order—into a whole economic debate, but I would say to the Financial Secretary that there is a bit of a contrast between the stringent talks which may be necessary at the economic summit this week and this idea of "hospitality of any kind" because it stretches things a bit far.
I am all for theatres, and we have had arguments before about the need for help for theatres, but it sticks in the craw a bit that theatre-going should be included in this kind of arrangement. There is an almost bottomless pit.
10.56 p.m.
Mr. Joel Barnett: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) did not feel that he should go on and give us some more examples of the kind of hospitality he thought might be envisaged. As I understand it, the type of hospitality to which he is taking exception would be disallowed as an input. Some of the types of hospitality for overseas customers could include a type of hospitality to which my hon. Friend might take exception. I have no doubt that some hospitality is given to overseas customers which, knowing my hon. Friend's frugal habits, he would take exception to.
One accepts the need to disallow as input this type of expenditure and I note that it has been done by drafting which, as far as I can see, is broadly in the same language as Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1965. I recall those 1965 debates with great interest, because the wording of that Section was objected to very strongly by hon. Members opposite when we sought to disallow entertainment expenses as business expenses, but I note that they have lifted words directly from Section 15 for the purposes of the Finance Act, 1972, although it seems not quite the case with Section 15(8), which is rather more specific. That refers to gifts. "Gift" was classed as enter-
410
tainment in that sense and we do not seem to have that now.
We have all sorts of other definitions of business entertainment, and my hon. Friend will be interested to know that hunting, shooting, fishing and golf are also incorporated. It is thus possible to take an overseas customer on a yachting trip, or a hunting, shooting and fishing trip, and this would presumably be hospitality, but I am not sure why this part of Section 15 relating to gifts has not been incorporated.
I have also noted that in the words of paragraph 3 of the order, taken from the Finance Act, 1965, we are told that unless
"the entertainment is provided for an overseas customer of his and is of a kind and on a scale which is reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances."
I do not know what experience the Financial Secretary has had of defining "reasonable" or of the difficulties, the Inland Revenue has had of defining "reasonable". For example, would it be considered reasonable to take an overseas customer to a strip club or to the Bunny Club, and to pay out large sums of money to entertain him? Many overseas customers like to be entertained rather lavishly. An Arab sheik would probably want something which by any definition most people would consider unreasonable. It would be interesting to know from the Financial Secretary what he understands to be the meaning of
"reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances.".
There is one anomaly with which I would like him to deal. If a business man travels from Manchester to London and eats a meal with an overseas customer, the cost will be allowed. If he eats the meal with a home trade customer, the cost of the meal both for the customer and for himself will be disallowed. But if he eats the meal on his own before going to see the customer I understand that the cost will be allowed, both for Inland Revenue purposes and as an input, because that is the same as the Inland Revenue rule. But if he can eat on his own and it is an allowable input, what about when he eats with a fellow director to discuss the company's business? Will that be an allowable input for the purposes of VAT, or will it be disallowed because it is disallowed as a benefit for Inland Revenue purposes?

411
We and industry are entitled to clarification. I am sure that the Financial Secretary is, as ever, ready to clarify the whole matter for us.
11.2 p.m.
Mr. Higgins: In the speech of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) we went from rhetoric to reversal, in that he had the whole thing back to front. I can well understand that he might have objected if we had not introduced the order, in the context of the tripartite talks, saying that we would not disallow input tax on business entertainment, but the fact is that we have done so. Therefore, I would have thought that he would support the order.
Similarly, I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the clearly comprehensive expression
"hospitality of any kind"
as against just "hospitality", which he might have thought was too narrow or not all-embracing. Therefore, his arguments did not bring the hon. Gentleman to the conclusion which he seemed to think. They supported both the order and the wording.
I was a little worried about the origin of the wording. I understand that the expression
"hospitality of any kind"
comes from the Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970, but, as the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) rightly pointed out, it was based on the proposals of the Labour Chancellor in 1965. I am not sure that that is a pedigree with which I find myself in sympathy, but it seems to have proved over the years to have been not inappropriate, and it seemed to us reasonable to use the same expression. There are some slight differences between the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise position, because of the differing nature of the two taxes.
The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton raised some questions with regard to gifts. I am now basing my remarks on my understanding of the tax and of our debates in Standing Committee, where he will find that these matters were discussed at some length. For example, he will recall that gifts of under £10 in value are free from VAT under
412
Schedule 3 of the Finance Act, and it cannot be effected by Statutory Instrument. If I am not correct in that, I will write to him and make the position clear.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke of the definition of "business entertainment". It is quite true, as he said, that that includes the provision not only of meals but also of drinks, accommodation, entertainment at the theatre, night clubs, and so on; and also recreational facilities such as hunting, fishing, shooting, golf, yachting, and the like. This, again, follows the provisions of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the position with regard to the entertainment of business clients from overseas and visiting this country, and those in the country. The Inland Revenue position is that entertainment of overseas clients is allowable—and a similar position would appertain here—but that it would be disallowed in the case of domestic clients. The position of the person entertaining a particular client conforms to that provision.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the position of particular employees travelling to meet clients in one category or the other. Again I speak from my own understanding of the position and not with advice, but as I understand it, that will in the normal course of events be a business expense if the person is going about his ordinary business. But one would need to look at the facts of the case. The matter has no doubt been considered in the Inland Revenue context and it would probably be appropriate that the same rules should apply. Again, if I am not correct in that, I will let the hon. Gentleman know.
The temper of the debate on this order has been somewhat less exotic than that on the previous order, and I gather from what the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton said—and, indeed, from what the hon. Member for West Lothian said, although perhaps it was not what he sought to argue—that the two hon. Members are not unsympathetic to the order. I therefore hope that they and the House will feel able to approve it.
I might just added that, in page 35, General Guide No. 700 makes some remarks about gifts and free samples.

413
which are not totally irrelevant to what the hon. Gentleman said.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Input Tax (Exceptions) (No. 3) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1167), dated 1st August 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th August, be approved.

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

FORESTRY
11.8 p.m.
Mr. Edward Milne: The previous Adjournment debate on the subject of forestry took place on 5th June, 1972, and a great deal of that discussion centred on the forthcoming review of our forestry areas. At that time we were discussing the siting of a pulp mill in the north-east of England, and we were told by the Parliamentary Secretary that, amongst other things, the timber requirements were the major obstacle to that pulp mill project going ahead. We expressed puzzlement at what we then described as the casual and detached attitude of the Forestry Commission towards a job-hungry area.
The firm, as the Parliamentary Secretary will recollect, was promised some years ago that its timber requirements would be met in something like five years' time. Despite, as the Parliamentary Secretary said in the Adjournment debate in June, the fact that this particular proposal of the pulp mill had been in view for some nine or ten years in one form or another, little or nothing was done about the matter. When we read the policy report, when we analyse some of its findings, I find there was no timber available for this project.
We are entitled to ask, where had it gone? To whom, or to what firm, was it given or promised?
The quantities of timber which the pulp mill apparently needs, said the Parliamentary Secretary, could be met only at the expense of supplies to existing industries. As he rightly pointed out on that occasion, this would possibly
414
not result in any net gain in employment. This, of course we accept. It has never been the policy of any person or body connected with the responsibility of job attraction in the North-East to operate to the detriment of other development areas of Britain, but the needs and demands of the Northern area, we submit, have claim to at least equal consideration with those of other areas of high unemployment.
Therefore, in dealing in this debate with the economic and industrial implications of the Government's forestry policy, I think we are entitled to ask, what was going on at the Forestry Commission in the period being discussed, that is, the period of the last 10 years? Who was making the decisions? Who was determining the use made of the Commission's resources? How did the allocation of timber fit in with the development policy of successive Governments in that period? And what was the number of jobs provided?
It is obviously going to need more than one debate to sort out the answers to these queries. It will need more than a number of assurances from the Parliamentary Secretary on this matter. I am glad that the Minister himself is present. The answer must come finally from the Minister himself if any credence is to be given to the present document on forestry policy. Not only should it come from the Minister, but it should come quickly.
As the Minister, along with the Secretary of State for Scotland and Secretary of State for Wales, said in the foreword to the document published in June:
"It is over 50 years since a national forestry policy took shape in this country and nearly 30 years since it was publicly reviewed as a whole. We hope to establish conditions in which in the years ahead the forestry industry can continue to play an effective role in the life of the nation."
In the previous debate the Parliamentary Secretary said there was no advantage in robbing Peter of his job in one development area to give it to Paul in the same or other development area. This sentiment we applaud. So that the Minister must tell us, arising from the review in question, is why was this done in the case of the particular project referred to, and why was the promise of timber supplies in five years' time not fulfilled?

415
The most disturbing aspect of the consultative document setting out the results of the Government's review of forestry policy was the manner in which the Minister chose to announce its publication.
In answer to what had every appearance of being a "planted" Question, or at least a Question dragged in to serve that purpose, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food devoted 1½ HANSARD columns to giving the details. There were no supplementary questions and no debate. The Minister rightly underlined the importance placed in the report by the Government when he said:
"These documents examine in some depth both the economic and social costs and benefits of forestry for the nation and for the rural communities most affected by it. Apart from their immediate relevance to forestry, the Government see these documents as an important contribution to further studies of the economy of rural areas and of some of the problems, notably depopulation, which they can present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1972; Vol. 839, c. 365.]
There was no mention, of course in that reasonably brief answer to a Written Question, of jobs in the adjoining industrial areas, which in many ways ought to be the kernel of this policy.
1 hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will convey my suggestion to his colleagues that the Minister for Industrial Development, who arrived at his post with a flourish of trumpets and a highly publicised past, should now start trying to justify himself to the development areas by getting the Cabinet to look at this aspect of the report.
In considering the economic aspects of forestry review, it has to be pointed out that the benefits of a progressive forestry policy would not only be felt in the rural areas or the development districts but that the country as a whole would benefit.
I do not need to tell the hon. Gentleman of the percentage of home-grown timber used in Britain. Nor do I need to point out the effect on our balance of payments. The import of timber puts a considerable strain on it, to the extent of something like £740 million a year. Indeed, it is among the four biggest items in the nation's import bill. Despite what "Forestry Policy" says, and despite our own efforts, we would
416
still have to import about 80 per cent. of our timber requirements by the end of the century.
Despite the call for consultation in the forestry review, the Government propose at this stage to stabilise planting at 55,100 acres a year as against 50,000 in 1970–71—little or no difference at all to the timber growing areas of Britain. As The Scotsman, in an editorial on 29th June, said,
"It is a pity that forestry ambitions have been curtailed. A more vigorous policy of expansion of the growth timber-using industries of which we have some notable examples would make a big contribution to the economy."
The Association of Forestry Co-operatives of Great Britain was far more trenchant in its criticism. It said that it would ask the Government to withdraw what it called the
"… confused and negative publication Forestry in Britain …"
The Timber Trades Journal reported that the Association would suggest to the Government that
"… a new 'Forestry in Britain' is prepared based on the reports of the two international conferences held in Helsinki and Stockholm in May and June, the first of which dealt with international forestry and the second with the world's environment."
There is too little time in the debate to go into detail, but a statement issued by the Association complains that the study
"… concludes that Britain can afford to remain at the bottom of Europe's forest resource table."
It reaches this conclusion, the statement goes on,
"by ignoring the two major economic influences affecting the future patterns of supply and demand of all raw materials, including wood, …"
It goes on to deal in some detail with the entire problem facing the Government in dealing with the question of forestry in Britain.
I do not at this stage wish to deal with the implications for forestry policy of entry into the EEC, except to make some slight point on the observations in the document to which I have referred. There is no common forestry policy in the EEC, as the document rightly says, and it does on:
"Should it be decided to initiate a common forestry policy at some future date, we shall of course play a full part in its formulation and development."

417
If we are to take this attitude in relation to future forestry policy, whether inside or outside the EEC, why not now and why not a policy of our own? Surely we are not intending to hang on to the coat tails of Europe, hoping that something will emerge that we can tag on to in future.
I want briefly to touch on references to the recreational potential of State forests and what the review calls the "interests of amenity". I feel that the Forestry Commission in the past has been too timid in this aspect of policy. While it has chalked up some successes in the recreational aspect of its work, the impression has been created, particularly in parts of Northumberland, Durham and the Kielder Forest, that the interests of local landowners have been at the top of priority lists rather than the extension of opportunities to greater numbers of people to enjoy the countryside.
There is no real conflict between the extension of timber-growing areas and recreational facilities. Indeed the two could and should march hand in hand, and we have not tapped the potential in terms of the expansion of recreational facilities in forestry areas of Britain.
Professor Richardson, University of Wales, stressed at the British Association in 1970 that recreational facilities should be provided in forests far beyond car parks and camp sites which are being provided at the present time. There is not time now to go into the fascinating lecture given by the professor, but he talked about the provision of hotels, restaurants, museums, zoos, game parks, marinas and a host of other things. Certainly in a country that is fast moving into the leisure age, when limitation on hours of work and extended leisure time are subjects which are being discussed, these are priority matters in any discussion of forestry policy.
If we look at examples in Denmark, Sweden and Norway—for example, Skansen in Stockholm, Maihaugen in Norway and the interesting developments in the forests of Jaegersborg on the outskirts of Copenhagen—we get some idea of what other countries are able to do, and countries whose resources in this respect are possibly considerably less than ours. At Jaegersborg the State Forest Service maintains a deer park, two hotels, six
418
camp sites, restaurants, a golf course, a racecourse, an old people's home, and so on.
Bearing in mind earlier discussions we had on entertainment, it might be that some of the things that Denmark provides would not be what this country would want to provide. Nevertheless, it is a prospect that ought to be receiving consideration.
So, in asking for some action to be taken on the basis of the report which is presented, I do not consider that the report necessarily reflects the aspects which ought to be taken up and gone into. However, I welcome the Minister's offer of consultation with all sections of the community on this matter in order that we can make these documents—the first review in 10 years—a jumping off point to give us a vigorous forestry policy, to give us the recreational facilities that we have mentioned, and, above all, to give to the development districts of Britain the job opportunities which forestry presents to them.
11.27 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Mills): I welcome this opportunity to discuss forestry and the Government's consultative document. The consultative document on forestry policy represents the first attempt by any Government to set down the pros and cons of the subject for public discussion.
The hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) has made one or two criticisms. He said that nothing has been done for 10 years. However, I should politely remind him that for six of those 10 years when no review took place we had a Socialist Government. The Government are looking at this matter for the first time for a very long time, so credit should be given for that.
The hon. Gentleman criticised the method of presentation. I do not accept that criticism. At least we are doing something. Something is being presented which was not done in years gone by.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned amenity—rightly so—the Stockholm Conference, and so on. Here, again for the first time, the Government are looking at this matter with some views on amenity.

419
The hon. Gentleman spoke about recreation—rightly so. If he looks at Forestry Policy, paragraph 21, he will see that we talk about recreation. Indeed, this is a consultative document. This is a time for looking at the whole future of forestry. In these discussions people will mention the EEC, just as the hon. Gentleman did. Therefore, I think he should give credit to the Government for taking the matter seriously, for consulting people, and, after 25 years, for looking at it, while the Socialist Government virtually did nothing about it at all.
I welcome the opportunity and the initiative that the hon. Gentleman has taken in mounting this debate, particularly on some aspects of it. Admittedly, it might be a little premature—I do not wish to appear rude when I say it is premature—when one has in mind that all the views which the Ministers responsible for forestry have invited from the organisations interested in forestry have not yet been received, or have not yet been received in a fully considered and final form. The Ministers concerned have therefore not yet had a chance to look at the whole range of opinion on this subject, as they will clearly wish to do before coming to any final conclusions. I believe it is important that we should wait until we have all these views. They should be looked at carefully before we reach any final conclusions. We have already had useful discussions, and I am sure that these will continue.
Indeed, to a great extent the answers to the hon. Gentleman already lie in the views which the Government have at this stage expressed in the consultative document or in the supporting cost-benefit study which was carried out by a team of economists drawn from the Government Departments concerned. In the latter context, we are aware that a great deal of criticism has been directed against the cost-benefit study; but it must be remembered that we made it abundantly clear that the study did not provide the sole evidence on which we put forward our views for discussion. Indeed, the consultative document says that it should not, and has not, dictated the policy conclusions reached. That is important.
420
Parts of the study are controversial, but the Government will be ready to consider any reasoned criticisms of it which may be advanced. Of course there will be differences of opinion. That is inevitable, bearing in mind that any economic appraisal of the value of planting trees means making assumptions about conditions nearly half a century ahead. This is another problem of forestry, with its very long time scale, and it does not make useful forward economic thinking any easier.
The cost benefit study was intended to illustrate the problems for the Ministers concerned and, despite all the difficulties, it has done a useful job in this respect. At least people are talking. At least people are thinking about it. Certainly other cost benefits are being brought into the picture and a study is being made of them. This is true, and this is perhaps the main purpose of the exercise—to get people to look at this industry and see where it is going.
I come to the question of import saving. As part of the economic argument it is sometimes claimed that a major increase in afforestation would be justified in terms of import saving, but here again the time scale of forestry must come into the reckoning. It is a very long time scale, and it seems to me that it is difficult to justify afforestation purely from an import-saving angle.
There is another point, and that is supplies for industry. This is something about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned, particularly the pulp factory in his constituency. From the point of view of supplies for industry, we again have to bear in mind the forestry facts as they really are. Trees planted today cannot realistically be regarded as a source of supply to wood-using industries for at least 25 years, and then only in the form of early thinnings. That is to say, it would be unrealistic to embark on a large programme of tree planting in the interests of new and immediate investment in manufacturing enterprises based on the use of home-grown timber.
None the less, the Government do not underestimate the assurance of continuing supplies in the longer term which existing industries can derive from the

421
continuation of planting on an appreciable scale. In the knowledge that planting is to continue these established industries can look ahead with more confidence to expansion in the long term; and no doubt in the same long term there will be scope for new industries to take advantage of the increased supplies of home-grown timber that will be available.
I do not think that there is much point in going into the problems and difficulties of, and indeed, the views of the hon. Gentleman on the proposed pulp factory in his constituency. We have looked at this very carefully, and we believe that it would be wrong to mislead people, to raise hopes too much, because we still do not think that there are the necessary supplies of timber. In fact, the estimates are just not realistic, and I believe that that is a key point. The hon. Gentleman may laugh about my robbing Peter to pay Paul. It would be very sad to do that and to raise hopes about employment when, in the long run, we could not provide the raw materials. It would be unfair to raise such hopes, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the point and accept it.
Creating employment is simply a question of striking the right balance between all the factors which have to be taken into account in framing future programmes of afforestation. A factor which has counted most strongly with the Government has been the value of afforestation in creating and maintaining stable employment in the more remote rural areas which are subject to depopulation. Neither the economic return from afforestation nor deferred import saving could in itself be decisive. On the other hand, weight can well be attached to the long-term prospect of continuing and increasing supplies of home-grown timber to industry.
422
In proposing a planting programme of 50,000 acres a year for the Forestry Commission, including restocking, we think we have struck something like the right balance. Again, this is the first time that a Government have looked at the position in this way in dealing with the problem of depopulation.
I think all would surely agree that afforestation clearly cannot be subsidised regardless of other claims on our resources. It is right to look at it, but at the same time we certainly do not intend it to languish. In the Government's view, the proposals in the consultative document are designed to provide a reasonable amount of afforestation and to reflect the contribution that it can make to the rural economy and the rural landscape, which I believe is very important. We think that a contribution on this sort of scale is in the national interest at the present time. In any event, whatever decisions may be reached in the light of our consultative document, we have proposed that the commission's planting and replanting programme should be reviewed every three years. There will thus be an opportunity for us to consider from time to time whether the objectives are being fulfilled.
Once again, therefore, I welcome the initiative of the hon. Member for Blyth in having this debate so that we can discuss these things and one can make plain what the Government are trying to do. I hope that what I said will go a long way to show clearly that the document is a consultative document. We await the views of all interested parties and then the Government can make up their mind, which will be in the interests not only of forestry but of amenity values and depopulation problems. I believe that this is right.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Twelve o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT
  Operation Eyesore
  Operation Eyesore
  Publicly-owned Land (Disposal)
  Publicly-owned Land (Disposal)
  Historic Churches (Demolition Control)
  Historic Churches (Demolition Control)
  Housing (Outer London)
  Housing (Outer London)
  Rent Increases (Exemption Applications)
  Rent Increases (Exemption Applications)
  Housing (Ugandan Asians)
  Housing (Ugandan Asians)
  Successor Parish Councils
  Successor Parish Councils
  Railways (Structure)
  Railways (Structure)
  Railways (West Country Services)
  Railways (West Country Services)
  Housing Land, Manchester
  Housing Land, Manchester
  Pre-Driving Education
  Pre-Driving Education
  Motorways (London-Dorset)
  Motorways (London-Dorset)
  Housing Finance Act (Advertisements)
  Housing Finance Act (Advertisements)
  Road Signs and Markings (Standardisation)
  Road Signs and Markings (Standardisation)
  Roads (Beverley and Hull)
  Roads (Beverley and Hull)
  Housing Commissioners
  Housing Commissioners
  Rent Scrutiny Board, Birmingham
  Rent Scrutiny Board, Birmingham
  Luton Airport (Public Inquiry)
  Luton Airport (Public Inquiry)
  Council Housing
  Council Housing
  Local Authority Members (Facilities)
  Local Authority Members (Facilities)
  London Transport (Exchequer Contributions)
  London Transport (Exchequer Contributions)
  Office Rents (London)
  Office Rents (London)
  Urban Land
  Urban Land
  Anti-Pollution Research
  Anti-Pollution Research
  Lorries (Dangerous Loads)
  Lorries (Dangerous Loads)
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Planning Applications (Notification)
  Planning Applications (Notification)
  Land Speculation
  Land Speculation
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Local Authority Structure (Baines Report)
  Local Authority Structure (Baines Report)
  Library Services
  Library Services
  Motor Vehicles (Exhaust Emission)
  Motor Vehicles (Exhaust Emission)
  M6 (Congestion)
  M6 (Congestion)
  Sports and Charities (Value Added Tax)
  Sports and Charities (Value Added Tax)
  Dangerous Materials (Vehicle Labelling)
  Dangerous Materials (Vehicle Labelling)
  Local Authorities (Transfer of Costs)
  Local Authorities (Transfer of Costs)
  Housing Finance Act (Surcharges)
  Housing Finance Act (Surcharges)
  Regional Water Authorities (Local Authority Representation)
  Regional Water Authorities (Local Authority Representation)
  Lorries (Load Inspections)
  Lorries (Load Inspections)
  Advisory Committee on Rent Rebates and Rent Allowances
  Advisory Committee on Rent Rebates and Rent Allowances
  Hypermarkets
  Hypermarkets
  Hull Docks
  Hull Docks
  Rural Transport
  Rural Transport
SCOTLAND
  Mr. W. G. Pottinger
  Mr. W. G. Pottinger
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Welfare Benefits (Fisher Report)
  Welfare Benefits (Fisher Report)
  Acrylamide Poisoning
  Acrylamide Poisoning
  Single Parent Families (Report)
  Single Parent Families (Report)
  Mary Bell
  Mary Bell
  Hospital Registrars
  Hospital Registrars
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  English Tourist Board
  English Tourist Board
  Recycling Techniques
  Recycling Techniques
  Lulsgate Aerodrome (Night Flying)
  Lulsgate Aerodrome (Night Flying)
  Electricity (Resale Prices)
  Electricity (Resale Prices)
  Companies (European Subsidiaries)
  Companies (European Subsidiaries)
  Timber Imports (Cost)
  Timber Imports (Cost)
  Advance Factories (Employment)
  Advance Factories (Employment)
DEFENCE
  Industrial Civil Servants (Pay Dispute)
  Industrial Civil Servants (Pay Dispute)
  LIBRARY SERVICES
  LIBRARY SERVICES
CIVIL SERVICE
  Industrial Civil Servants (Pay Claim)
  Industrial Civil Servants (Pay Claim)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Forestry Dedication Schemes
  Forestry Dedication Schemes
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Uganda (Stateless Asians)
  Uganda (Stateless Asians)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Library Services
  Library Services
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Coins (Fraudulent Use)
  Coins (Fraudulent Use)
  Unaccompanied Child Travellers
  Unaccompanied Child Travellers
  Motor Vehicles (Smoke Emission Prosecutions)
  Motor Vehicles (Smoke Emission Prosecutions)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax Codings
  Income Tax Codings
  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Child Allowances
  Child Allowances
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Tax Credit System (Computers)
  Tax Credit System (Computers)
  Shares (Restrictions)
  Shares (Restrictions)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Building Societies (Guarantees)
  Building Societies (Guarantees)
WALES
  Water Supplies (Pollution)
  Water Supplies (Pollution)
  M4 Route
  M4 Route
  Nocturnal Motor Rallies
  Nocturnal Motor Rallies
  Housing Improvement Grants
  Housing Improvement Grants
  Housing (Expenditure)
  Housing (Expenditure)
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

SOUTH AFRICAN AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED KINGDOM
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 whether any representation has been made to the Government of the South African Republic regarding the appointment of Dr. Cael de Wet as Ambassador to the United Kingdom.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIA: No, my Lords. We see no reason to make any.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for that Answer. While in ordinary circumstances one would not object to any representative of another country, may I ask him to agree that this man's record is such that we should not welcome him as an Ambassador? Is he not merely an advocate of apartheid but a diehard supporter of it, with an intolerable record which is appalling?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the House will be aware of some of the things that Dr. de Wet has been alleged to have said. However, I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that Dr. de Wet has been Ambassador here under both Conservative and Labour Administrations in the last four or five years. So far as I know, he has carried out his duties with distinction and discretion, and we see no reason in this case to make any objection to his appointment.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while I appreciate what the noble Marquess has said—because Dr. de Wet was Ambassador here between 1964 and 1966—is it not the case that since then he has made state-
1812
ments to the effect, for example, that the Sabotage Act in South Africa is too mild when it allows the death sentence? Is it not a fact that he wants to suppress all opposition newspapers? Does the noble Marquess consider it desirable that we should welcome such an Ambassador from another country?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, whatever opinions Dr. de Wet may or may not have expressed in the past few years, I feel certain that he has sufficient experience appropriate to his position as Ambassador, and for that reason I must tell the noble Lord that what I said in my original Answer must stand.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, would an Ambassador be any use at all if he did not represent the views of his Government and the way of life in his country? Is my noble friend aware that a great many people will welcome Dr. de Wet's appointment and should meet him and get to know him, instead of, by implication, criticising him when he is about to take up office?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, my Lords, and a great many people will recall Dr. de Wet's last term of office as Ambassador. Many of us got to know him well and, as I have said, he fulfilled his duties then with distinction. I do not see any reason to suppose that he will not do so again.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, is there not an anomaly between our welcoming this Ambassador and our repeated statements in the Human Rights Commission at the United Nations that we abhor apartheid? Is it not a fact that we always preface our remarks about South Africa by saying that we abhor apartheid?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, certainly we abhor apartheid, and the Government have always said so. However, I do not think that that makes any difference to what I said about the position of Dr. de Wet as Ambassador.

UGANDA ASIANS: U.K. ENTRY CERTIFICATES
2.38 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: 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 how many heads of household and how many people in total have obtained all the documents from the United Kingdom High Commission in Uganda which are required for entry into the United Kingdom as at the latest convenient date.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: At close of business on Monday, October 16, a total of 23,574 entry certificates had been issued by our High Commission in Kampala to Asians in Uganda. This figure included 8,129 heads of household.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess to say how many of these entry certificates have been awarded to people who do not intend to settle finally in this country but intend to go to Canada or some other part of the world? Is this not a very small figure compared with the estimates that were made before the crisis arose? Will the noble Marquess make sure that the maximum publicity is given to the figures he has just announced so that people in places like Leicester who have expressed anxiety over the effects of a large number of people coming here may be reassured?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think I can tell the noble Lord that the numbers are certainly smaller than we had anticipated at the first stage of this operation. I do not wish in any way to deter the House from asking supplementary questions, or indeed from having them answered, but my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross will quite shortly be making a full Statement on the position of Uganda Asians and possibly noble Lords will feel that that will be the appropriate moment to discuss the matter.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that it might help, in view of the Statement that is to be made, if he were to answer the supplementary asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury? Does this number of 23,000-odd include heads of families and families who may be going to India or any other country? Is it not a fact that they will not necessarily all be coming to this country?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, it is true that this figure includes
1814
a number of people who are going to other countries but I will ask my noble friend to make absolutely certain of that.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that the effect of this number has been extraordinarily exaggerated? Is it not the case that it is only about half the number who would watch a football match between, for example, Arsenal and Manchester United?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, it is a great deal more than watch some football matches, particularly in the third and fourth divisions.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, bearing in mind what the noble Lord has just said about the Statement that is to come later on, I am not absolutely sure whether it will deal with the position of Uganda residents who have arrived here, en famille, some holding British passports and some holding Ugandan passports. As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, will be aware, there have been a number of instances of this in the past few weeks. I should like to be quite certain the matter will be dealt with in the Statement, otherwise, I should like to ask what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government when members of a family arrive simultaneously, one half of them being British citizens and the other half being either citizens of Uganda or citizens of some third country?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I understand that my noble friend is prepared to answer supplementaries on these matters.

HEATHROW AIRPORT: CONSULTING GROUP'S REPORT
2.45 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: 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 to receive the report on Heathrow Airport made by the Metra Consulting Group and if this will be published prior to any decisions being made on the recommendations therein.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the report is expected about the end of the year. As soon as it is available copies will be given to all interested parties at Heathrow, and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, in view of that Answer, may I ask the noble Earl whether he recalls that on August 4 last, at column 619 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, he gave the House an assurance that any decision to withdraw the check-in facilities at Gloucester Road would be delayed until after this report was made? I wonder whether, in view of his having given me that statement, he has any further comment to make.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I can repeat the assurance that I gave to the noble Baroness later, which was on September 21, in which I said that the closure of the West London Air Terminal would not take place during the course of 1973.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I am coming to that subject next week. But I should like to ask the noble Earl something, because this is serious and I think the noble Earl is an honourable man—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I say that in all seriousness. He would not have made such a statement if he had not thought it was correct. Is the noble Earl aware that on October 10 the present Chief Executive of B.E.A., Mr. Ken Wilkinson, made a statement (mentioning only the discussions they had been having with the trade unions, of which this House is aware, and making no mention of the Metra Group) to the effect that B.E.A. had decided to withdraw the check-in facilities? I have that statement here and will give it to the noble Earl afterwards, but may I ask him whether, having given an assurance on the part of the Government that this would not be done until after the report was made, he will deal with the matter and make a statement to the House?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that she had a Question down next week and, indeed, the
1816
Question which she has relates to this very point. But I am aware of what was published in the paper to which she referred and I have made the appropriate inquiries to see whether or not I did misinform the House. At the time I made the statement I was informed that what I said was correct, and having re-checked it, I am able to tell the noble Baroness and the House that what I said then stands and is correct. In fact the West London Air Terminal will not be closed during the course of 1973.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I am sorry but I thought I really was clear. Never mind at the end of 1973 ", may I ask the noble Earl whether he recalls making the statement that no decision about the withdrawal of check-in facilities at Gloucester Road would be taken until after the report of the Metra Consulting Group had been made? And does he recall that just a minute or two ago he told us that that report was expected, I think, at the end of next month? Will be then explain to the House how it is that B.E.A. took the law into their own hands on October 10, ignored the assurance the noble Earl had given, and said that a decision had been made to withdraw these facilities?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am perfectly well aware of the assurance I gave. I thought I had answered the point made by the noble Baroness but, as I have always explained to her, the Government themselves are not responsible for the actions B.E.A. take. I am aware that on this occasion there may have been some dichotomy of view, but I can only reassure the noble Baroness that the assurance I gave her then stands. Indeed, it was checked with the British Airways Board this morning to make quite certain that I had not misled the noble Baroness. I do not think I can go further than that.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I am in the hands of the House. I see that the Leader of the House is not here—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): Yes, he is.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, if the noble Earl the Leader of the House does not mind my dropping upon him, may I say that I am in a fix and I wonder whether he can help me

1817
as a Back-Bencher. I do not know whether he has been at the Bar of the House and knows what I am talking about, but may I ask him this? I was saying that we had been given an assurance in this House by the Government on August 4 that a certain decision would not be taken until a report by the Metra Consulting Group had been made. A decision has now been announced by B.E.A. before that Group has reported. I think that is a breaking of faith and I am wondering whether the Government are prepared to take up the matter with B.E.A.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, first of all I must apologise to your Lordships' House. I have been at an official function, neither in the bathroom nor in the bar, and I have not heard the whole of the noble Baroness's questions and my noble friend's answers. What I propose to do is to study this position and, if needs be, I will either ask my noble friend to make, or I myself will make, a statement to your Lordships' House.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I thank the noble Earl.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, when the noble Earl the Leader of the House considers this matter, will be bear in mind that there are others, particularly on this side, who share the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, on this subject? It is one of wide public concern, and some of us feel that B.E.A. have jumped the gun.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I wonder whether I might answer my noble friend, and also again the noble Baroness, just to see whether I can make the point that much clearer. I did give an assurance that no decision would be taken to close the West London Air Terminal before the Metra Consulting Group had reported. I am bound to say that I was surprised when this announcement appeared in the B.E.A. notice, because obviously there had not been quite the co-ordination that might have been expected. In view of this, I understand that there has been a meeting of the British European Airways to decide what, so to speak, has gone astray, and I am assured that the assurance which I gave does still stand. I cannot say to the noble Baroness why or how
1818
B.E.A. came to publish something of which I was not aware.
VISCOUNT MONCK: My Lords, in order to finish this rather long Question, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that there is a Member of your Lordships' House who has to-day attained the ripe age of 88, known in Bingo language as "Two fat ladies", and would he agree that we offer to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, many happy returns?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN: STIRLING DEMONSTRATION AND SECURITY
2.52 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that security arrangements are adequate for the protection of Her Majesty The Queen when she attends public functions.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will join me in deploring the behaviour of a minority of students during Her Majesty's recent visit to Stirling University. Having studied the reports, my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland are satisfied that Her Majesty was not in danger. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is in consultation with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to see whether any lessons should be learned from this incident.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that partially reassuring Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that there is very deep concern among all sections of the community that Her Majesty should on this occasion have been exposed to the drunken obscenities of a small group of students? Is he further aware that I find it difficult to understand how the least of our countrymen could be so offensive to a woman guest, leave alone the Queen, in these circumstances?

1819
Will my noble friend answer these questions? What consultations had taken place with the University before the Royal visit was arranged to make sure that it was welcome? Had the University authorities consulted with the Students' Union to find out whether the Students' Union—that is, the great majority of students—wanted the Royal visit? If they did not want it, why was not the Palace advised that it would not be welcome? Alternatively, if it was wanted by the great majority of the students, why were not the decent feelings of the great majority of students strong enough to assert themselves to restrain the contemptuous behaviour of this small minority?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I must say that I wish that the good manners to which my noble friend has referred, and which certainly prevail in this House, had been more in evidence on that occasion. I entirely share his views about it and I should think that they are the views of almost everybody in the British Isles. As for my noble friend's specific supplementary questions, the University authorities were consulted at every stage about the visit and its desirability, and they certainly welcomed it, as I think did the people of Stirling. The University authorities were in early touch with the President of the Students' Association Council who, it is true, said that there was a certain amount of opposition among the students to the visit. This information was communicated at once to the Palace and it was under constant consideration by the University authorities, by the Stirling and Clackmannan police force and by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, as well as by the Palace.
The University authorities, I am informed, did their best, and were very largely successful, in ensuring that a wide degree of support was manifested for the Queen's visit; and that support was in fact in evidence throughout the greater part of her visit. The rowdies were at the back and they may have been making the noise, but those who warmly welcomed Her Majesty were at the front, and I think it is plain that it was only a very small, if extremely disagreeable, minority who were indulging in this unruly behaviour on that occasion.
1820
Nevertheless, it is right to say that the Queen was subjected to some very disagreeable behaviour. I have, however, been in touch with the Palace to-day, and I am glad to say that Her Majesty has said she was not unduly concerned by what happened to her. She dealt with the situation bravely and in her usual sound and splendid fashion.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, may I heartily endorse everything that has been said about the discourtesy to Her Majesty the Queen? We all regret it. But I do think it is important—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: I would ask whether we do not agree that the basis of this incident was the objection of some students to a great deal of what they thought unnecessary expenditure and falsification of the environment of the University. May I also ask the Minister whether he does not think it a disservice to the Queen that whenever she agrees to appear on a public occasion there is this kind of expenditure? Would he not agree that it would be better if she could see a university or a housing scheme, or whatever it is, in its normal condition, rather than having a great deal of fuss and money expended in falsifying the environment before Her Majesty arrives?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it has been said that certain expenditure was the pretext for this demonstration. To be truthful, having seen the reports, I believe that the rumours were grossly exaggerated. Whether or not this was the true pretext or whether it was that certain people just wished to make trouble, I should not like to say. I believe that it is a matter for the University authorities, who are at the present moment looking into the matter. As for expenditure and general arrangements for Her Majesty's visit, I do not think it is for Her Majesty's Government to enter into this directly, but I should inform the House that there was no particular false activity going on on that day. For instance, when Her Majesty went into the library there were students working there in their normal way, and other people in the University were taking part in their ordinary activi-

1821
ties right through the time that she was there, not demonstrating either for or against, but getting on with their work.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that those of us who know the excellent work—and, incidentally, the good manners—of the bulk of the students of the universities of Britain regret that the National Union of Students, of which I happened to be a founder member over fifty years ago, has not been more forthcoming in its protest against the behaviour of a handful of louts in Stirling. In view of what the noble Baroness has said about expenditure, there are intelligent and proper ways of protesting about any expenditure of which a university union disapproves.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King. First of all, it is indeed encouraging that there have poured in to Her Majesty the Queen not only apologies but letters of support, including a petition from 930 members of the University of Stirling, as well as support from the National Union of Students. Until rowdyism broke out, it was thought that the protests would take an entirely peaceful form, and it was on the basis of that that all the advice went forward, although indeed everybody was prepared for what subsequently occurred, and rightly prepared and dealt with it very well.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, since it is quite obvious that the over-whelming majority of people deplore this yahoo behaviour, and this is clearly the view of the majority of the people of Stirling and the students at Stirling University, would it not be better now if we just noted this rather unpleasant incident and forgot it? And would not Her Majesty prefer to forget it?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I believe that we should prefer to treat it in that way, and I am very sure that Her Majesty would, too.

NORTHERN IRELAND
3.2 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given Private Notice—namely,
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement
1822
on recent developments in Northern Ireland."
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that the past few days have witnessed serious disturbances in Belfast. Last night there was more shooting at the security forces, mainly in Protestant areas. Sixty-eight shooting incidents involved the security forces, of which at least 40 occurred in Protestant areas. Nine soldiers were injured, two of them with gunshot wounds. Two R.U.C. constables were shot at and injured. Two civilians were found shot while seven other civilians were injured.
This was a continuation of the mounting lawlessness over the past few days, in which members of the Ulster Defence Association have taken a prominent part. Last night a meeting took place between the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and the General Officer Commanding, with leaders of the U.D.A., at which it was made clear that this rioting and shooting in Protestant areas not only was illegal and destructive but was diverting the security forces at a time when progress was being made in countering the Provisional I.R.A.
The growth of Protestant violence, added to the continuing I.R.A. campaign, represents a new threat to the hopes for future peace in the Province. Your Lordships may be assured that the security forces will continue to resist, with the utmost determination and with complete impartiality, all those who resort to violence in order to further their own aims.
A Commission, under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, has already been announced to consider what new arrangements in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland might be made to deal more effectively with terrorist organisations. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has to-day appointed the other members of the Commission who are: Professor A. R. N. Cross; Mr. George Woodcock and Sir Kenneth Younger. The inquiry is an urgent one and the Commission intends to have its first meeting later this week.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords. I am very much obliged to the noble Lord

1823
for that Statement. The Protestant backlash, for so long feared, is a quite appalling new development which has now manifested itself as a direct threat to the authority of the Government and the British Parliament. As always, our sympathy goes out both to the Ministers who are concerned with facing this new problem and to the British forces showing again their impartial and steadfast determination to do their duty under terribly worrying conditions.
The noble Lord may not perhaps be in a position to answer this question, because clearly this new threat in its present form is going to endanger the Government's timetable, but may I ask him whether it is correct that the Green Paper will be published shortly? I do not know whether the noble Lord can say when. Again, the last thing that any of us wish to do is to embarrass the Ministers who carry this responsibility, but would the noble Lord at least consider whether or not this does not bring into doubt the whole feasibility not merely of the plebiscite but also of the local government elections? Would he recognise that the moderate Parties, the Northern Ireland Labour Party, the Alliance Party, and indeed the S.D.L.P., may be hazarding the lives and security of any candidates they put up between these two terrifying extremes? May it not therefore be better to come to a final decision on dates of elections after the Government's proposals have been published? I have no doubt that the noble Lord has these matters very much in mind.
Would the noble Lord also agree that while a great deal of this violence is partly the violence of people who in certain situations are inclined to violence, some is partly due to fear? Has he considered, if this situation grows, what is really going to happen in the mixed population areas, where I think it is quite terrifying to contemplate what may develop? I still believe that the British Army alone stands against the most terrible threat to the lives of the people of Northern Ireland. As a Member of the Northern Irish Labour Party said to me, "It is our lives that will be at risk if the British Army is pulled out "—as may emerge in the end, although I would deplore it.
1824
We are grateful for this announcement, about the setting up of the Commission, and we urge them to move as rapidly as possible in this difficult task. When they meet will they be considering not only the setting up of the courts but also any attendant, necessary rights that may need to be introduced? I have in mind my noble friend Lord Brockway's Bill of Rights. I did not support it, but as things are developing, while it may not be a Bill of Rights that is required, it will be important that any decisions that may be arrived at for trying terrorist offences, because the existing jury system cannot properly work, should have particular regard to the sort of individual rights to which we attach so much importance.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the Government's aim is to press on with the publication of the Green Paper as quickly as possible. It will canvass a wide range of possibilities, and we feel that there should then be a period for further consultation and discussion before final proposals are framed. As to the timing of the local government elections, these have been set for December 6. They are the first local government elections for five years. They are the first ever to be held on the basis of one man-one vote with no property qualification. There are new boundaries, and votes at eighteen. These are important reforms, and it would be unfortunate if it were not possible to hold any elections. But the Secretary of State is, of course, continuing to keep the security situation under the very closest review.
The Commission will be meeting under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord. Lord Diplock. He has heard what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has had to say to-day, and it will be a matter for him how the members of the Commission conduct their inquiry. For myself, I would think that any Commission which included within its terms of reference the phrase:
"To consider what arrangements for the administration of justice in Northern Ireland could be made …"
would necessarily be concerned with defences and with individual human rights.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one further question?

1825
Can he say what would be the connection at the present time between the security forces and the Commission which is to be established under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, there is no direct connection between the review that the Diplock Commission will be carrying out and the security forces at the present time. The security operations will, of course, be maintained. If the Commission decided to recommend changes in the administration of justice to deal more effectively with those responsible for organising terrorist activities, without necessarily carrying them out themselves, this might then mean that a number of people arrested by the security forces could more readily be brought to justice than is sometimes possible under present law.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that most sensible people in Northern Ireland on both sides of the religious line are most grateful to the British Army for their great, massive presence in Northern Ireland over the last three years? But for that presence, there would be bloody civil war raging over the whole of Ireland. Secondly, is the Minister aware that the reason why I suggested on Monday that it might be well to consider the postponement of the local government elections was that I hesitated to think of yet further burdens being imposed upon the security forces at that time?
May I finally ask the Minister whether he would give careful consideration to the varying suggestions? If the Government feel that they would like to have the voice of the sensible people of Northern Ireland rather than a report from a rifle or a blast from a bomb, would they consider the possibility of the local government election being run on the basis of a postal vote so that it would not be necessary for the general public to risk their lives by going to the polling booths?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I recognise the constructive spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, has spoken, and I should like to thank him for his tribute to the Army and for what he said about the burdens on the security forces. We gave considera-
1826
tion to the question of the local government elections being conducted by post, but the main difficulty is that there is no really satisfactory method of preventing it being used as a form of personation. The idea of conducting an entire election by post, whether in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, has never been regarded as practicable. We are well aware of the practical problems to which the noble Lord referred, and hope to meet some of the difficulties faced by voters in troubled areas by providing for advance voting at a number of centrally situated polling stations before the date on which the local election is held.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that all of us have the deepest sympathy with the noble Lord and the other Ministers for Northern Ireland in the terrible difficulties of the situation which have been made worse by the events of the last three days? Refraining from broader considerations which I hope we may be able to debate at an early date, may I ask one question supplementing what the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, have said about local elections? Is it likely that this situation will, in the Government's view, lead to the necessity for reinforcing the troops at present in Northern Ireland?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the troop levels depend on the assessment by the G.O.C. of the number of Army personnel he requires to maintain the security of the Province. It has been arranged that there will be a minimum number of polling stations, many fewer than before, and the Chief Electoral Officer has already discussed the siting of these polling stations with the security forces. There will be police at all polling stations, supplemented by Army personnel wherever it is considered that polling stations call for additional security. The points raised by the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, and others are all matters very much in the Secretary of State's mind, but at the same time it is necessary to be aware of the advantages in holding local government elections for the first time in five years. If the security situation makes it impossible for voting to take place one must bear in mind that there will be other elections and other people who will be encouraged to use the same methods later on.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, if the Government were to accede to the request put forward by the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, regarding postal voting, it would set at great danger the lives of the people engaged in the postal service and responsible for the collection of letters. Their lives would be endangered just as much as those of other individuals in Northern Ireland while the crisis continues.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, that is something which would have to be borne in mind in considering any suggestion of the type made by the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, would the noble Lord or the Government bear in mind that some units of our small Army are coming up for their fifth tour of duty, and that there is a limit to the length of time in which an Army even as good as ours can go on under the circumstances? In view of the increasing disenchantment of the security forces with the political situation, is it not time to withdraw our politicians and appoint a Templer?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the Secretary of State's policy, despite all the difficulties, remains unchanged. I think it is the wish of Parliament, as it is of the Government, that it should remain unchanged. It is simple to state, but very hard to execute. It is to continue to try and reconcile the divided communities in Northern Ireland, while at the same time countering firmly terrorism and acts of violence. This task is made even more difficult by those who claim to be Loyalists while at the same time attacking the forces of the Crown.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, wil lthe noble Lord on his return convey to the troops in Northern Ireland the admiration of the whole of the House for their conduct in a most difficult task, and also convey to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland our very good wishes in the very difficult task he has had to undertake?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I will do so with the greatest of pleasure. I know that the noble Lord's tribute will
1828
be accepted with gratitude coming from the source that it does in this House to-day. I invariably pass on to the G.O.C. the tributes paid to the Armed Forces in this House and I know how much they are welcomed. I will also pass on to the Secretary of State the good wishes sent to him by an old friend from another place.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, in view of the difficulties which have been pointed out by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition and also by the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, of holding the local government elections, has the Minister given consideration to the possibility of holding the plebiscite before the local government elections, instead of the other way round?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the most careful consideration was given to that point and the Secretary of State has said he would have liked to have been able to do it that way round. But legislation is required for the plebiscite. A Bill has to be presented and the assent of Parliament obtained. This cannot be done in the time available.
BARONESS SUMMER SKILL: My Lords, in view of the religious difficulties, which we all recognise, can we assume that the Churches have lost all their power in trying to take the heat out of the situation?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the conflict in Northern Ireland is not fundamentally a religious dispute. It is a conflict of two communities characterised by religious differences. The Church leaders have made a number of attempts to bring people together. Recently, for example, we saw throughout the Province a series of non-sectarian services of prayer for peace, to set an example to all those who belong to the various religious denominations.

UGANDA ASIANS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross will be making a Statement on the Uganda Asians at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.
DUNDEE EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936), deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
3.21 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Aberdare.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 170 [Attendance allowance and financial loss allowance]:
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 119, line 32, leave out from ("duty") to the end of line 34 and insert ("such amount as may be specified by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said The noble Baroness said: I am mindful of the fact that this is the 102nd Amendment and that, somehow, before the end of to-day's Sitting it is hoped that we shall reach the 310th. This is quite a formidable programme and therefore I will not rehearse the arguments which we put at an earlier stage in favour of this Amendment and No. 103, which should probably be considered together. We have put them down again because we feel very strongly that the responsibility for determining the allowances which should be made to members of local authorities under the new arrangements should be with the Secretary of State, and should not be left to individual authorities. We think that to leave it with individual authorities is bound to be inequitable. It may press very hardly in some areas on people who would find it difficult to undertake public service in local government unless they had reasonably generous allowances to enable them to do so, and we think that this matter is something which should properly fall to the Ministers responsible for local government in England and Wales.
We hope very much that the Government have had second thoughts on this subject and will be able to appreciate the force of the arguments which we deployed at an earlier stage. But of course we are in an even more difficult position, in so far as I think I am correct in saying that the Secretary of State has not yet made any announcement about the maxima which it has been decided he should himself lay down. So people who are standing as candidates next Spring, many of whom have either been selected or are in process of being selected by their respective Parties, are completely in the dark as to the circumstances in which they will be carrying out their duties, if they are so unfortunate as to be elected. I need not say any more and I think it would be advisable to get the views of the Government. They know our views and it would be helpful to all of us if the Minister could tell us what is the Government's mature thinking on this matter. My Lords, I beg to move.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, we have certainly looked once more at this matter since the Committee stage, but our view remains much as it was then. The attendance allowance is the most significant feature of a package of improved allowances. We remain sure that it is right for local authorities to exercise their own discretion in this matter, and in so many more matters than they have done hitherto; in particular, in fixing their own maximum within the rate fixed by the Secretary of State. This is a matter on which the Secretary of State will be having further discussions with the associations and he will make his announcement in good time. The different authorities have different needs to meet different circumstances and a set figure for all of them would lead to anomalies and injustices between them. We have no evidence, and no reason to suppose, that any local authority will abuse the discretion that it is being given under this clause. In any case, the Government will be consulting local authority associations about the advice which the associations will be wanting to give to their members.

1831
Another important point is that the associations have been strongly against departmental regulation of allowance rates and very anxious to be rid of this intervention by Whitehall in local government affairs, as they have in many other spheres. The Government have thought it right, in the wider interest, that an overall maximum rate should be laid down by the Secretary of State, and this he will do after the Bill has become law. But within this maximum rate authorities should have, as they have under the 1948 Act, the right to determine whatever rate they consider most appropriate in their own circumstances. The proposed Amendment of the noble Baroness would take away that right in the case of the new attendance allowance, but would leave it for financial loss, subsistence and travel allowances, and there is no evident reason for the discrimination against the attendance allowance. The Government take the view that, wherever practicable, local authorities should be free to decide their affairs as they think best, and in the case of the new attendance allowance it is likely that what is reasonable may vary from authority to authority.
In line with the pattern of existing local government some, particularly urban, authorities will be likely to hold meetings in the evenings, attendance at which may not cause members to lose wages. Others will hold meetings in the day time. Times of committee meetings could also vary. Attendance allowance, unlike other allowances, will be claimable as of right. Against this background the Government accept that any attempt to lay down fixed rates of allowance within the 24-hour maximum would be likely to produce serious anomalies and injustices. Therefore, the most sensible solution is to leave each authority to fix rates within the maximum which it considers reasonable. An instance of this approach already exists in the sessional allowance which the G.L.C. pays to its members under special powers. The G.L.C. has asked the Secretary of State, and he has consented, to prescribe rates which, although consistent with daily rates of existing financial loss allowance, use different time bands appropriate to G.L.C. meetings.
1832
In the debate in Committee it was suggested, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that some authorities might abuse their discretion to embarrass poorer members or to make political capital but, as I said, we have no evidence whatever for supposing this. There have been no suggestions that existing authorities abuse their discretion under the 1948 Act. The G.L.C. have always adopted an all-Party approach on allowances. As has already been announced, the Government will be consulting local authority associations as to the advice that they will offer their members about determining allowance rates within the maximum. I confirm that after the passage of the Bill, and after further consultation with the local authority associations, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be making an announcement about the maximum scale of allowances in good time before the first round of allowances. I hope that with those assurances and with that explanation the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press this Amendment.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I suppose that that is the kind of answer one would have expected, but it is none the less disappointing. I think I am right in saying that the new attendance allowance for all local authorities, other than the G.L.C., is a change in principle from the allowances that have hitherto been paid and, to my mind, it can have a considerable influence on someone who is trying to decide whether or not he or she wishes to stand in an election. It is no good the Minister saying that his right honourable friend will be making an announcement in good time. The time to decide whether or not you wish to go forward as a candidate is here and now. The whole procedure is going forward now in the Party organisations in different parts of the country. One does not normally wait until a week or two before polling day before determining that one will offer oneself for election. It is grossly unfair—this is a slightly different point from the Amendment—to keep people in suspense and without proper information on this point—
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt. It is all very well for the noble Baroness to

1833
ask my right honourable friend to make the announcement now, but how can he possibly do so until the Bill is on the Statute Book?
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, the Bill will be on the Statute Book, one supposes, in a few days' time, but if the noble Lord's right honourable friend has not yet had these consultations with the local authority associations—and I understood from the reply given by the Minister that those consultations are still to be held—it will be very difficult for him, I should suppose, to make an immediate announcement, which is certainly what would be for the general convenience.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am sorry to go on interrupting the noble Baroness, but before my right honourable friend can have the consultations he must know on what basis Parliament has decided that the consultations should take place. I assure the noble Baroness that my right honourable friend will move with all due dispatch, but Parliament has a job to do on this Bill before people can take action to implement it.
BARONESS WHITE: Yes, my Lords, but, after all, the Minister's Department has been having consultations on various matters all through the passage of this Bill, without knowing the final determination of Parliament.—That again, quite frankly, is an excuse which does not seem to me to be particular impressive. As I say, I do not necessarily wish
to pursue the matter very much further, although if my noble friends would care to divide on it I think it would bring a great deal of comfort to those who have been putting us under considerable pressure on this matter. I just do not agree that attendance allowances are impossible of definition on a general basis. An hour is an hour, no matter where you are spending it, whether it is in Somerset, Berkshire or wherever it may be. It simply is not true that persons who go to evening meetings do not necessarily lose wages. In my former constituency at least a quarter of the workers were working on a three-shift system and would probably lose rather more wages through an evening meeting than they would through a daytime meeting. So I think it will be found extremely difficult to order different time bands on any basis which would be equitable as between different areas or between different groups of workers. I still think it would be fat' more satisfactory, so far as the attendance allowances are concerned, which are the basic thing, if there were national rates and everybody knew exactly where they stood. The Government have not been co-operative in this regard, and I would therefore ask my noble friends to support us in the Division Lobby.
3.33 p.m.
On Ouestion, Whether the said Amendment (No. 102) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48 Not-Contents, 114.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Gaitskell, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Airedale, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Amulree, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Serota, B.

Archibald, L.

Hale, L.

Shackleton, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hall, V.

Shepherd, L.

Arwyn, L.

Henderson, L.

Shinwell, L.

Avebury, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Slater, L.

Balogh, L.

Leatherland, L.

Summerskill, B.

Beswick, L.

McLeavy, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

BIyton, L.

Maelor, L.

Thurso, V.

Brockway, L.

Milford, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Moyle, L.

White, B.

Burntwood, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Williamson, L.

Champion, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L

Crook, L.

Platt, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Faringdon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Amory, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Auckland, L.

Barnby, L.

Albemarle, E.

Balfour, E.

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Bathurst, E.

Glasgow, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Goschen, V.

Northchurch, B.

Belstead, L.

Gowrie, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Berkeley, B.

Greenway, L.

Oakshott, L.

Bessborough, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Blackford, L.

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

Penrhyn, L.

Brentford, V.

Poltimore, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hanworth, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Hawke, L.

Reigate, L.

Buckton, L.

Hayter, L.

Rennell, L.

Carnock, L.

Headfort, M.

Rochester, L.Bp.

Carrington, L.

Hereford, L.Bp.

Rockley, L.

Clancarty, E.

Hewlett, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hood, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Clwyd, L.

Howe, E.

St. Just, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandford, L.

Colgrain, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sandys, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Jessel, L.

Somers, L.

Courtown, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Southwark, L.Bp.

Craigavon, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Stamp, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Limerick, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lothian, M.

Strathclyde, L.

Daventry, V.

Loudoun, C.

Swansea, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Derwent, L.

Luke, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Mac Andrew, L.

Vernon, L.

Eccles, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vivian, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Elworthy, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Milverton, L.

Willingdon, M.

Exeter, L.Bp.

Molson, L.

Winchester, L.Bp.

Ferrers, E.

Monck, V.

Windlesham, L.

Fortescue, E.

Morrison, L.

Wolverton, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Young, B.

Gage, V.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

UGANDA ASIANS
3.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were at this stage to repeat a Statement which is being made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place. The words of his Statement are these:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a Statement to bring the House up to date with the developments arising from President Amin's decision to expel Asians from Uganda.
"As the House will be aware, Her Majesty's Government accepted their legal and moral responsibility to allow holders of United Kingdom passports to come to this country under the special circumstances created by President Amin's unjust and inhumane action. At the same time Her Majesty's Government made intense efforts to enlist the help of the international community in offering to the Ugandan refu-
1836
gees a wide choice of destinations and as a result of these efforts 29 Governments expressed their willingness to help. I would like to give the House a few examples.
"Canada immediately offered to receive 6,000 refugees—both United Kingdom passport holders and stateless people. So far about 2,000 have been granted Canadian entry permits.
"The Government of India has agreed that United Kingdom passport holders may go there in the first instance. Already 2,500 have taken advantage of the option.
"Pakistan also responded generously, and 1,000 have so far chosen to go there.
"The signs are that a substantial further number may go to one or the other of those countries.
"Other countries that are taking substantial numbers of United Kingdom passport holders or stateless persons, or both, include the United States, West Germany and Malawi, Australia,

1837
New Zealand, Sweden and Austria. A number of Latin American countries have made helpful offers and the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration are co-ordinating arrangements for putting these into effect.
"I want to emphasise that this international co-operation was only possible because the world saw Her Majesty's Government immediately and unequivocally accepted their responsibilities in this matter. The result is that it now appears likely that the number of Ugandan Asians holding our passports who will need or wish to settle here is likely to be well under half the figure of 50,000–60,000 first mentioned.
"The position to date is as follows:
Our High Commission in Kampala have issued entry certificates to about 23,500 people, and of these some 5,000 are likely to go direct to third countries. The High Commission is now issuing entry certificates to wives and dependants who hold United Kingdom passports in their own right.
"It is also reviewing the cases of a small number of families whose applications for passports were at first questioned but some of whom, we believe, may in fact be entitled to them because they failed effectively to renounce our citizenship after independence. My earlier estimate of the people now ikely to settle here takes account of these two categories.
"I want to say at this point that Her Majesty's Government have from the beginning made clear that they do not accept responsibility for those who have been rendered Stateless by General Amin's decree. Responsibility for the Stateless refugees rests in the first place on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who is actively engaged in international discussions about their reception and resettlement.
"Turning to the arrangements within this country for reception and resettlement of United Kingdom passport holders, the position at the week-end was that nearly 15,000 refugees had been admitted to the United Kingdom. Of those 8,500 were still being given shelter by the Uganda Resettlement
1838
Board in 11 resettlement centres. I am satisfied the Board will be able to provide adequate temporary shelter in these and other centres for the increasing proportion amongst later arrivals who are likely to need it.
"The Board's other—longer-term but equally important—task is to resettle the refugees in the community at large and help them find homes and jobs. The Board now have special resettlement teams at each centre who are actively engaged in this task. This is inevitably a slow process, but having coped successfully with the reception of the refugees, the Board will now increasingly concentrate on the task of resettlement and are being provided with the additional resources to do this effectively.
"They are conscious of the need to persuade, but they cannot, of course, direct refugees away from areas where social facilities such as housing and schools are already under strain. They have been authorised to make special and generous grants towards relevant expenditure incurred by local authorities.
"Mr. Speaker, I am not complacent about what has been achieved, nor about the problems that still confront us. But I am sure the House will agree that an enormous amount has been achieved in receiving and beginning to resettle these refugees.—This reflects credit on the Resettlement Board and on the local authorities with whom they are working so closely. It reflects credit too on the hundreds of voluntary workers and private individuals who are also playing a notable part. I am sure that the House would wish to thank them all.
"In this work, I, and all of those engaged, have been greatly heartened by the fact that—not for the first time—the British people as a whole have shown themselves ready to respond with humanity and warmth to the plight of fellow human beings who are in need."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the whole House will be very grateful to the

1839
noble Viscount for repeating this Statement, and I am certain that those Members of your Lordships' House who may have heard—either on television, as in my own case, or perhaps more intimately—the speech of the Secretary of State at the Conservative Party Conference would wish to applaud it: not only for what was said but for the clear spirit and determination that came through in the Secretary of State's words. Clearly, the task is not as great as was once foreseen. We are going to have only some 18,000, or perhaps at the very most 20,000, refugees to deal with in this country. But I think that there are signs—and I hope that the noble Viscount will give a little more information on this—that finding the combination of jobs and homes is a little more difficult than the Board, and I think the Government and those who were concerned, at first anticipated that it would be.
I wonder whether—and I put it in this way rather than as a criticism—the local authorities have been as forthcoming as they could have been in giving assistance to the Resettlement Board, in offering accommodation and, where it exists, work that is available in their area. I think that there are some local authorities who could, perhaps have done more than they have done in regard to those who are stateless, but clearly from a legal point of view we have no responsibility. On the other hand, I think we must remember that it was this Parliament that changed the situation for the Asians in Uganda when it granted that country independence. I hope, therefore, that the Government, while having no legal responsibility, will never fail to give support to the United Nations Organisation, and those responsible, in finding homes for these refugees. We on this side of the House would wish to applaud all countries who have most generously come forward to take into their homes Asian refugees who have very little or no connection at all with those countries. They did so because this is a duty that we all owe to men, women and children who are in dire distress.
3.51 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, may I endorse the tribute paid by the Government to the voluntary agencies which are helping to cope with this problem in the camps set up so far? Having visited the
1840
West Malling camp in Kent on Saturday I had an opportunity of observing the work being done there by the W.R.V.S., St. John Ambulance, Toc H and many other organisations, too many to mention, and a host of individual helpers who have come in voluntarily to offer entertainment, lectures and help in adapting the refugees to the British way of life. Those responsible could do with more help and the voluntary co-ordinators would like persons to come forward in the areas where these camps are located to offer help, transport and other facilities for the refugees. I certainly would endorse the tributes which have been paid by noble Lords to their work.
As regards the stateless people, I think this is an important point bearing in mind that, as the Statement says, the other countries named have helped us to solve our moral and legal obligations by taking United Kingdom passport holders. A number of countries have been mentioned—Canada, India and so on—as having received our passport holders. They have accepted some of our obligation. Therefore is it not right that in seeking to persuade the world community to look after the stateless we should accept a little share of that obligation as well, with particular reference to families where some members hold United Kingdom passports and other members are either stateless or ostensibly citizens of Uganda or some third country? Is the noble Lord aware that many people have already arrived in this country who belong to families where half are United Kingdom citizens and the other half are not? In these instances the Home Office has admitted United Kingdom passport holders but held the others in detention. Does not the noble Lord consider that it would be a contribution towards meeting the needs of stateless persons, or at least those who accompany relatives holding United Kingdom passports and arrive in this country, if they could be admitted on a permanent basis?
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, will my noble friend pass on to the High Commissioner, Mr. Slater, who is in this country, our warm thanks for the exemplary manner in which he carried out a very difficult task? Can my noble friend assure the House that the deputy High Commissioner has

1841
adequate staff and facilities to deal with the remainder of the problem?
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether any Communist States have agreed to accept any of these refugees, or at any rate, indicated their readiness to consider the matter?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I wonder whether I might answer those four contributions before we have any more. First, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, very much for what he said about the reaction and the response of my right honourable friend. I know that my right honourable friend feels this to be a tremendous responsibility and I know the trouble that he has taken to try to ensure that everything possible is done. He will very much appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said. I should like to join with those who have paid tribute to the other countries who are sharing our burden, and to tile voluntary agencies. I know that so far as we can, and so far as the Resettlement Board can—meetings are taking place all the time—we shall encourage and help them to play their part, which is so very welcome. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harvey of Prestbury for his tribute to Mr. Slater. I think there is no doubt that the High Commission in Kampala still has the necessary resources, although, of course, Mr. Slater's own position is very difficult indeed.
In answer to other points made about jobs and homes, yes, the situation is difficult. The Resettlement Board are at the moment considering how they may be able to help with finance, both in respect of homes and also in setting up businesses. This is at the top of their agenda and is under active consideration. As for the local authorities, I think the position is rather patchy. One has to remember that there is a housing shortage and that long lists of people are waiting for houses. One is bound to have a certain sympathy with local housing authorities who say that those who have been waiting for a very long time for a house must have due consideration. Nevertheless it would, I think, be wrong to suggest that local authorities have not been generous in their response. Only the other day I was talking to the chairman of a county council about the position in his county, and he told me of how many district
1842
councils had come forward with help. Of course the provision of few houses in every district would go a great way towards solving the problems.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Viscount could direct his persuasion to Bournemouth.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I will bear that suggestion in mind and pass it on. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned the stateless persons. This of course is very much tied up with our position in the United Nations. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs spoke in the United Nations and we have been behind and greatly applauding the efforts of the African leaders who have done their very best in this forum, and in some cases by going to Uganda. President Mobutu and President Tolbert themselves tried to assist. We shall go on using the United Nations as a forum to try to deal with this problem. It is a United Nations problem and the United Nations High Commissioner is actively engaged on it at the moment. I must say that we have taken all possible active steps to ensure that he is aware of the scale and urgency of the problem, and we believe that he is. I think that his must be the responsibility for cordinating, and if he comes with further requests for us to make another contribution no doubt we shall have to consider it.
I would say at this stage, my Lords, that we have substantial problems on our hands despite the reduction in numbers in resettling and setting up in a new life those for whom we have a legal and moral responsibility. I think that we must first concentrate on them before we take on any more. To some extent I am afraid this must be the answer to Lord Avebury's other point about the husbands of United Kingdom passport holders and their wives and dependants. There is nothing special about people in that category who come from Uganda. The policy overall is that the problem must be dealt with family by family; that is what is being done with those from Uganda as from anywhere else. But no doubt in this case one would look in particular at the position of the husband, and the country where he might be able

1843
to go or would wish to go. This may be an added complication, which does not necessarily arise in cases which do not arise under this emergency; but it is dealt with sympathetically on the merits of each case. There is no particular differentiation made for these people just because they come from Uganda.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I was not just asking about husbands and wives, but about all relationships. For example, brothers and sisters, half of whom have British passports and the other half being either Ugandans or stateless, all arrive in this country simultaneously. What I am putting to the noble Lord is not a hypothetical problem; he has to deal with it now. They have entered this country via Stanstead or Heathrow airports. One half is legitimately entitled to admittance here under the rules laid down by the Government and the other half is not, and they are in Harmondsworth pending a decision. I am asking the Government to relax their rules just that little bit further so as not to separate families and thus act contrary to the United Nations Charter on Human Rights.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the United Nations Charter on Human Rights is a subject that I have discussed with the noble Lord before, and I think he knows the position on it. I do not think I can go beyond what I have already stated: that we look at these sympathetically and on the merits in each case. To make an overall statement that we will be compassionate or will relax rules would I think be foolish, in view of the fact that we have these problems on our hands already, and, as I have said, that we deal on the merits of each case with the sort of people referred to by the noble Lord. The only other question was that asked by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. No Communist country is on my list as being willing to accept any people from Uganda.
4.1 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of that reply, and with full compassion for the distressing circumstances of the people concerned but also bearing in mind the distressing stories we see in the Press regarding the difficulties of housing and unemployment in this coun-
1844
try, may I ask my noble friend if he can say whether consideration is being given to the possibility of modifying the problems which now arise by postponing in categories that were previously (that is, before this recent Asian incident) being granted entry permits, so reducing for a time, or postponing, the contemplated total inflow, which according to the Press seems to have been of the order of 40,000 per annum? Secondly, could he now indicate, in view of the reply given on September 15 as to the total number of potentials who might under similar repetition find themselves in similar circumstances to the Ugandan Asians, whether it is now a fact that consideration is being given to what steps would properly be taken to deal with so large a stated potential inflow?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I suspect that one of the reasons why we have had the international support that we have received right across the world is because of the way in which we have handled this situation, which includes our willingness to continue to take the quota—although it was recently reduced—of other United Kingdom passport holders from other countries, and not to cut down just because we have a flood of people from Uganda. I believe that it would be irresponsible for us to try to penalise the United Kingdom passport holders, who have been on lists and in queues for years and years in many countries, just because we have had to take this action in an emergency for Uganda. I do not think there is any intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government further to reduce this situation.
As for the overall situation, I think it is interesting just to look at the figures. There were at the end of the 'sixties over 70,000 Commonwealth citizens (they were not all United Kingdom passport holders, but Commonwealth citizens altogether) who came here: 74,000 in 1967 and 71,000 in 1968. Even with the Ugandan Asians, we think that the total Commonwealth entry for 1972 will not exceed 60,000. So we have already cut down; and to cut down further would, I think, be a mistake. As for people holding United Kingdom passports in other parts of the world, this is a delicate question. I do not think it is matter on which I should comment this afternoon. It

1845
would be for other members of the Government, and not, I think, as a matter of a supplementary on this issue.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his comprehensive reply I would ask him whether he can clarify the figures. If he is correctly understood and the contemplated inflow from the Uganda incident is not likely to exceed 20,000, and if it is the case, as has been stated by the Press, that the overall inflow prior to this was around 40,000 per annum, how can it be that this year the total will be only 60,000?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, that is done by the simple arithmetic of adding 20,000 to 40,000.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether he saw a report in the Press that the British High Commission in Uganda were issuing the so-called stateless people with British passports so that they can become British citizens? Can he either confirm or reject that?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, that is not right. What has happened is that there were fairly complicated procedures, both under Ugandan and under British legislation—though I think it was mainly Ugandan legislation—whereby people who at the time of Ugandan independence were citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies had various procedures to go through in order to become Ugandan citizens. Some of them got a certain distance along the road but failed on some of the technicalities to complete the acquisition of Ugandan citizenship. Those people therefore did not lose the United Kingdom citizenship which they previously held. It is with the comparatively small number of those people—they comprise one of the categories—that the High Commission in Kampala is now dealing.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to put one further question—and I have been trying to put it for some time. While I appreciate what the noble Viscount said about consideration and family difficulties, does he recognise that in Uganda the danger of the breaking up of families is now probably the most urgent question? I welcome what the
1846
Government have done in new categories, but even that has aroused the danger of further break-up of families, with wives and dependants being allowed here and the fathers and husbands not. But is the noble Viscount aware that it goes much further than this, in that there are dependants who do not have British passports when the head of the household has; and in that way the family is broken up? It acts in the opposite direction. There are dependants who have not got British passports who have to stay in Uganda, and their old father who has been dependent on them comes here without any support at all. I beg the Government to look at the whole problem of the division of families which is resulting from these different categories.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether he has read the pamphlet by Mr. Anthony Lester about the millions who we are told may descend upon this country? In order to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Barnby. I should add that these thousands or millions who are said to be able to come to this country have dual citizenship I do not think they would want to come to this country from their nice warm climates. They have the citizenship of the country in which they are living, as well as British passports, and that is quite a different matter from people who are turned out with only British passports.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, I should not wish to suggest that anything we do is intended to break up families. But, while it is true that one has to deal with these questions of citizenship with compassion, one must do so also with a certain amount of reality. I dealt with the situation where the dependants came here and the husband or father was, say, a Ugandan citizen: and I told the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the way in which we have handled that. The converse case, I imagine, is one where the dependants are over the age of 18 and are citizens, perhaps, of Uganda. In such cases I am not certain that I see why, in these circumstances, we are bound to give priority to accepting these people when we are so very busy trying to receive and resettle the holders of our own passports. I will look at this matter, but I think that our priorities are right and that if we

1847
go too far we shall do grave damage not only to those whom we are trying to help in that category but to the much larger numbers of Ugandans who are now coming here and trying to be resettled.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, has drawn my attention to a pamphlet. I have been reading about this subject a great deal to-day, and I have also been reading about the visit of Her Majesty the Queen to Stirling. I am afraid that I have not yet read the pamphlet, but certainly no figures that I have seen suggest that figures which have any relation to millions come into this at all. It is an absolute figment in this context to speak in terms of millions; indeed, we all hope that such a situation as we are now facing is not going to apply anywhere else.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether or not West Germany is the only Western European country that has accepted some of these unfortunate Asians? Would he further say whether a request was made to the French Government, and, if a negative reply was received from that Government, whether any reason was given for such a refusal?
BARONESS HYLTON-FOSTER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount a question on a rather different aspect of the matter? Could he do anything to help to achieve a more accurate prediction of the times of arrival of aircraft? This is one of the problems that is worrying volunteers—and I am speaking now chiefly on behalf of the Red Cross. The volunteers may be told that the aircraft will arrive at B o'clock in the evening, and so they call up their people at 8 o'clock, and are then told, "No it may arrive at one o'clock. "And at one o'clock they are told, Sorry, it may arrive some time to-morrow morning." This is a problem. It would also be very helpful if we could know how many Asians are likely to arrive on any one flight.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Merrivale asked about other European countries who have offered to help. Sweden and Austria, as well as West Germany, have offered to take United Kingdom passport holders. I believe that, in addition, Belgium has offered to
1848
help with stateless persons, so more than one country is involved. I frankly do not know about France, but the invitation was sent to as many countries as we could, and I should be very surprised if France was not one of the recipients of our invitation to assist in this matter.
I take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster. Those who meet planes at the best of times are subject to disappointment, and in the sorts of circumstances she has mentioned it must be quite maddening for volunteers, who are giving up their time to do this work. I will see if I can do anything to try to cure the defects.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask a supplementary question? Does not my noble friend feel that it would be right to try to insist that the French, and other European countries, should try to help us out by taking some of these people, especially as we are about to enter into partnership as one of the Nine?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I very much doubt whether it would be wise to try to insist on anything. We are dependent upon the good will of other nations, with which we have been richly rewarded, and to attempt to take a tough line about this would, it seems to me, be likely to be counter-productive. We have been very lucky, and we are very grateful to those who have already assisted us.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether my information is correct? I am told that it is fairly easy to find jobs for the Asians, especially in East Anglia, but that the great stumbling block is housing. A considerable number of Asians have been placed in jobs, and given housing; but at the moment, so I am told, housing is the great stumbling block. Local authorities are doing their best, but many of them already have very long housing lists. Many of them cannot do very much. As I said on an earlier occasion, when the noble learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, was making his Statement, I think this housing aspect must be treated with very great urgency.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CUL ROSS: My Lords, I am sorry: I do not have with me details of the situation regarding jobs and housing. This is a matter which

1849
is not normally my responsibility. If there are problems in East Anglia I will draw them to the attention of my right honourable friend; indeed, the honourable Member for Cambridge, who deals with this aspect is himself an East Anglian and he will see whether something can be done.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask one short—
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene but we have well over 200 Amendments on the Local Government Bill. I think that my noble friend has had a long interrogation on this Statement, and I would suggest to your Lordships, with all due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, that we might now pass on and return to the Local Government Bill.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I certainly would support the appeal made by the noble Leader of the House. I make only one suggestion. This is a subject in which there is very deep interest and concern, and clearly we do not want to ask the Government to make a Statement every week as regards progress. But I wonder whether the noble Earl would consider ways and means by which Members of the House could be kept informed of progress that is being made. That might perhaps save having to make Statements.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I will gladly respond to that. I do not for one moment underestimate the importance of this problem, in social, human and political terms. It is one which deeply engages the attention of your Lordships' House—and rightly so—and I think it right and proper that, through the usual channels, we should see how we can best give effect to the wish which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has expressed and which I think corresponds to the feeling generally in your Lordships' House.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
4.17 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
Clause 174 [Provisions supplementary to sections 170 to 173]:
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 104, which is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 122, line 45, leave out from ("not") to ("above") in line 46 and insert ("that other body falls within any of paragraphs (b) to (f) of subsection (1)").—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 176 [General provision for transfer of functions]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 124, line 6, leave out ("on and after 1st April 1974").
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 105. We now come to thirty Amendments, not all following this one consecutively, which together remove the references to April 1, 1974, as a starting date in the body of the Bill, and replace them and other phrases associated with the commencement by a new comprehensive commencement clause after Clause 267 (Amendment 308A), which, on the happy occasion when we reach it, will perhaps be the right moment to have a substantive debate on this matter. I would suggest meanwhile that we leave these associated Amendments and regard them, as this one, as paving Amendments to that one. In that sense, I beg to move.
Schedule 14 [Amendment and modification of Public Health Acts, etc.]:
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, Amendment No. 106 is another of the commencement Amendments, and so is Amendment No. 107. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 291, line 33, leave out ("on and after 1st April 1974").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 107.
Amendment moved—
Page 291, line 35, leave out ("that date") and insert ("1st April 1974").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 108. This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 294, line 43, after ("functions") insert ("solely").—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 179 [Town and country planning]:
4.20 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 108C:
Page 128, line 16, leave out ("Part I of that Schedule") and insert ("In that Schedule—
(a) Part I")
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 108C. This is the first Amendment of two groups of Amendments dealing with the important subject of conservation. One group is in the names of my noble friends Lord Amory and Lord Molson, the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord. Lord Garnsworthy. Another group of Government Amendments are in my name, and the substantive one is Amendment No. 142, which is on page 8 of to-day's Marsalled List. It might be helpful if I invited. our Lordships to address your attention to that Amendment, and particularly to the first paragraph of it which appears after the number 48.
I want to stress straight away that the substantive Amendment, Amendment No. 142, is not the provision which we were considering at the Committee stage. It has been considerably modified and strengthened since then in the light of the views expressed by your Lordships to give my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the power to supervise and influence arrangements made for getting access to specialised advice in this field in a very direct and positive way. He is enabled to issue a direction to an authority to ensure that adequate arrangements are made for specialist advice on conservation to be available in all cases where that authority has to take a decision about listed buildings, conservation areas or anything to do with the conservation of
1852
our historic heritage. The significant phrase is in the first paragraph and your Lordships will sec that the Secretary of State is taking power here to direct the district planning authority to submit to him for his approval within a period specified in the direction the arrangements which the authorities propose to take. If we are not satisfied about that we can, after consultation, give the necessary directions as set out in paragraph 49 which forms part of Amendment No. 142.
Now I will say something about conservation generally and how responsibilities and functions are shouldered and discharged at present. I would ask the House to have in mind that there are two aspects of conservation. The first is the protection of individual buildings by a process known by those who are engaged in it as "listing". Noble Lords will know that listing is carried out by my Department on the advice of trained investigators and there are at present about 160,000 historic buildings on these lists. We are increasing this number each year by the addition of about 14,000 buildings. Additionally when a local planning authority considers that a building at present unlisted is in some danger, threatened in some way, and therefore should be listed, they may serve a building preservation notice upon the owner. The effect of this is to give similar protection to that unlisted building for a temporary period while my right honourable friend and I consider whether the building should be added permanently to the list. Further, any local society or private person may ask that a threatened building not at present protected should be included in the list. Such requests are considered carefully, quickly and, if necessary, acted upon.
The process of listing is a process the importance of which in this context it is impossible to exaggerate. This is why I stress it so much. The identification of and the giving of statutory protection to our heritage of individual historic buildings is vital if we are to safeguard that heritage as a whole. Because of the importance of these buildings and this system, consent may not be granted by a local planning authority for an alteration or a demolition of such a listed building unless my right honourable friend has first been notified and given an opportunity to call in the application

1853
for his own decision. In other words, a right of veto over a decision of a planning authority to grant consents already exists. The veto is already there on the consent to the demolition or alteration of a listed building. That will continue to exist in respect of each individual listed building after local government reorganisation. It is not the least bit affected or diminished by any of the provisions in this Act.
No local planning authority, be it county or district, city or town, is able now, or will be able in the future, to permit the demolition of a listed building without first notifying my right honourable friend. It is true that exemption may be granted, and has been granted to a small number of particular authorities, from the need to notify my right honourable friend of alterations to listed buildings. This has been given in only a limited number of cases where the authority has been able to show us that it has the staff, the skills and judgment—the skills of the officers and the judgment of the members—to handle these important decisions itself. At this point I turn to the second aspect of conservation, the protection of historic towns. This is achieved in the main by development control and exercised with special attention—
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the point of the special exemption for those who are regarded as fit to deal with their own alterations to listed buildings, may I ask whether the noble Lord did not rather mislead us on an earlier occasion in suggesting that for the most part these parties were the boroughs rather than the counties? We have since been informed that that was not so; it was the other way round.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am sorry if that is so. It is a very small number. The majority are county councils but there are county boroughs among them.
I was coming to the second aspect of conservation, the protection of whole areas and historic towns. This is mainly achieved by development control, with particular and special attention being given to designated conservation areas. It provides the framework and impetus for the preparation and implementation
1854
of conservation policies. Since the passage of the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act earlier in this Session, designation of a conservation area now enables authorities to control the demolition of unlisted buildings in the conservation area. A conservation area is the kind of area an authority may well feel should be an area of special control of advertisements, in which less intrusive traffic signs, which are available for use in these circumstances, would be appropriate. But, above all, it is the kind of area in which specially skilled attention should be given to the control of development.
At the moment 141 authorities may designate conservation areas, of which 83 are county boroughs and 58 are county councils. The cities that are now county boroughs exercise, and have for long exercised, development control in their own right and many of them have built up excellent specialist teams. County councils, on the other hand, have very largely delegated their development control powers to their district councils. Indeed, if a district has a population of over 60,000 it can claim automatic delegation. We have, therefore, the situation to-day where designation of conservation areas has to be undertaken by counties, and of course by county boroughs, but the essential development control is exercised by districts under delegated powers. This split of the functions in counties, as opposed to county boroughs, has proved awkward for all concerned.
Against that background, I should like now to explain the effect, as I see it, of the Government Amendments and compare them with those appearing in the names of the four noble Lords and Baronesses who have tabled the other group of Amendments. But may I first deal with one point on which I believe there can be no real disagreement. No one, I take it, is claiming that class for class county councillors are better judges than district councillors on preservation and conservation matters. It has been said that district councillors are much nearer to development pressure groups and could therefore be influenced by them. But, if that is said, by the same token they are much nearer to the many hundreds of local amenity societies, growing daily, which are not slow to make their views known, often very forcefully, on local matters, which is what these

1855
matters are. In my view, it is right that decisions affecting the local environment should be taken where all the local pressures and views can best be appreciated; and it is on that basis that the Government have taken the decision that development control should henceforward be exercised in the sphere of the district authorities.
I appreciate that what concerns us all is not that county councillors are better at conservation than city councillors. If that were the contention I could produce plenty of evidence to rebut it. Rather, we are all concerned, I take it, that decisions crucial to the safeguarding of our heritage should not be taken by any group of councillors without their having access to the advice of skilled specialist teams. Cur problem is how best to ensure that. Our aim is to ensure that the system proposed in the Bill functions satisfactorily in respect of both the preservation of single buildings and the conservation of historic towns. May I remind your Lordships that paragraph 25 of Schedule 16 (the part we are dealing with and relating to the Amendment I referred to) enables my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to direct the district planning authority to submit for his approval details of the arrangements they propose to make in order to obtain the specialist advice needed to carry out their preservation and conservation functions. A circular will be issued explaining how this advice might best be obtained. For example—these are the matters to which the circular will chiefly be addressed—district authorities may enter into an agreement to use the services of an existing team, which could be either a county or a county borough team. They may also act jointly to take over an existing team, or to recruit a new one; or they may continue to employ their own team, if, as is true in many cases, they already have one; or they may continue to employ a consultant—something else which again is done by several cities, some cities following both the last two procedures together. Circumstances already vary considerably throughout the country and arrangements such as these must be kept flexible.
It may interest the House to know that, for example, in West Sussex, and
1856
in the future county of Avon, discussions have already begun to see how existing teams can advise the new district authorities. In the one case the county team will be doing it; in the other, a district team—a team based upon the city of Bath. Similar discussions are no doubt taking place elsewhere. We set great store on these arrangements and by our power to influence them and, if necessary, give directions to bring them about. I must say that the other group of Amendments, proposed by four noble Lords and Baronesses, would take away the power which my right honourable friend needs to require these arrangements to be submitted for approval, and would put in its place a right of veto to the county planning officer over the planning authority of the towns and the cities that will make up the future districts. I will return to the question of the veto in a moment.
As I say, in our view the availability of specialist staff is the central issue here, and we therefore propose to strengthen the provisions relating to staff arrangements as I have indicated. What we propose, to be more precise, is that where a district planning authority fail to specify that they have made satisfactory arrangements of the kind I have just described for obtaining specialist advice, they may be directed either to use the staff of another authority or to arrange for a discharge of their functions by another authority. This proposal in our view has four clear advantages which I should like to spell out. The fact that action can be taken against an authority with unsatisfactory arrangements will urge all authorities into making arrangements that are satisfactory without. I hope, our having to use our directive powers in more than a few cases. We can, as I say, specify in a circular what criteria and standards we expect to be followed. Secondly, we can influence matters to ensure the optimum deployment of skilled staff, which all of us agree is in short supply. The third advantage under the arrangements which we propose is the avoidance of double handling of applications. This is an inevitable consequence of one of the noble Lords' Amendments which is asking for concurrent powers. The fourth advantage we see is that a possible source, if not an almost certainty, of intense resentment at cities that are going to become districts (and which have

1857
carried out these conservation functions quite satisfactorily) being put under the supervision and subject to the veto of counties will be avoided. This is one of the worst effects which my noble friends' group of Amendments will lead to.
I would now return to the right of veto that is proposed. Of course, this right would exist only in respect of certain decisions taken by a district planning authority. The Amendments would also give the county concurrent powers with the districts to designate conservation areas, serve building preservation notices, and protect unlisted buildings in conservation areas. Before I pass on to the question of staffing, I must say that I feel that something is wrong with the proposal which would give a county planning authority—and I say this however well meaning this proposal may be—a right of veto over planning decisions of cities that have been county boroughs and which have done as much in the field of conservation and preservation as any of the counties. It would mean setting the county of Norfolk, which until recently had only just designated one conservation area, over the city of Norwich, which is among the foremost cities in the country in this field and has designated six or seven. It would mean setting the county of Cheshire (against whom I have nothing in this field) as tutor over Chester, which spends probably more per head in conservation than any other city in the land. Chester has admirable staff of its own and employs one of the best consultants on this subject. What would be gained by setting Winchester under Hampshire, when both city and county have long proved themselves to be entirely capable of discharging their respective functions? I beg your Lordships to believe that such arrangements would not only be wasteful of skilled staff but bound to lead to the most intense resentment between town and country—just the very bodies we are seeking to reconcile throughout this Bill.
But the argument remains, and has to be met, that if all the districts compete for the existing experienced officers there will not be enough to go round and as a result the work will suffer; we shall lose valuable buildings and we shall harm
1858
attractive areas. I have therefore carefully considered the Amendments to see how they would help to avoid this pitfall, and I am bound to say that I cannot see how they could fail to make the situation worse, or at least very much increase the risk of the situation deteriorating. Just let us examine in detail the passage of an application through its various stages if the Amendments of my noble friend and noble Lords and Baronesses opposite were in force.
An application would go first to the district planning authority and the members (not the officers) would need to reach a conclusion on what they wished to do with it. However, as lay members they would need professional advice, and therefore the district would have to employ, or have access to, some professional staff capable of giving that advice. It is argued that they need not do so, but they may need such staff. However, there is nothing in the Amendments tabled by my noble friend which would compel them to seek skilled advice, whereas my right honourable friend and I are taking power under our Amendment to ensure that there are proper arrangements for engaging skilled staff to advise them on development and control matters in conservation areas. I am satisfied that where a right of veto is given to another authority, as it would be under these Amendments, it is unlikely in practice to produce the kind of relationship that would result from our Amendment; it would be much more likely to produce conflict and disagreement.
But to continue with this application for development in a conservation area. If the district authority, say in the city of York, decide that they wish to grant permission, the application would, under the operation of these Amendments, be then referred to the county planning authority at Northallerton. None of them has been hitherto. The whole procedure among county officers and county officials of the North Riding would then be repeated. Quite apart from the length of time that it would take to reshape a final decision, the handling of the application by two sets of officers and two councils and two committees must surely mean that more—not fewer—authorities will be competing for the existing professional staff.

1859
Noble Lords will already have heard all the other details about these proposals—the preparation of local plans and the control of development are closely related to the designation of conservation areas and the control of works to listed buildings. The former are all to be the responsibility of the districts, and I submit to your Lordships that it is not only logical but also a more economic use of scarce staff to allocate the conservation and preservation functions to them also. Furthermore, there are drafting defects in these Amendments but I will not lay any stress on that. What I would do is to stress the advantages in the Government Amendments. I believe these will encourage districts to make satisfactory arrangements to obtain specialist advice, and I am sure that the most satisfactory arrangements in a large number of cases—probably the majority of cases—will be for them to make arrangements with the counties for the county teams to be kept in existence and to be made available to the districts: and I am quite certain that the financial arrangements in the Bill are sufficiently flexible for that to be done.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down can he explain one thing to me, which no doubt shows great ignorance on my part. In my experience, conservation and the protection of listed buildings depends a great deal on money; somebody paying for it—either the owner, the district, the county council or, in the old days, the Office of Works. What I do not quite understand is this. If the Minister is assuming the considerable position that he appears to be occupying, will he be in a position to contribute anything to this conservation work out of separate funds or will be more or less direct other authorities to spend it out of their funds?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for affording me an opportunity to explain this matter. It is not easy to do it briefly, because it is quite a complex package, but broadly speaking it is as follows. In the case of individual buildings, the owners can apply to the Historic Buildings Council, who will look at the applicalion. If they consider that the building
1860
is of national significance and importance, and that what is proposed can be approved, they will advise my right honourable friend to give a grant of whatever size they think appropriate and at whatever rate they think appropriate. In other words, they might decide to recommend 50 per cent. or 70 per cent. or some other percentage. They will make a contribution of a certain percentage towards the work in hand, the owner contributing the rest. The owner can also apply to his local authority, which is also authorised to contribute in the same way. The general pattern is that grants from the Historic Buildings Council up to the maximum budget they are allowed per annum, running at present at £1½ million, tend to contribute to buildings of national importance while the local authorities tend to contribute to the buildings of local importance. That is the basic system.
On top of that there are arrangements whereby, in what are called town schemes, groups of buildings in conservation areas, including buildings which individually do not come up to the standard to attract grants in their own right, can be assisted by way of town schemes. In that case the grants are also administered on the advice of the Historic Buildings Council: 50 per cent. of the cost of the works is borne by the owner; 25 per cent. by the local authority and 25 per cent. by the Exchequer. On top of that there are the newly introduced conservation grants under the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act in which it is open to local authorities, the owners of buildings or amenity societies to put forward conservation schemes of a general kind (not necessarily concerned with work on individual buildings) for the enhancement of outstanding conservation areas, and here again grants are available on the advice of the Historic Buildings Council for the support of that work.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords. I hope there will be enough money from these different funds to help substantially.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, we have doubled the amount available since coming to power. I commend the group of Government Amendments to your Lordships in the belief that these proposals will, first, encourage districts to

1861
make satisfactory arrangements to obtain specialist advice (and I think that in the majority of counties this might best be done by keeping the county teams together and have the districts contributing to them); secondly, that it will avoid the double handling of planning applications, such as I have described in some detail—remember, double handling would be inevitable if the concurrent powers being sought in the counter proposals were to be given: thirdly, that since the power of veto which the counter proposals would involve will not exist under the Government's arrangements, this serious danger of conflict and resentment between cities and counties will be avoided; and fourthly, that it will be possible, by the exercise of the powers that my right honourable friend proposes to take, to avoid the undesirable deployment of staff which I am afraid would otherwise result. I apologise for speaking at such length, but this is not only an important but a somewhat complicated subject. I welcome this opportunity to discuss it and I look forward to hearing the views of other noble Lords.
4.52 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the broad explanation he has given both of the proposals of the Government and of the alternative proposals that have been put forward by noble Lords including myself. It is convenient that we should discuss this whole matter and see the issue as a problem of policy before we consider the individual Amendments and the extent to which they are effective for the purposes we have in mind. I very much hope that as a result of what the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has said and of my remarks it may be possible for us to reach a compromise which will effect the purposes we have in mind and at the same time not require the Government to go back on their considered policy.
Before we begin to consider this problem may I repeat what is of course well known to all your Lordships but what is fundamental to any consideration of this problem? Under the law as it has been, all these conservation and preservation matters have been the responsibility of the local planning authorities, which are the county councils and county borough councils. The effect of this Bill as drafted
1862
would be to transfer those powers almost completely to the newly created district bodies. It is not in any way to cast reflections on these future district bodies if I point out that all existing experience and expertise is at present in the hands of the county councils and county borough councils, and when Parliament decides to transfer important functions from one set of bodies to another it is extremely important to ensure that as much as possible of the accumulated wisdom and experience is preserved and not sacrificed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary wrote to me saying that after studying what had been said in Committee—when, your Lordships will remember, not one noble Lord from either side supported the Government's proposals as they then were—he thought that two main considerations had emerged. The first was the question whether county councils were likely to be more responsible guardians of our heritage than district councils, and the second was how to make the most economical and efficient use of the limited number of specialist staff concerned with these matters.
The Government deny that the county councils would be better guardians of our heritage than the district councils. I have already pointed out that the existing experience rests with the county councils and county borough councils. When expenditure is to be incurred on conservation, preservation or anything of that kind, the pressure on councillors from a small area which will have to meet out of a comparatively small rateable area the heavy expenditure which is involved in preservation and conservation is very much greater than it would be in the case of a county. The very expenditure is a much greater burden on a district than on a county council. It is only a natural human weakness, to which I am sure we would all be subject, to be concerned about a proposal which will involve heavy expenditure out of our own purse on some artistic or historical cause.
There is a clear distinction to be drawn between those district councils which are to be based on great historical cities like York, Chester and Norwich, and what I might call the ordinary run of district councils of which there will be 1.200 to 1,400. My noble friend Lord Colville chose to take these few district councils which will be based on these historic

1863
cities as the example from which he drew general conclusions. It is often unwise for someone with professional experience to rely on his own experience rather than on the statistics. He said that of the 12 local authorities which had so distinguished themselves that they were given special exemption from informing the Secretary of State of proposed alterations to listed buildings, 9 were county borough councils and 3 were county councils. The facts are that 12 have indeed been exempted, but 11 were county councils and only I was a county borough council. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Colville said—
VISCOUNT GAGE: Is my noble friend referring to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford?
LORD MOLSON: I think not.
LORD SANDFORD: It was my noble friend Lord Colville in Committee.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I agree with what my noble friend Lord Colville said about the distinguished record of these historic cities, and I accept entirely that my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has again said to-day, that it would be entirely wrong for Norwich, Chester or York to be put into subordination to the county surrounding. Surely, my Lords, the position is reasonably clear. There is an immense difference between different categories of district councils. Some are large and wealthy, and will be based upon these great historic cities. Others—and no reproach attaches to them—are poorer, both in financial resources and in their architectural heritage, and the degree of autonomy that could properly be given to Chester, York or Norwich, say, would not be apropriate in the case of a number of district councils without any of the same distinguished heritage from the past. Indeed, a vital distinction is that in those cases that the Government have mentioned these great historic cities have already been county borough councils and, therefore, planning authorities. What is now being proposed is that on the strength of this limited number of historic cities it is proposed to give these greatly increased powers to district councils which never have been county borough councils, have had no experience as planning authorities and are not likely in the
1864
future to be able to exercise the same knowledge and the same discretion.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt my noble friend before he leaves this point. I was at some pains to mention another city which is not a county borough, a long way below the population level of a county borough, namely, Winchester, and I could mention another, Stamford. There are much smaller areas which have, I should have thought from my own personal experience, exercised with perfectly admirable skill as many conservation functions as it is possible for them to have. I would submit that it is not the fact that an authority has to be of a certain size before it is capable of doing this. There is a combination of factors involved: good judgment by councillors; good officials exercising development control, and so on. I cannot agree with my noble friend that at a certain level of size—county borough size—conservation suddenly becomes possible. It is being carried out admirably within the constraints of the legislation by much smaller authorities.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords. I am much obliged to my noble friend and I am glad to say that his intervention fits in entirely with the proposal that I am about to make. In view of what he has said, I am naturally encouraged to think that he will find my proposal—which will really reconcile the differences between us—acceptable.
The real spirit of the Government's proposal is that all district councils in the future should be given that increased authority and discretion which they have said would be appropriate in the case of these great historic cities, and I entirely agree with the point my noble friend has now made; that there will be a number of other district councils which might very properly be put into the same category. Our proposal is that the Secretary of State should have power to give to district councils—which will be those historic cities mentioned by two Ministers and these other deserving and admirable smaller bodies that my noble friend has just mentioned in his intervention—these extra powers, but that the general run of district councils should not be given these powers which are not suitable for all district councils.

1865
The Government accept this proposition because they have put down an Amendment by which they are going to subject to discipline and control district authorities that do not show themselves at the beginning to be sufficiently responsible. My Lords, the difference between the Government and my friends and myself can be largely boiled down to this question: should we legislate, as my friends and I suggest, for the general run of district councils, giving the Secretary of State a discretionary power to grant special additional powers to the district councils in whom he has confidence, or should we, as in the Government's proposal, legislate for those with a higher degree of expertise and then issue circulars, directions, and so forth, in order to bring those which lack these special abilities, expertise and experience up to the ordinary standard? I suggest that our proposals are much the better, first because we are legislating for the majority and giving power for special treatment to be accorded to the elite minority, and secondly because it means that privileges are given for good work to those district councils that show themselves to be deserving of them.
My Lords, I turn now to the Government's Amendment No. 142. Naturally I will not go into detail because that can be done, if necessary, later. What I am bound to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, however, is to what extent will this be effective? In paragraph 49(a) of the proposed new Part III reference is made to the arrangements for the services of officers, and so on. Subparagraph (b) says that the Secretary of State may:
"direct the district planning authority and another local planning authority so specified to enter into arrangements for the discharge by the latter of any of the functions mentioned in that paragraph and also direct that the arrangements shall contain terms so specified or terms on lines laid down by him".
I should like to have from the Parliamentary Secretary a definite assurance that that wording would enable the Secretary of State to give directions to a district council to carry out necessary conservation work and that it would not be considered to be any adequate answer if the district authority wrote back to the Ministry and said, "We very much regret we cannot comply with your instruction because it would involve imposing an additional burden upon our ratepayers".
1866
The second point which the Parliamentary Secretary made in his letter to me emerged from our debate at the Committee stage, and was the importance of making the most effective use of specialised staff. I was fearful of what would happen even before the speech of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross at the Committee stage. What he then indicated was that the wish and intention of the Government was far worse than anything I had expected. At column 925 (OFFICIAL REPORT, 19/9/72) he said:
"… where we have a good county team now "—
he was referring to the technical staff necessary for this purpose—
"there is nothing to prevent it either from staying with the county under the Bill as it stands or being shared by the districts … or indeed, I suppose, being taken over by one of the districts and available to others, if they should so wish."
The idea of these specialised staff leaving the county council and going to one of the district councils appeared to me to be so deplorable that I asked him later whether that was exactly what he meant. I said (col. 927):
"Does the noble Viscount mean that they should not be broken up but that the whole county team should go to one of the district councils?"
And he replied:
"Yes; in some cases that would be most suitable—most suitable indeed."
If we are short of specialised staff, and if a county council has built up a staff of that kind, with these great and important powers being transferred to the districts (and there may be eight or ten districts in a county), the idea that perhaps the richest and most enlightened of those districts should take over the county staff, to the deprivation of the county council and all the other district councils, appears to me to be wholly deplorable. But I have heard the Parliamentary Secretary to-day (consultations, no doubt, have taken place in the Department), and he has said that the best thing would be for the county council to retain a skilled staff of that kind. In the Government Amendment (No. 142) it says that a local planning authority may be directed to enter into arrangements with another local planning authority. I take it that that means that a district council may be instructed by the Secretary of State to enter into arrangements with another district Council. I hope that it also means—

1867
and I should far prefer that we spelled it out—that where these concurrent powers, as I hope they will be, are exercised, any arrangements of that kind should be between the district councils and the county councils.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt my noble friend once more before he leaves that point. If I may say so, I think he is generalising too much. I would not dispute a word of what he is saying about what might be a likely pattern in, say, 20 or 30 counties. It may well be the best arrangement. and it may be an arrangement about which we shall agree to or make positive directions; that the county team remains together and serves the districts and helps them by providing that expert advice in discharging their functions. But it may by no means happen everywhere. If I may speculate about the new county of Avon, it contains two big cities which will each form districts under the future pattern of local government. I have reason to believe that what will happen there is that Bath, which because of its nature has a powerful team of officers dealing with the conservation of the city, and Bristol, another of our larger historical cities, between them will serve the other districts that, together with them, will make up the new county. There we shall have the functions of conservation in that new county being served on behalf of all the districts of the county by two districts rather than by a county team. So there are variations—I assure the noble Lord I have done a little desk exercise throughout the country—between the kind of county he has in mind and the kind I have described, by way of example, the county of Avon. There is very much more variation in this, and it is impossible to generalise.
LORD MOLSON: All of which confirms me in my feeling that it should be quite possible to arrive at an entirely satisfactory compromise between the Government and ourselves and make appropriate arrangements according to the particular county. I am not at present persuaded that the most effective way of doing that is to have no statutory foundation for this co-operation and merely
1868
giving the power to the Minister to issue circulars followed by directions.
I apologise, my Lords, for speaking at length, but this Amendment covers a number of important matters. There is also the financial position. Again my noble friend Lord Colville referred to finance as though it were not of any great importance. It is, of course, of great importance. The destruction, the decay, of so much of our architectural heritage at the present time is due not to lack of architectural advice as to what ought to be done, but the inability of people to find the money to carry out the work that is necessary. That will certainly bear very much more heavily upon districts than it would upon counties.
Another very important financial aspect which my noble friend did not mention—indeed he skated over it—is that in conservation areas there is a tremendous temptation for the local ratepayers to press for the demolition of picturesque ancient buildings which are not profitable like a modern office block, and for them to be replaced in that way. The larger the area and the greater the resources of the authority concerned, the less dangerous that pressure is likely to be.
I come to a point which I believe the Parliamentary Secretary has anxiously in mind, although he did not refer to it in his speech to-day. How can a county council justify to its ratepayers the retention of a skilled staff—an architect; perhaps an inspector of ancient buildings; a surveyor, a clerk of the works; all those skilled people who are necessarily working together as a team to carry out this work—when in fact the county council has no statutory responsibility, no locus standi whatsoever in dealing with conservation areas? It is asking too much of county councils to expect them to carry the burden of maintaining this staff if in fact they have no right of intervention, no right to declare a conservation area, no right to do anything except to co-operate with district councils if and when the Secretary of State calls upon them to do so.
Running through my noble friend's speech there was perpetual reference to advice and consultation. Of course that is a first essential: nothing can be done until the right advice is given. But

1869
advice does not result in action, and I can see nothing except paragraph 49(b) of Amendment No. 142 which gives the Secretary of State any power whatever to ensure that anything effective is done. When we are legislating and setting up a new structure of local government in this country it is essential that we should be satisfied that it will be effective for its purpose, and not be satisfied merely with the powers of discussion and consultation between a number of different local authorities, who are going to find it extremely difficult to carry out and finance the work which is urgently necessary if our architectural heritage is to be preserved.
5.21 p.m.
LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords. I should like very briefly to support my noble friend Lord Molson in what he has said. There is the world of difference between those districts which have been mentioned—that is to say, Winchester, Bath, Norwich, and so on—and the districts which are made up of perhaps half-a-dozen towns of 10.000 inhabitants, or less, where they have never had their own planning teams. When it comes to planning teams, it is not a question of councils' being short-staffed the supply of qualified staff is totally inadequate, and at the moment many planning officers are working very much above their qualifications simply because the qualified staff are not there, and will not be there for many years. So those staff who are going to be shared will have many masters, and I do not think that staff like having many masters.
Finally, anybody who has been in county planning will know well enough that many decisions which are referred to the county planning department by local planning officers are really wrong decisions on any count, and are taken by the local districts acting through local sympathies and local pressures.
5.23 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I should like briefly to intervene in very warm support of what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Molson and Lord Gisborough, because this is one of the subjects on which one had hoped for so much, if I may say so frankly, from a Conservative Government. We had hoped
1870
so much that they would have taken more deeply to heart the kind of questions which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has so eloquently put before us, and that they would have thought this subject through with greater purposefulness. I recognise that a great deal of work has been done, but the results are so disappointing because, as I am sure noble Lords who have had experience of local government will appreciate, what we are left with by the Government Amendments (although they improve somewhat the original form of the Bill), is something which I think most of us would feel will not work very satisfactorily except in the few areas of very special effort, such as the places mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford—Norwich, Chester, Winchester, York, and one or two others. He mentioned, too, some places like Stamford. I am not denying for a moment that the proposed arrangements would possibly work in those instances, but there are so many other areas—the noble Lord himself said 20 or 30 counties—where you do not have such centres of excellence, with experts both on the councils among the elected members, among the staffs, and among the inhabitants. If Winchester, cannot look after itself, for goodness, sake! who could?
There are so many other places which many of us must have in mind. If one must mention places, take Aylesbury, which makes me weep whenever I go near it. Aylesbury was a perfect example, as some of your Lordships may know, of a very pleasant market town with a very agreeable market square. Perhaps it did not have any one building which you could point to and say, "That is of absolutely outstanding merit", but the total ambience of the place was agreeable. It was charming; it was attractive; but the horrors that have been committed in the centre of Aylesbury, such as that ghastly monstrosity of concrete which has now been put there! All those pleasant buildings, the hotel, the shops, the old market square, and everything there in that part of Aylesbury has been ruined. Take Shrewsbury. Some of the best buildings there have been knocked down in the sacred name of development. I will not particularise further. I mention just two places that are close to my heart, and both of which make me almost

1871
physically ill when I go there nowadays. I am happy to say that there are parts of Shrewsbury and Aylesbury which are still pleasant and agreeable, but when you think of what the whole might have been, it really is very sad indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, was perfectly right in saying that in very many of these smaller places the local councillors feel passionately that they must go for development at all costs. One does not blame them. One can appreciate that they are concerned with the business, the prosperity, of their community. They are under considerable pressure from their friends, their neighbours, their colleagues, and their relatives. We all know the position very well and it is because of considerations of that kind that one needs a much wider base. It is not that we want in any way to deny to the local communities some authority and some interest in this matter, but something more widely based is needed. It is here that the Government have failed lamentably in their proposals, unless they are going to act with considerable vigour on subparagraph 49(b)—and I find that hard to believe. One knows very well how reluctant Government Departments are to intervene in these matters and to tell local authorities that some other authority must take over their job. They will not do it, except in the extreme cases, when a great deal of damage will already have been done. If it has not been already done, they will find it very difficult to prove their point.
It seems to me that the proposals of the Government, although they are a slight move in the right direction, still leave us with a situation in which, in order to maintain the position and the authority of a relatively small number of admittedly important and well managed towns and cities—mostly former county Boroughs, though not exclusively such—:hey are prepared to sacrifice a large area of the country so far as conservation is concerned. As the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, I believe was indicating, it is surely unrealistic to expect county teams to remain: they will not. What self-respecting staff would remain under those conditions? They would not. This is where I frankly despair when the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, puts this proposal forward as a serious proposition. If he
1872
were a highly skilled person of professional standing, would he want to work for an authority which had no powers itself of any kind, in order to be at the beck and call of a number of disparate local authorities and without having any secure base with his own authority? I just do not believe that people of real skill and eminence in these fields would remain in those circumstances. I do riot think it is realistic. That is one of the main reasons why I am so much disturbed by the proposals.
The other point that the noble Lord, Lord Molson, emphasised related to cash. I can only look back to some of my own associations in Wales. I have said to your Lordships before that we do not have very many conservation areas in Waes; we have natural beauty, but not a great deal of man-made beauty. When I think of the relative position and interest of the major authorities of the counties and of the districts, and even the districts as they are going to be, the district just will not have the money and I believe in most instances will not wish to spend the money, except the historic towns and Baedeker cities. They will, but I do not think the others will be disposed to spend their money in the way that very often the counties would. The counties have greater resources, they are able to take a broader view, they are very often able to call on a wider range of interests among their elected members as well as among their officers. It seems to me, therefore, that it is of the greatest importance that there should be at the least concurrent powers.
There is one small point on which I should be grateful to have Lord Sand-ford's enlightenment. I was a little worried about what would happen under the concurrent powers. As I understand concurrent powers, it means that either authority may take action; it does not necessarily have to go through both.
LORD SANDFORD: Not necessarily, no.
BARONESS WHITE: The way in which the noble Lord was putting it to the House was indicating that in all circumstances you would have to go through a double process. I think with respect, that that is not so.
Lord SANDFORD: You do not have to.
BARONESS WHITE: You probably would, but it does not by any means follow. If you have concurrent powers, the county would at least be able in appropriate circumstances to take some action, and for reasons on which I am sure other noble Lords will elaborate I hope very much that we can come to some kind of—I almost said compromise, but something which will provide for concurrent powers in the counties.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY:My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but having listened carefully to the speeches on both sides I cannot but support the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, for three simple reasons. The first is the difficulty of finance in the case of a district council; the second is the impossibility to my mind of arrangements for staff under the present suggestion; and the third is that undoubtedly there are pressures which can be better resisted by the county councils than the district councils.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I add a word to this very difficult debate? I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Molson for having developed so clearly the opposite arguments to those which were developed by my noble friend Lord Sandford. To myself who has an uncommitted mind—and such personal affections as I have are with the county council—I find it extremely difficult to make up my mind where the right balance lies. My noble friend Lord Molson made out as cogent a case from his point of view as my noble friend Lord Sandford made out for his. I do not think my noble friend Lord Molson dealt with a point of substance which my noble friend Lord Sandford made in his speech: that at the present time there are no less than 83 county boroughs who have these preservation powers against the 58 county councils. This made a considerable impact on my mind. I trust that I am right in what I am quoting. If my noble friend Lord Sandford wishes to correct the figures I have given no doubt he will. But if those figures are correct, I am trying to make up my mind where the split had better come, because if the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend and the noble Baroness and noble
1874
Lords opposite is accepted, we are undoubtedly going to create disappointment and despondency for a very large number of county boroughs who are at present carrying out their job satisfactorily.
I thought my noble friend's best point was on finance. This is a matter with which all of us are familiar in the local government world. All too often, small authorities have, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, said, gone for development rather than preservation because they could not face the cost. I suppose we must place against that now the fact that the new county district authorities are going to be so very much bigger and, therefore, stronger financially, than they have been in the past, so that at any rate to some extent that danger must be reduced. We do not yet have an answer to my noble friend's second point on finance, the cost of paying the salaries of the county teams which are going to be shared by the county district authorities, and I am hoping that my noble friend Lord Sandford will explain that point. Clearly, some provision will have to be made for that. It would be quite unreasonable to expect county councils to continue to pay their salaries when they are no longer working for the county council, and they would have no statutory responsibility.
My Lords, I thought the noble Baroness made a cogent point in regard to these teams when she said that it would not be a very attractive job to be working, as it were, in mid air, for this authority and that authority and not to have any certain masters. I think there is a practical difficulty here to which I hope my noble friend Lord Sandford will address himself when he replies to the debate. I am hound to say that the noble Baroness's graphic reference to Aylesbury created some doubt in my mind as to whether she is completely right. My knowledge of Aylesbury leads me to know that the worst and most monstrous building in Aylesbury—that large bulbous building that looks as if it is pregnant with quadruplets—is the county council building. The town of Aylesbury is responsible for it.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, the town of Aylesbury presumably gave planning permission for that monstrosity to be erected.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I should not like to say just what the interplay was between the county council and the authority of Aylesbury. My recollection is that Aylesbury is a non-county borough so they would have only limited powers in the matter. Undoubtedly, it was the county architect who designed the thing and the county council is responsible for its monstrous shape. But that is only a passing point. In fact, mistakes have been made everywhere in the past. We are trying now to get a structure which will make fewer mistakes in the future and will ensure that the interests of the local preservation societies, the people who are interested in the preservation of valuable buildings and valuable preservation areas are brought to hear effectively on the relevant targets. Here my noble friend has the best point of all. There is no doubt that in the towns these local preservation societies are the most active. They are cheek by jowl with the members there and can undoubtedly bring far greater pressure to bear on them than they usually can on the county council members. I should have thought that in that respect my noble friend has a point.
My conclusion on what I have heard and on the subject in which I and indeed other noble Lords have the greatest interest is that to my mind less violence would be done to the existing structure of expert teams by what my noble friend is proposing than what is being proposed in the Amendments. But I still think that my noble friend Lord Sandford has to address himself to some formidable arguments of finance, some formidable arguments on keeping these expert teams together and some formidable arguments on exercising the control which is indicated in his latest Amendment—I think No. 142—on how he would ensure that these expert teams worked satisfactorily if they did come under the county district authorities. I still think that there is a formidable case to answer. Whether it is possible to have concurrent powers on the lines which the noble Baroness was indicating I am not sure, but I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend says if noble Lords give him leave to reply to the debate.
5.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Molson, in a very powerful and lucid speech. outlined so well the case for the Amendments which stand in his name and in the names of some others of us about why, in our view, the Government's Amendments are inadequate, that I merely want to underline one or two of the points that have already been made by him, by the noble Baroness, Lady White, by my noble friend Lord Gisborough and by my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley. My noble friend Lord Sandford is always so reasonable, so friendly and so persuasive that I hate finding myself unable to agree with him all the way along the line. But though the Government's Amendments go a little way in dealing with the problems of technical staffs, they do not really help us with the other aims of the Amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Molson and the rest of us.
I have just two questions on the Government's Amendments. It is very difficult for my noble friend to give me the kind of assurance I want, but there is a kind of doubt about whether the Government will always use their powers in cases like this and, when they do use them, whether they will do so in time. In this case, time is of the essence and it seems to me essential that any powers should be able to be used before April 1, 1974; but I suppose that that point can be dealt with. But I should like to underline what my noble friend Lord Molson said, that the object of these Amendments is not to seek to put all the powers in the hands of county councils, or to place responsibilities in the county councils' hands if those responsibilities can be exercised as well by districts.
We entirely agree with the principle of exemptions. I should like to say a word of comfort to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford about county boroughs. We believe that the principle of exemptions by the Secretary of State is sound, and those exemptions which we have in mind would not apply only to very big places; they could come down to small places. I should have thought that our Amendments would provide for any of those county boroughs

1877
being given exemptions if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, they could carry out their responsibilities effectively. I am going to remain neutral on Aylesbury until I have visited it, particularly in view of what my noble friend Lord Nugent said about the ownership of the building in question. But even if the building is an eyesore—and I reserve judgment on that—I should have thought it would be more likely to be puller down by one of the entirely new county councils, if that were necessary, than if it were left to any other authority to deal with. But where districts clearly have the technical resources, the enthusiasm and the financial resources to perform their duties effectively, then we agree that there is no need for the county councils to be involved. But we continue to have real doubts about whether all districts will have the resources and the enthusiasm to do so.
We agree about the need for flexibility, but we believe that in these conservation issues it is important that the new counties should have at any rate what one might call long-stop powers. That is why we want to press as strongly as we can the need for concurrent powers, which seem to us to be essential. My noble friend Lord Sandford has told us how much the Secretary of State can do, but if it is the Government's wish that central Government should disengage wherever they can and leave responsibilities with local government, this is surely an opportunity to do so. It seems to me that the new counties will be almost ideal authorities to exercise some of the responsibilities where individual decisions have to be taken which at present rest with the Secretary of State. I do not think that the Secretary of State must have appellate functions, but it seems to me that many of the decisions which the Secretary of State takes can really be taken effectively by these new bodies.
As my noble friend Lord Molson said, the weakness of the Government's proposals is that the county councils will be left with no statutory position at all in this matter, and from that flows the kind of difficulty to which the noble Baroness, Lady White, referred; that is, the difficulty of visualising how, in those circumstances, counties can justify trying to keep teams together, and whether they would
1878
succeed in doing so if they tried. But, to me, what is almost a stronger argument is that unless the counties have some statutory position, there will be no incentive to them to participate. We all know that without participation at county level many of these desirable things will not happen, even though other authorities may receive the technical advice they need. I think the technique envisaged of leaving it to district authorities, perhaps under direction from the Secretary of State, to share teams is a very cumbersome one. Finally, the point which my noble friend Lord Matson made so effectively was that, while advice is the prerequisite, advice by itself is not everything. Advice is useful only if it leads to good action afterwards.
My conclusion is that, as an absolute minimum, concurrent powers for county councils, so that they have some statutory part to play in this business, are absolutely essential. I hope that my noble friend Lord Molson, and others who have added their names to the Amendments, will continue to press the Government on this point, in particular, because it seems to me a great pity if we cannot get agreement when our aims here are so similar. If the county councils could be left with some statutory responsibilities—and the minimum is concurrent powers with districts—we should have the essence of what we are all looking for.
5.49 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, when this matter was before us in Committee I had the privilege of speaking at some length, and I have no intention of repeating all the arguments and trying to re-make to-day the points that I endeavoured to make on that occasion. But I would say that had I been moving these Amendments tabled in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, my noble friend Lady White and myself, I should have wished to do so in the admirable way that the noble Lord, Lord Molson, did so. I thought his speech was excellent in every regard—a mastery of facts, well presented and with sound argument; and I think that the strength of his argument will prevail. It certainly prevails at the present time. The disquiet of your Lordships in regard to this matter can almost

1879
be felt, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford has my sympathy in that he is called upon to put to the House a point of view which obviously finds little or no support among those Members who have been listening to the debate.
The important thing is that in this field we ensure that the job which has to be done is done well, because mistakes that are made are seldom rectified, even if it is possible to rectify them—and all too often there is no possibility of rectification. What is being asked from the Government is that they will accept that there is an overwhelming case for concurrent powers that will ensure that, throughout the length and breadth of the country, the job will be well done. If there is anything by way of argument in regard to what has been said about the records of county boroughs and other towns with excellent records, I would put this point to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. If they carry on doing their job in the excellent way in which they have been doing it, what fear is there of the veto being used at county level? I rather think that far too much has been made of the power of veto that is suggested, and I think sensibly, at county level. But if a veto has to be exercised, if it becomes necessary, is it not better that it should be operative at a more local level than that it should be left to the Secretary of State? At least people serving on county councils know their county, and they have in their midst some members who are familiar with the details of local implications.
I believe that this is an instance where the Government ought to accept the advice, not only of the many experts who have spoken in your Lordships' House at Committee stage and at this stage but also of the many societies and associations, of national and international repute, who have done so much by way of pioneer work in this field—the advice that these concurrent powers should be operative. It is quite clear that the disquiet that there is exists in large measure because many of us are positive that the Government's proposals put at risk, and at serious risk, teams that have been built up painfully and over the years at county levels; teams of specialists with excellent records and with vast experience. It is wrong that those teams should be placed
1880
at risk, as undoubtedly would happen under the Government proposals. I trust that all that has been said will persuade the Government that they can on this occasion make a concession that will be in accord with the wishes of, I am quite certain, the overwhelming majority of the Members of this House who have listened to the arguments.
LORD REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, may I delay your Lordships for just a moment, before the Minister replies? I think that perhaps I speak for many of us when I say that this has not been at all an easy matter on which to make up our minds. We were immensely helped by the speech of the Minister and by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, as to which I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has just said. For my part, I have been helped by all the speeches which have been made. Nevertheless, I do not feel perfectly happy in my own mind in being asked to go into the Division Lobby in favour of or against the Amendments which we have before us at the moment. I personally feel that if we can find something that is not quite either what the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and his friends are suggesting or what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is at the moment suggesting, then the House will have done its duty even better than if it opts for one or the other.
I may be quite wrong—and, if so, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, can tell us all that I am wrong when he comes to speak in a moment—but it seems to me that what the Government are now proposing in their Amendments must mean giving statutory powers and duties to the county in certain circumstances. What it seems to me the noble Lord is suggesting (and, if he is, this is why I am in favour of what is in his mind, though I am not quite clear that it is on the Order Paper at the moment) is that we should move from the position in which we were at Committee, because those of us who have been unhappy before have wanted to make it absolutely plain that a great variety of circumstances are needed in different parts of the country.
If I may go back to the county of Avon, which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, mentioned, he quite rightly exposed himself, in a sense, by saying

1881
that he had been doing a little pencil work on his desk and he saw the splendid team which already exists in Bristol, and another in Bath, continuing in existence in some way as part of district teams. In a sense I can see that that is true. But he went on to say that he could not help feeling that the county of Avon would wish to be served by those splendid experts at present serving in Bath and in Bristol. If that is so, of course, they must change their employment. They will become the servants of the county of Avon in some sense; they will therefore cease to be paid solely by the ratepayers of Bath or of Bristol, respectively; and they will not be paid, I suggest, by the future ratepayers of the new districts, which may or may not be called Bath and Bristol, respectively. This merely illustrates the fact that what we want under the Bill is an arrangement whereby in, for example, Avon it will be possible for a group or groups of experts to be made available to help throughout the county of Avon to do the sort of work which will have to be done not only in a particular way in Bath and in a particular way in Bristol but also all over the county in one way or another, though very much less in many parts of the county than in Bath and Bristol. The same is true all over the country.
I suggest, therefore, that it comes down to this. When the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, replies he will, I am sure, tell us who is to pay that 25 per cent. which, if I understood it correctly, the local authority are going to contribute in a case where the Historic Buildings Council has advised, and where the Secretary of State for the Environment has accepted that advice, that there should be, shall we say, a 50 per cent. grant from the Historic Buildings Fund, that the owner should pay a certain proportion and that the local authority should pay 25 per cent. Which local authority, my Lords? That is the crucial question. In some cases, surely, it will not be either Bath or Bristol. It may be Avon; or there may be a contribution from the wider constituency. That is why the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, was right when she said that at the moment, unless we are clear on this, we cannot have it. We must be clear where the expense will fall. Unless the county has a statutory duty, I would say, as well
1882
as power, the expense, as I see it, except by some complicated method of delegation or arrangement, will not fall there. Yet as I read the Government Amendment, it is intended that it shall be so arranged, and this is exactly the sort of arrangement which, under the Government Amendment, the Secretary of State can, if he likes, direct. We all, I am sure, hope that there will be as little direction as possible, and the Minister himself has made it plain that that is in the mind of the Secretary of State. Of course it is. We are reforming local government to leave as little as possible to the Minister and to Whitehall.
This is where I do not like the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, because the idea of a veto suggests continuing animosity between these two types of authority, the county and the district. There is of course going to be such animosity, but we want to discourage it and we want to phase it out as soon as possible. Therefore if it can be so arranged that in each place, without a direction but under the guidance of an elaborate and well-worded circular from the Department of the Environment, this is worked out—in Avon in one way, in Oxford in another, and so on—it should be, so that the teams are chosen and employed in the most sensible way possible: and this must include employment and payment by counties in some cases, and I should have thought in the majority of cases. Therefore it would have been far simpler if the county had been the authority which had the statutory duty and then it could make arrangements to delegate or make other arrangements for the district to carry it out.
But in my opinion, it is no good asking for that at this stage, because the Government have given development control to the district. This we have to bear in mind. We are at the end of a long passage in which the Government have at various stages changed their mind, I think regretfully. I am sorry that they have given as much away as they have from what they thought the counties originally should have. As the districts are going to have most of the development control, fortunately, the counties are still going to be responsible for structure plans, and it is natural, as part of their responsibility for structure planning and for deciding in many cases that they will

1883
do the development plan and the development plan scheme, so also in these matters of the experts they will be the people who should have a responsibility where it is most appropriate. Each county will vary in the pattern, both of where the cost falls and who the staff are employed by, in the same way as might have been achieved if another of the Government's original ideas had been possible which was to have staff employed by the districts and the counties interchangeable and in fact all on the one strength. That was dropped for reasons that we all understand and, naturally, the local authorities did not like it. But in this particular area we want to get back as far as possible to collaboration between the staffs of the districts, as development control authorities, and the counties as structure planners and in general responsible for the strategy of the whole county.
I cannot help feeling that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, may be able to meet those of us who are very unhappy with the Bill as it stands—in my case not very happy about the wording of the present Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and his friends—and those who would very much like to see (as I think there is a general narrowing of the gap between us) some kind of assurance from the Government which would enable the movers of the Amendment to withdraw it.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it has been a most useful and helpful debate. The first point I should like to take up is the one made so helpfully by my noble friend, Lord Nugent, and to some extent by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud. We have to bear in mind here that we are not talking about the small district authorities, the Aylesburys and other places of that size, who have been exercising development control under delegated powers in the past. All that is entirely swept away. No new district authority, or very few, will be under 75,000. They will have far greater resources; they will be able to take a far more balanced view over a wider area and on a broader base than any of the districts which we have been thinking about and whose mistakes perhaps we have in mind. Furthermore, these are authorities which, in any case, whatever
1884
we do about these Amendments and counter-proposals, will have the function of development control in their own right.
We have to bear in mind not only that we are dealing with bigger authorities with more resources but that they are authorities which are already undertaking development control—and development control is the whole basis of conservation. The designation of conservation areas and the protection of listed buildings is but a part and to some extent a frill. We are starting from quite a different point from the position we are in at the moment. There has been the suggestion—it is contained in my noble friend's counter-proposals—that there is need for a county veto over planning decisions by districts in their conservation areas. I wonder whether that is really necessary, bearing in mind that much as my right honourable friend wishes not to intervene in local government, as the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, was saying, when it comes to the protection of listed buildings he has a statutory function from which he cannot escape. Much as he may wish not to interfere with a local authority decision, in the case of listed buildings, my right honourable friend has a statutory function to discharge. Even if those of my noble friend's Amendments which contain this provision for veto were carried, my right honourable friend would still have to discharge this particular function in respect of listed buildings; he cannot avoid it.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, the noble Lord mentions listed buildings. As was said on Committee, these are not the greatest danger; it is the conservation areas where he does not have these powers that are the real danger.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I agree. Conservation areas are another aspect of it. The point that I was making is, as I said before, that these district authorities have the development control function under the Bill in their own right. This is something we must reckon with. It is different from the situation which pertains at the moment where the exercise of development control is under delegation from the county authority. This is the new starting point that we must reckon with.

1885
My Lords, may I now turn to the question of the expense of this special staff. All that I would say about that is that if this continues to be a factor it will not be so great a factor as in the past because the districts will be larger. But these considerations are among those which I am sure would tend towards the districts going to the county team and would tend wherever it is appropriate to lead to agency agreements under which the county teams would be kept in existence. For any small district which has only a limited amount of conservation work to do, the use of the existing county team on an agency basis would certainly be the most economic way of getting access to expert specialist advice, and to that extent I would say that the economic factor points in the direction in which I think my noble friend and others of us wish to go; namely, towards the retention of the county teams for these purposes.
My right honourable friend very much wishes—and it is part of the philosophy of this Bill—that central Government should if possible disengage from local government, and we are in the process of removing as many controls of central Government over local government as we can. The fact of the matter is that we cannot disengage from listed building control because we have a statutory role to play there. Equally it is part of the philosophy of this Bill that we should avoid wherever possible the situation where one sphere of authority, the counties, exercises supervision and tutelage over another sphere. In this particular case, to introduce amendments which would have the effect of giving counties the power of veto over district decisions would, I suggest, be running badly counter to that philosophy, particularly bearing in mind that there are 83 county boroughs which will become the nucleus of new districts which have been discharging these conservation functions in their own right, compared with 58 counties who have been doing likewise. This is why I see some danger of resentment in some of my noble friends' Amendments.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend, I thought I made plain in my speech that we propose to give complete discretion to the Secretary of State to exempt any suitable district council and if my noble friend and
1886
his Department consider that it is desirable to exempt them we are perfectly willing that that should be done. It is merely to catch in a general net those who have not the qualifications; so that if that is all the argument that my noble friend is putting up, I hope it means that he is prepared to accept our alternative proposals.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's intervention. I want now to turn—
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, before the Minister goes further may I say that what we want to know is whether he can give any indication that he is accepting anything. The House is waiting to know whether he is prepared to make any concession. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, up to the moment he has given no indication that he is prepared to snake any concession at all, and that is what we are waiting to hear.
LORD SANDFORD: I wonder whether, for the moment, I could do my best to commend the Amendment standing in my name, though I welcome the opportunity to discuss the two proposals side by side. I have already moved my Amendment and we can come to a decision on that when I have finished my remarks. The proposals of my noble friend are nut wholly incompatible with it and when he comes to his Amendment I can give a view upon it. But I have not said that the two proposals are totally incompatible. What I am trying to do at the moment is to commend the Amendment in my name as the best way to deal with the matter. If I fail to persuade your Lordships that that is so, we will turn to consider the merits of Lord Molson's Amendment as well. I am not saying that they are mutually incompatible at all, but I hope I shall have succeeded at the end of my remarks in showing that the powers that the Secretary of State is taking will at any rate be extremely useful and valuable, even if I fail to persuade noble Lords that they will do the whole job. My own view is that they will. I wonder whether, on that basis, I may continue.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I take the point that the noble Lord is making, but we have discussed this matter

1887
at some length. If the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is indicating that the time will arrive shortly when we shall be called on to make a decision that is fine, and we know exactly where we are going. But I think the House would like to know whether the Government are prepared to make any kind of concession. If they are, I think this is the time when that should be made quite clear. Noble Lords opposite as well as those sitting behind me are anxious to know, before they are called on to go into the Division Lobbies, the limit that the Government are prepared to travel to meet the disquiet which I think has been pretty universally voiced this evening.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I put this point to my noble friend before he proceeds with his speech? I think it would be of great help if it were possible to deal with the Amendment moved by my noble friend and others at the same time while my noble friend Lord Sandford is winding up the debate, because the Amendments all fit together. I think that we should have a far less satisfactory debate if my noble friend deals with the merits of his own Amendment now and afterwards with the merits of the Amendments being moved by other noble Lords when they are called. I am sure that it would help us very much if he could deal with them all.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think that in a way I have already dealt with one aspect of this namely, that we see objections to—may I call it "Lord Molson's Amendment"? though I recognise that it is also in the names of three other noble Lords. If his Amendment were carried, whatever merits it has, and I certainly recognise that it has some, it would breach one quite important aspect of Government policy which runs right through this Bill, by setting one authority over another authority. It would put fifty-eight counties in a position to exercise a veto over decisions taken by a whole group of districts containing eighty-three county boroughs who have hitherto on their own adequately discharged the functions, in this field and to that extent it would be a serious breach.
1888
Perhaps I may now turn to the question of the attitudes of the staff in the existing county council teams. I think that is very important, and it is that which has been giving so much anxiety to so many noble Lords. It has from time to time sounded, though I am sure this is not the real intention, as though the objective were to keep these county teams together. Surely, my Lords, our objectives should be to ensure that arrangements for getting specialist advice are secured to those authorities who have the function of discharging conservation duties. I have said that in my view the Amendment that I have moved will lead to my right honourable friend so exercising his powers under that Amendment that a very considerable number of the county teams will stay together, because that will be the best way to provide the specialist advice to the authorities that have to discharge these functions. I have been urged to consider, and to agree, that concurrent powers would be a good way to do it; but I have also pointed out to your Lordships that concurrent powers will lead to a serious duplication of staff because two authorities will keep staff to do a job which in our view ought to be done and can be done by one authority, provided that they have access to specialist staff. For that reason we think it is better for the Secretary of State to have power to direct precisely what sort of arrangements should be made up and down the country in the very variable pattern that exists.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting my noble friend again, but it is important that we should get these things clear. There are two points. The first is very important, and I apologise for not having made it in my opening speech. I am not at all sure that under the Bill as it is at present drafted the Secretary of State can issue any instructions before April 1, 1974. Obviously, as the Bill is due to come into effect next year the interval between the time when the present dispensation comes to an end and the time when the Minister would be able to issue instructions might result in the whole of the existing arrangements dropping to pieces. The other thing which I think I ought to say is that noble Lords must not think

1889
that I am opposing the Government Amendments. We can come to our Amendments afterwards, but this point about timing is a matter of great importance.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I will certainly deal with it in just a minute. May I say a word or two more about the position of the staff about whom we are talking, most of whom at the present moment comprise county teams. I understand the anxieties that they feel. I do not share them, because we know for a fact that counties—I mentioned West Sussex—are already engaged in discussion with their districts with a view to coming to just the kind of arrangements which we all want and which I fully recognise will be the right arrangements in the majority of the existing counties. This is already going on, so I cannot fully share the scepticism, fears and doubts that the arrangements which we have provided will lead to the large scale disbandment of these teams.
The other point I want to make is that the arrangements which my right honourable friend is taking power to secure are not just ad hoc, day-to-day arrangements where a particular officer can be called up at short notice on an ad hoc basis from county hall. What we are talking about are proper agency arrangements, with financial arrangements; arrangements about the secondment of staff; long-term affairs giving plenty of continuity and assurance about terms of service and so on. As I say, they are not just ad hoc arrangements for borrowing a chap from day-to-day and from time to time as the need arises. I hope that that helps to allay your Lordships' fears on that score.
I turn now to the question of timing raised by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, because it is important. I confirm—and I ought to have confirmed before—that the power to make these arrangements will come into force immediately the Bill receives the Royal Assent. We have every intention of getting on with the whole business of bringing these arrangements into force expeditiously and energetically, getting the necessary circulars out and so on. My noble friend Lord Amory asked: Will the Government use their powers? I can give an assurance that we certainly will. We are very conscious
1890
that in doing this, and in order to make satisfactory arrangements over a complex variety of situations which it is quite impossible in our view to provide for adequately by Statute, we are taking upon ourselves heavy responsibilities for influencing these arrangements so as to secure that the specialist staff at the right level is available in all quarters. I assure noble Lords that we have every intention of exercising them expeditiously and energetically from the moment that we have them, which will be the moment when the Bill gets its Royal Assent; and we shall continue to exercise them until we are satisfied that the arrangements are right and that districts have access to the specialist staff that they really need.
My Lords, I am sorry that I was unable to satisfy all the anxieties and fears in noble Lords' minds when we began this debate. I hope that I have satisfied them now, and have persuaded your Lordships that the Amendments that I am moving, of which this is the first, will enable us to secure what everybody wants; namely, that the districts, who will have the main duty here, will also have access to the specialist staff that they need, and furthermore, that some of the best staffs that are now available in the counties have every chance of remaining in being under the arrangements which we now have power to direct the districts to make. I think this arrangement is the more flexible of the two that are proposed, and I would in that sense, now that we have disengaged the two, commend my proposals to your Lordships.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, if I may explain our point of view, we do not intend to oppose this Amendment, but we do intend to press some of our own Amenments later—Nos. 118, 136, 137, 138 and 141.
6.24 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, Amendment No. 109 is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 128, line 19, leave out ("and Part II of that Schedule") and insert—
("(b) Part II").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, Amendment No. 110 is also consequential on the Amendment that we have just been discussing. I bog to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 128, line 23, at end insert ("and
(c) Part III shall have effect with respect to arrangements for obtaining advice in connection with certain of those functions").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 128, line 34, leave out from ("replacement") to ("shall") in line 36 and insert ("and section 65 (waste land)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first of a series of technical Amendments in the general field of planning. I can assure your Lordships that they are all technical. There are two main groups. The first group consists of corrections, drafting improvements and simplications, and the other main group consists of consequential Amendments or Amendments which are designed to reckon with the fact that in future we shall have two types of planning authority, district and county, at different spheres in every area, whereas before we had only one type of planning authority in a single area, either a county or a city. I should be very ready to answer any points noble Lords may wish go make as we reach the particular Amendments, but I would suggest, subject to your Lordships' leave, that I should move each one by reference to it as a minor technical planning Amendment: it will fall into one or other of those categories. I would recommend to the House that it is unnecessary to consider any one of them in any further detail than that which I have just given. I beg to move.
Schedule 16 [Functions under, and Amendment and modification of, enactments relating to town and country panning]:
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords. Amendment 111A is one of the Amendments to which I have just referred. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 296, line 43, leave out from ("Act") to ("the") and insert ("examine").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 112, 113 and 114, which come in the category of technical planning Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 297, line 36, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
Page 298, line 23, leave out paragraph 4.
Page 300, line 37, leave out ("the council of").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, Amendment No. 116 is another technical planning Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 303, line 44, leave out paragraph 22 and insert—
("22.—(1) In section 28(2) (publicity for applications affecting conservation areas), for the words "The local planning authority" there shall be substituted the words "In Greater London the local planning authority, in a National Park the county planning authority and elsewhere the district planning authority".
(2) Where it is the duty of the district planning authority to take the steps required by section 28(2) in relation to an application which falls to be determined by the county planning authority, the district planning authority shall as soon as may be after taking those steps notify the county planning authority of the steps which they have taken and the date on which they took them.
22A. In section 31(1) (directions as to method of dealing with applications for planning permission), for paragraph (c) there shall be substtuted the followng paragraph—
"(c) for requiring that. before planning permission for any development is granted or refused, local planning authorities prescribed by the order or by directions given by the Secretary of State thereunder shall consult with such authorities or persons as may be so prescribed".").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 117. This is another technical Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 304, line 24, at beginning insert ("Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 118.
Amendment moved—
Page 304, line 26, leave out ("section 58 (building preservation notices)").—(Lord Molson.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, may I say a word on this Amendment in a slightly schizophrenic condition—I am trying to consider the technical planning Amendments, my own Amendments and the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, all at once. I think this is the moment for me to say that if, as I believe is the case, I have not been able to persuade the noble Lord. Lord Molson, and his colleagues that my own group of Amendments alone will achieve all that is necessary in this whole sphere of conservation, I should be in a position, if the noble Lord wishes to press the matter, to accept the following of his Amendments: 118, 136, 137, 138, and 141. Those Amendments are compatible with my own Amendments and can be accented. I do not think the others can. I hope the noble Lord and his colleagues will be satisfied with that arrangement.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, there is an old motto that "Half a loaf is better than no bread", and when one is offered half a loaf one might as well be gracious about it; so I would thank the Government for having gone as far as they have to meet us in this way. We very much appreciate. I am sure, the general spirit in which the debate has been conducted. If we are not entirely convinced by the line of reasoning of the Government, I gather that they are not completely convinced by our reasoning either. At any rate, we are glad to accept this concession and we thank the Government for what they have done.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I say that the House has struggled hard. We were hoping to get a mountain but we shall be grateful to get what may be regarded as something of a molehill. However, the noble Lord has made the concession extremely graciously and he has given the appearance of this being a notable victory for the House. We are pleased that we have been able to prevail to the extent that we have. I think nobody could have been more courteous than the noble Lord, and I am sure he has hid the sympathy of the whole House while he has had to bat alone, with no support from around him or behind him and, if I may say so, with a great deal of interruption from his own Front Bench.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, may I just add that when one reaches a certain degree of hunger even half a loaf is very acceptable.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 121. This is another technical planning Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 304, line 29, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
("(2) The power of defining areas of special control for the purposes of regulations under section 63 by orders approved by the Secretary of State under section 63(4) shall be exercisable both by county planning authorities and by district planning authorities.")
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 122. Before speaking to it, perhaps I could express my gratitude to the House for dealing so well with this very vexed and difficult problem. I apologise to noble Lords and the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for the fact that occasionally I may not have been showing full attention to the matter in hand, but when one is deciding how to play something like this it is necessary to have consultations from time/to time during the debate. However, think the issue is very satisfactory.
Now, my Lords, we can take a run at it. Amendments 122 to 134 inclusive are all technical minor planning Amendments, and unless any noble Lord wishes to raise a point on any one of them I would suggest that we take them all en bloc. I beg to move Amendments 122 to 134 en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 304, line 35, leave out paragraph 26 and insert—
("26.—(1) Sections 45 and 49 (planning inquiry commissions) shall be amended in accordance with sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) below.
(2) The copy of the notice required to be served by section 49(2) on a local planning authority shall, in the case of a proposal that a government department should give a direction under section 40 or that development should be carried out by or on behalf of a government department, be served on the local planning authority who, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, would have been responsible for dealing with an application for planning permission for the development in question if such an application had fallen to be made.
(3) References in sections 48(6)(b) and 49(3) to the local planning authority shall be construed as references to the local planning authority on whom the said copy is required to be served.")
Page 305, line 5, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 6 and insert ("named in the order")
Page 305, line 13, leave out ("local") and insert ("district")
Page 305, line 15, leave out paragraph 29 and insert—
("(2) In section 54(11) for the words after "consult with" there shall be substituted the words—

"(a) in Greater London, the local planning authority;

(b) in a National Park, the county planning authority;

(c) elsewhere the district planning authority; and

(d) in any case the owner and the occupier of the building."

29. In sections 91(1) and 93(4)(b) (enforcement notices) and section 108(2) (enforcement of orders under s. 51 requiring discontinuance of use, etc.) any reference to the local planning authority shall be construed as a reference to the authority who served the notice or made the order in question or, in the case of a notice served or an order made by the Secretary of State, the authority named in the notice or order.
29A. The local planning authority who may appeal to the Crown Court under section 106 (further appeals in connection with notice as to waste land) shall be the authority who served the notice in question under section 65 or, if the notice was served by the Secretary of State, the authority named in the notice.")
Page 306, line 16, at end insert—
("(dd) the carrying out of operations in, on, over or under land, or any use of land, which is situated partly in and partly outside a National Park.")
Page 306, line 21, at end insert—
("31 A. In section 134(4) (interpretation of Part VII), for the words after "interest therein" there shall be substituted the words "and local planning authority", in relation to a planning decision, means the authority who made the decision".")
Page 306, line 45, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 49 and insert ("named in the relevant order or stop notice of the Secretary of State").
Page 307, line 8, leave out ("and")
Page 307, line 9 leave out second ("and")
Page 307, line 13, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 14 and insert ("named in the order.
33A. The local planning authority by whom compensation is to be paid under section 237(1)(a) to statutory undertakers shall be the authority who referred the application for planning permission to the Secretary of State
1896
and the appropriate Minister, or from whose decision the appeal was made to them or who served the enforcement notice appealed against, as the case may be.")
Page 307, line 16, leave out paragraph 34 and insert—
("34. The duty of the Secretary of State to give notice under section 182(2)(c) (procedure on purchase notices) to the local planning authority shall be a duty to give it

(a) to the county planning authority and also, where that authority is a joint planning board, to the county council; and

(b) to the district council on whom the purchase notice in question was served and also, where that council is a constituent member of a joint planning board, to that board.

34A. The local planning authority by whom compensation is to be paid and on whom a claim for compensation is to be served under section 187(2) (compensation where purchase notice served) shall be the district planning authority.
34B. In section 209A (stopping up and diversion of highways) in subsection (2)(b), for the words from "any local" to "order" there shall be substituted the words " any county council or London borough council specified in the order or, if it is so specified, the Greater London Council or the Common Council of the the City of London".
34C. The following subsection shall be substituted for section 210(4) (stopping, and diversion of footpaths and bridleways):—
"(4) In this section "competent authority" means, in the case of development authorised by a planning permission, the local planning authority who granted the permission or, in the case of a permission granted by the Secretary of State, who would have had power to grant it and in the case of development carried out by a government department. the local planning authority who would have had power to grant planning permission on an application in respect of the development in question if such an application had fallen to be made".")
Page 308, line 1, at end insert—
("36A. In section 1 (local planning authorities)—

(a) in subsection (4)(b) for the words "county borough", in both places where they occur there shall be substituted the word "district" and for the words "that district" there shall be substituted the words "the united district", and

(b) in subsection (6) for the words from "section 8" onwards there shall be substituted the words " Part I of Schedule 17 to the Local Government Act 1972".")

Page 308, line 3, at end insert—
("37A. In section 192(1) (scope of blight provisions), the reference in paragraph (f) to the local planning authority shall be construed, in relation to land in a National Park, as a

1897
reference to the county planning authority and, in relation to land elsewhere, as a reference to the district planning authority.
37B. In section 245(7) (proceedings for questioning the validity of certain orders, etc.) for the words from "and any reference" onwards there shall be substituted the words" and any reference to the authority directly concerned with any order or action to which this section applies—

(a) in relation to any such decision as is mentioned in section 242(3)(i) or (j) of this Act, is a reference to the council on whom the notice in question was served and, in a case where the Secretary of State has modified such a notice wholly or in part by substituting another local authority or statutory undertakers for that council, includes a reference to that local authority or statutory undertakers;

(b) in any other case in Greater London, is a reference to the local planning authority; and

(c) in any other case outside Greater London, is a reference to the local planning authority who made the order in question or made the decision or served the notice to which the proceedings in question relate, or who referred the matter to the Secretary of State. or, where the order or notice in question was made or served by him, the authority named in the order or notice.".

37C.—(1) The local planning authority to whom the Secretary of State may give directions under section 276(1) (default powers) and whom he is required to consult under that subsection, or service with a notice of his proposals under section 276(4) shall be the county planning authority or the district planning authority, as he thinks appropriate, and references in those subsections to the local planning authority shall be construed accordingly.
(2) In section 276(5) any reference to the local planning authority shall be construed—

(a) in relation to a listed building enforcement notice, as a reference to the district planning authority; and

(b) in any other case, as a reference to the county planning authority or the district planning authority, as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.")

6.35 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 136.
Amendment moved—
Page 308, line 7, leave out ("and not") and insert ("but").—(Lord Molson.)
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 137.
Amendment moved—
Page 308, line 7, after ("authorities") insert ("shall have the power to make determina-
1898
tions under this section and to designate such areas").—(Lord Molson.)
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I beg w move Amendment No. 138.
Amendment moved—
Page 308, line 14, at end insert ("and a county planning authority shall consult with the council or councils of the district or districts of which any part is included in the area to which the proposed determination relates").—(Lord Molson.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 138A. This is another minor technical planning Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 308, line 43, after ("15") insert ("22, 22A, 28, 31A, 34B, 34C, 36A, 37B").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords. I beg to move Amendments 139 and 140 together. They are both drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 310, line 21, leave out first ("any") and insert ("planning")
Page 310, line 22, leave out from ("reasonably") to ("granted") in line 23 and insert ("have been expected to be").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 141.
Amendment moved—
Page 311, line 6, leave out ("exercised") and insert ("exercisable both by the county planning authority and").—(Lord Molson.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, this is the substantive Amendment we have been discussing. I beg to move Amendment No. 142.
Amendment moved—
Page 311, line 8, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
("PART III
ARRANGEMENTS FOR OBTAINING ADVICE
48. The Secretary of State may from time to time direct a district planning authority to submit to him for his approval within a period specified in the direction the arrangements which the authority propose to make to obtain

1899
specialist advice in connection with their functions—

(a) under section 55, 56, 58, 96 or 99 of, or Schedule 11 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1971;

(b) under section 277 of that Act; or

(c) under section 8 of the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1972.

49. If the Secretary of State is not satisfied about any arrangements mentioned in paragraph 48 above, he may after consultation with the district planning authority and the other authority concerned—
(a) direct the district planning authority and another local planning authority specified in the direction to enter into an agreement under section 111 above for the placing at the disposal of the former, for the purpose of giving them any such specialist advice as is mentioned in that paragraph, of the services of officers employed by the latter who arc qualified to give such advice; or
(b) direct the district planning authority and another local planning authority so specified to enter into arrangements for the discharge by the latter of any of the functions mentioned in that paragraph and also direct that the arrangements shall contain terms so specified or terms on lines laid down by him.")—(Lord Sandford.)
Schedule 17 [Functions with respect to National Parks and the countryside]:
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments 143 to 147 en bloc. They are ail technical planning Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 312, line 16, leave out ("under section 100 above")
Page 312, line 34, leave out ("affecting") and insert ("in, on, over or under land")
Page 312, line 37, leave out from ("to") to ("are") in line 38 and insert ("any such operations or use")
Page 313, line 40, leave out ("under section 100")
Page 315, line 38, after ("35") insert ("of the 1949 Act").—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 182 [Town Development]:
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 148, which is consequential on Amendment 105.
Amendment moved—
Page 132, line 15, leave out ("On and after 1st April 1974").—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 183 [Traffic and transportation functions]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 133, line 10, leave out ("and") and insert—
("(b) amendments extending the powers of parish and community councils in relation to parking places so as to empower them to provide, maintain, and regulate the use of, off-street parking places for all classes of vehicles, as well as parking places for bicycles and motor cycles, and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 149. Together with Amendment No. 151, it concerns the provision of parish car parks. I do not think there is any need for me to go into it extensively. These Amendments fulfil an undertaking given during the Committee stage on the Amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. I will go into it more fully if any noble Lord wishes it.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, we ought to thank the Government for putting down these Amendments. They constitute a welcome extension of the functions of parishes and community councils. Many of these successor councils will be councils that have had very much greater power, and this will add something to the powers which they will retain and will have. This will undoubtedly remove some of the sense of frustration that is bound to exist in some of these councils. On behalf of my noble friend who moved the Amendment at the Committee stage, to which the Government have now acceded. I welcome the decision of the Government to include these Amendments on the Marshalled List.
6.41 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 134, line 20, at end insert—
("(7) In subsection (6) above, 'local authority' includes any existing county borough or county district council and the Common Council.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment gives existing local authorities power from the date of the Royal Assent to fix fares on ferries which they operate. This Amendment, in conjunction with the new version of the commencement provisions which is tabled for

1901
consideration on Report, will give existing local authorities freedom to fix their own charges from the date of the Royal Assent. Without this Amendment this power could be given only to new authorities and passenger transport executives and could in that event become operative only on April 1, 1974. I beg to move.
Schedule 19 [Amendments of Enactments relating to road traffic and abandoned vehicles]:
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 151 which is consequential on Amendment No. 149.
Amendment moved—
Page 324, line 36, at end insert—
("21A. After section 49 there shall be inserted the following section:—
provision by parish or community councils of off-street parking places for vehicles generally.
49A.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the power of a parish or community council under subsection (1) of section 46 of this Act to provide and maintain within the parish or community suitable parking places for bicycles and motor cycles shall extend to the provision, otherwise than on roads, of parking places for vehicles of other descriptions or for vehicles generally and the maintenance of such parking places; and references in that section and section 47 of this Act to parking places shall be construed accordingly.
(2) The council of a parish or community shall not exercise their power under section 46(1) of this Act as extended by subsection (1) above without the consent of the council of the county in which the parish or community is situated, and any consent given by the county council may be subject to such conditions or restrictions as they think fit.
(3) A parish or community council proposing to exercise their power under section 46(1) of this Act as extended by subsection (1) above shall—

(a) for the purpose of obtaining the consent of the county council under subsection (2) above, make an application in writing to the county council giving details of the parking place which they propose to provide; and

(b) send a copy of that application to the council of the district in which the parish or community is situated;

and the county council, in considering whether or not to give their consent or to make their consent subject to any conditions or restrictions, shall have regard to any representations made to them by that district council.
(4) The power under subsection (5) of section 46 of this Act to make byelaws with
1902
respect to parking places shall not apply in relation to a parking place provided under subsection (1) of that section as extended by subsection (1) above; but, subject to the following provisions of this section, section 31 of this Act shall apply in relation to such a parking place as if—

(a) the parish or community council were a local authority for the purposes of those sections and section 28 of this Act, and

(b) the parking place were provided by the parish or community council under section 28 of this Act.

(5) A parish or community council shall not, by virtue of subsection (4) above, make an order under section 31(1) of this Act without the consent of the county council, and any consent given by the county council may be subject to such conditions or restrictions as they think fit.
(6) Where, by virtue of subsection (4) above, a parish or community council propose to make an order under section 31(1) of this Act, the council shall submit a draft of the order to the county council who may, without prejudice to their power to give or withhold consent to the making of the order, required such modifications of the terms of the proposed order as they think appropriate.
(7) The powers of a county council under section 31 of this Act shall apply in relation to a parking place provided by a parish or community council under section 46(1) of this Act, as extended by subsection (1) above, as they apply in relation to a parking place provided by a county council, and the power to vary or revoke an order made by a parish or community council under section 31(1) of this Act shall be exercisable by the county council as well as by the parish or community council.
(8) if, by virtue of subsection (7) above, a county council propose to make an order under section 31(1) of this Act in relation to a parking place provided by a parish or community council they shall sand a copy of the proposed order to the parish or community council".").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 152. Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 are consequential Amendments, still on parish car parks.
Amendment moved—
Page 325, line 36, at end insert—
("(6C) Where the Secretary of State—

(a) gives a direction under subsection (1) above requiring a county council or parish or community council to make an order under section 31(1) of this Act in relation to a parking place provided by a parish or community council, or

(b) makes such an order in relation to such a parking place by virtue of subsection (2) above,

neither subsections (5) and (6) nor subsection (8) of section 49A of this Act shall apply in

1903
relation to anything done in pursuance of the direction or, as the case may be, in relation to the making of the order by the Secretary of State.")—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 153.
Amendment moved—
Page 325, line 48, leave out ("and 35A(5)") and insert ("35A(5) and 49A(7)")—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 185 [Amendments of Highways Acts]:
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 153A. This is a paving Amendment to the major Amendment at the end of the Bill on commencement.
Amendment moved—
Page 136, line 26, leave out ("on that day").—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 187 [Sites for gipsy encampments]:
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 154 which has the effect of bringing the Ordnance Survey Act 1841 into line with the provisions of this Bill. I think the subsections of the Amendment speak for themselves.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 187, insert the following new clause:
Ordnance survey
".—(1) In its application outside Greater London. the Ordnance Survey Act 1841 (in this section referred to as "the 1841 Act") shall have effect subject to the following modifications.
(2) An application under section 1 of the 1841 Act shall be sent to the proper officer of either a county council or a district council and, where such an application is made, the function of appointing a person to assist in examining, ascertaining and marking out reputed boundaries shall be exercisable -by the council to whose proper officer the application was sent.
(3) The newspapers in which copies of an application under section 1 of the 1841 Act are to be inserted shall be those circulating in the area of the council to whose proper officer the application was sent.
(4) References, in whatever terms, in the 1841 Act—

(a) to the justices by whom a person is appointed under section 1 of that Act shall
1904
be construed as references to the county council or the district council, as the case may require, and

(b) to the clerk of the peace for a county shall be construed as references to the proper officer of the county council or the district council as the case may require.

(5) Without prejudice to section 15 of the 1841 Act (which among other things extends the meaning of the word "county" in that Act) references in that Act to a county include references to any local government area within the meaning of this Act."—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 188 [Education]:
6.45 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 140, line 11, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) The local education authority shall be outside Greater London the county council.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lady Bacon, who gives her apologies to the House for not being able to be present at this time of the evening, I beg to move Amendment No. 155. I greatly regretted my own inability to be present during the Committee stage of this crucial Part of the Bill, which is concerned with the division of functions between the different tiers of the new local government system. Unfortunately I had a longstanding commitment in connection with the work of a Select Committee of the House which was undertaken at a time when no one in their wildest dreams could have believed that we should be discussing the Committee stage of a major Bill of this kind in September. I hope therefore that the House accepts my apologies. In moving and speaking to the Amendment, and to certain subsequent Amendments later in our discussions tonight which relate to clauses on the division of functions, to which my name also appeared at the Committee stage, I welcome this further opportunity of considering the issues involved, especially after reading the Report of the debate on this particular Amendment, when my name was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, in connection with certain of the recommendations of the Seebohm Committee on the local authority and allied personal social services.
I do not intend to play the "numbers game" once again to-night; we have been

1905
through them time and time again at different stages of the Bill. There is clearly no numerical or population-based logic in the situation created by this Bill when authorities like Southampton or Portsmouth, for example, with their populations of half a million, are no longer to be education authorities and manage their own education systems, whereas some of the new metropolitan districts with populations in the region of 200,000 will have full education autonomy. The Government's conclusion that metropolitan areas ranging in size from 1¼million to nearly 3 million are too large to provide effective education systems hardly squares with their decision that the new county of Hampshire, for example, should be left as an education authority, even though its present population is already 1½ million and still growing. This is further evidence that any numerical attempt to justify the break-up of some of our finest education services in the county areas can be shot full of holes.
The real issue at stake is which form of organisation will provide the fullest education opportunity for future generations of our children. The decision that we take on this Bill will determine both the pattern of education administration and, perhaps above all, the quality of the opportunities that are offered to every child in the areas concerned from their early pre-school years right through to further and higher education in adult life.
The range and scope of services offered throughout this continuous process of education must provide for the able child, the less able child, the least able child and of course particularly for the child with special needs, be they as a result of physical, mental or social handicap. All of us would agree that education is the best investment that any society can make in its children. But it is expensive and will continue to be expensive as the services extend and develop with our growing knowledge and increasingly complex technological society.
When the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, replied to the Committee stage debate on this Amendment in what I felt, as I read it, was a very balanced speech, he seemed in the last analysis to rest his case on the advantage of administering education services on the same tier as housing and personal social services. The noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, rightly reminded
1906
the Committee that the Seebohm Committee had expressed deep concern about the problems which arise from the division of closely interrelated services between different tiers of local government, and they made strong recommendations to his Royal Commission that this should be avoided wherever possible.
When the present Government stood the recommendations on their heads and introduced this patchwork of a Bill the Royal Commission's concept of all-purpose unitary authorities throughout the country, with the exception of the metropolitan areas, went out of the window. As a result, those of us who are convinced adherents of the unitary system constantly find ourselves in a perpetual dilemma over this Part of the Bill between the tiers which we are now to have outside the metropolitan areas; and the problem of course applies to services other than education, as I shall seek to indicate to the House on a later Amendment which hears my name in relation to housing functions. To be quite fair, and indeed to answer the point which the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, made in the Committee stage, it is true to say that the previous Administration proposed that education should be a function of the metropolitan counties rather than of the metropolitan districts, as the Royal Commission had proposed; and this would admittedly divide the administration of education from the personal social services as in the case in Inner London.
Certain views were attributed to me in that debate, but I would suggest that no one who was involved in any way in the great debates that surrounded the London Government Act, both in Parliament and outside, could be in any doubt where I myself stood on the issue of the need to preserve the unity of the London education service. Indeed, I tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade the then Government to avoid the fragmentation of the children's service by setting up an organisation on similar lines. The same arguments as have been used, indeed are still being advanced now, against this particular provision of the Bill, were used by parents, teachers and educationists against the break-up of the London education service in the 'sixties. And in the end, and I believe to their eternal credit, the then Conservative Government conceded the case and created the Inner London

1907
Education Authority as a specially constituted education authority over the whole of the Inner London area consisting of those members of the Greater London Council who were elected for the Inner London boroughs together with one member nominated from each London borough to provide the essential links between the two tiers and to facilitate co-operation.
The Seebohm Committee gave special consideration to the relationship between the I.L.E.A. and the London borough social services and their school health functions, and recommended, I think in paragraph 248, a system of joint arrangements for the provision by the boroughs of the school social care services, using the existing joint London school health service scheme as a model and leaving the Inner London Education Authority responsible for its extremely highly developed specialist education service, which I think most of us would agree is one of the finest in the world. I have referred in some detail to-night to the position in Inner London, because it illustrates that there are effective ways of providing essential co-operation between education, health and personal social services, if the will and co-operation is there and if one believes that the prime factor governing these difficult decisions about the allocation of functions should be the efficiency of the services in question. In passing, I might perhaps remind the House that in any event, whichever tier is eventually responsible for the education service, new arrangements will have to be made for the provision of the health services when those services move out of local government in 1974 following the reorganisation of the National Health Service.
I do not wish to detain the House too long to-night on this issue, but my noble friends and I believe that it is only at metropolitan county tier, through the deployment of their greater human, physical and material resources—the resources that they can command over a much wider economic, industrial and social metropolitan area which is continuously built up—that we can provide modern, effective, well-equipped and sufficiently diverse education systems that can be developed to give the full range of educational opportunity to teachers, to
1908
children and to parents at all stages of their lives, and the community as a whole. That, my Lords, is the reason why we have once again submitted this Amendment to the House. I beg to move.
6.55 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, this Amendment was of course, as the noble Baroness said, debated very thoroughly in Committee, so it may be the wish of the House that I remind your Lordships of the salient factors, despite the interesting speech of the noble Baroness, who is always interesting and instructive to listen to. The noble Baroness was unavoidably absent when we debated this matter last time because she was abroad. The only "numbers game" I will play this evening is to say that the effect of this Amendment (the House should be quite clear about this) would be to allocate education to the six new metropolitan counties which will have populations ranging from about 1¼ million to nearly 3 million people each. As the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, said at the previous stage of the Bill, in referring to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, this
"is something on which reasonable women as well as reasonable men may differ";
and I would acknowledge at once, in her absence, the deep concern of Lady Bacon to ensure that the high standards of education in the North of England are maintained under the new arrangements.
However, I would ask the House to consider these points. First, I believe that a majority of your Lordships would prefer not to create monster local education authorities of up to 3 million in population. What is more to the point, I am pretty certain that parents would be opposed to such authorities administering what is so essentially a personal service. And the reply to this cannot be that some of the new non-metropolitan counties will also be very large. In four cases it is perfectly true that they will be over the million mark, but they will be nowhere near the size of their largest metropolitan cousins. But the essential reply to the noble Baroness's charge of a patchwork's being set up by this Bill,

1909
and the essential distinction between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan authorities, is surely this. In the new non-metropolitan counties surely the whole aim which underlies the Bill is to try to organise functions over each county combining towns and the countryside to make one whole. But in the metropolitan counties we have a different situation which gives us an opportunity to try a different approach. We have districts which will be compact localities, all substantial enough, we believe, in terms of resources; and it is for this reason that the Government's proposal for the metropolitan district education authorities in fact follows the recommendations of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission.
If I may say so, having listened carefully to what the noble Baroness has said, I still do not find very persuasive the criticisms of these proposed authorities, each of which is going to be substantially enlarged. Surely the ability of an authority to maintain its service on a satisfactory level depends on a willingness to devote a high proportion of its resources to education. Does not success also depend upon the ability and energy of an authority's officers, especially the chief education officer, and the enthusiasm and accumulated experience of the elected members? Are these not also essential ingredients for success? These attributes the West Riding of Yorkshire has had in abundance—the West Riding admired by anyone who knows about its work; the West Riding which none the less—extraordinary point!—has had the lowest rateable value per head of any authority in the whole of Yorkshire. It is bearing in mind this point, which has been put again and again to the Government, that the resources will not be great enough, that I must say I have every confidence in the future of these new metropolitan district authorities.
In Yorkshire there already exists a local government Working Party of the Yorkshire Association of Education Officers, so consultation there has already begun. In two sectors particularly (and the noble Baroness referred to these in general terms), where it has been said that development may be most at risk in a system of metropolitan district L.E.A.s, it is a fact that reliance has
1910
often been placed on the county borough authorities; that is to say, for further education and also for special education. And the county borough authorities can certainly claim to have been in the van in the last decade or so in the establishment of teachers' centres and in the development of educational advisory services. But, as I submitted to your Lordships at the previous stage, few authorities have ever claimed to provide the entire range of educational services from their own resources, and machinery for co-operation will continue to be provided for, both statutorily and at the discretion of authorities, under this Bill.
May I finally say this. The noble Baroness referred to the organisation of the Inner London Education Authority. Her experience of that is far greater than mine is or will ever be, and so I listened and, I think, learned something. But is it not true that the I.L.E.A. in fact took over an existing service as organised? That is not going to be the case in many of the new metropolitan areas. Indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, drew the attention of the House last time to some fragmentation which will occur. Therefore, bearing that in mind, I would echo what the noble Baroness said about the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud. He clearly drew the attention of the House to the difficulty of getting the allocation of functions in these very large metropolitan counties absolutely right, but on several occasions he expressed his certainty that education and the social services must remain together. Last winter I spent a day in one of the chief cities of the North West of England. Throughout the day I saw schools old and new, large and small, but invariably they had the same high standards of teaching and of care. What differed dramatically from area to area were the problems presented by the home backgrounds of the children, and after we had discussed the problems thrown up in one particular area the chief education officer said: "You know, the Plowden Report on Primary Schools was essentially a powerful case for nothing more nor less than better housing".
In the metropolitan districts, particularly in the metropolitan districts which closely concerned the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, this Bill will place education

1911
with the social services and with housing—as near to the people of the area as possible namely, at district level. I believe that, especially in the more deprived areas and with the opportunity which the metropolitan areas get in this Bill, that is what people will want for services which are so essentially personal. It is for that final reason that I hope that the noble Baroness, having clearly explained her reservations on what are going to be, I know, new arrangements, will none the less feel that she does not wish to press this Amendment to a Division.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, first may I thank the noble Lord for his usual care and courtesy in replying to the arguments I put forward. I am only sorry that he raised the old bogey of the monolith. Those of us who are familiar with education services know that to the parents it is not the building or the organisation from which the education service is administered; in my view, the focus for the parent always has been and always will be the school itself. It is to the head and to the teachers that the parents go when they have questions about the education services. The noble Lord says, quite rightly, that the quality of the education service depends upon the proportion of the resources that the local education authority decides to allocate. I have always understood that if you get a bigger cake you get a bigger slice. We know—and I mentioned earlier—that education is an expensive service and it needs a very large slice of the cake. The same applies to the quality of the staff: it is able to attract staff at all levels. But I should be the first to join with the noble Lord in paying a tribute to the education service of the West Riding. The Education Committee under the brilliant and outstanding leadership of Sir Alec Clegg has undoubtedly built up one of the finest services in the country.
It is also true, as the noble Lord has so rightly said, that the Inner London Education Authority was created in order to continue to administer the existing service. The noble Lord pointed out that the new arrangement will undoubtedly produce certain problems. Again, I can only speak from my own experience of London Government—that great upheaval in the 'sixties where we were on
1912
the one hand bringing services together under the Greater London Council or a metropolitan authority while on the other hand and at the same time we were breaking services up. My conclusion from that experience, which was quite traumatic, was that it is easier to bring services together than to break them up.
Finally, the noble Lord rested his case once again, as he did at the Committee stage, on education and the social services going together. It is an argument that I fully understand and accept unless there are overriding considerations to the contrary. However, the noble Lord concluded by really giving me my case on the next Amendment which I am due to move, namely, that housing and education and housing and the social services must get together. And although, as he so rightly said, the proposals in the Bill allow this for the metropolitan districts, for the rest of the country housing will be separated from the social services. I will take the advice of the noble Lord and will withdraw my Amendment, so that I may get on to the next Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords. I beg to move Amendment No. 156. This is another of the paving Amendments towards the commencement Amendment at the end of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 141, line 10, leave out ("as from 1st April 1974")—(Lord Sandford).
Clause 189 [Housing]:
7.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 141, line 42, at end insert the following new subsection—
("( ) Where any council of a district undertakes the construction of any building or works, or carries out any works of maintenance in connection with land or buildings or which it is responsible, and employs its own labour force for that purpose, it shall include a separate account in respect of those activities within its general accounts.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to deal also with Amendment No. 158. These two Amendments deal with exactly the same point except that one concerns the district councils and the

1913
other the county councils. The two Amendments concern what I believe to be a very important aspect of local government, namely the direct labour building departments of local governments. As the House will be aware, these departments involve—and will do so increasingly in the case of the larger councils—large sums of public money funded jointly by the ratepayers, local taxes and central taxes. The work done by the direct labour departments undoubtedly makes a valuable contribution to both the construction and the maintenance of council buildings. As we know, this work varies from the building of new council houses and flats to council schools, and indeed offices.
These Amendments are in no way a criticism of the value of their work, but anyone interested in this subject will know that the problem facing many councils is that of keeping proper financial control over these departments, particularly in the case of the larger new projects. It is a problem to see that their work is fully competitive in comparison with the cost of outside contractors. It is a problem to see that public funds are being wisely and prudently invested. The difficulties of controlling cost in construction work are experienced, I believe, in the private sector as in the public sector. Nevertheless, one hears of cases from time to time—and I am sure we all remember the cases in the public sector in Southwark, Leicester, Liverpool and Glasgow, where the cost control of the direct labour departments went somewhat adrift on certain projects and where, if these departments had been run as commercial departments in the private sector, undoubtedly they would have had to be wound up and where public funds, albeit unintentionally, were squandered. All this has led to a growing feeling that there should be more financial control of such departments. More information should be made available to prevent this type of thing from happening.
Both the last Administration and the present Government have recognised this problem, and under Circular 57/69 issued by the last Administration it was recommended to local councils that where new work was to be undertaken more assistance should be sought from outside contractors. The Circular added that when Ministers came to consider loan
1914
sanctions they would be required to be satisfied that the councils were offering sufficient work to competitive tender. Following that Circular and following an investigation by a Government Committee, a Manual of Principles was published containing guidance to local councils on this issue. It recommended, among other things, two particular aspects. The first was that in the case of new work direct labour departments should be required to compete for a considerable and representative proportion of work with outside contractors and that they should compete on similar contractual conditions. The second was that a separate annual Treasury Report should be made on these direct labour departments which should be made available to all elected councillors and ratepayers. Thus we see that action has already been taken in principle by the Government, and this is the general principle of these Amendments. The simple point is that we should obtain tighter financial control of these departments with information in greater detail being made available to councillors.
I come to the precise objectives of my Amendments. As I have said, they would go a little further than the Government have so far gone. In other words, they would lay down a duty rather than a recommendation that councils shall have separate castings for these departments. I do not think that such a natural safeguard could be considered in any way an intrusion by central Government on local government. There is a precedent for my proposal. Under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 local authorities must provide separate accounts for every trading activity. These Amendments would simply extend that principle. It has been suggested to me that if my noble friend accepted the general principle of what I propose it would be unnecessary to include the Amendments in the Bill if he were prepared to give an undertaking that his right honourable friend's Department would in due course issue directives to local authorities under Clause 162 based on the principle of these Amendments. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I confess to some surprise that my noble friend should chose this late stage to

1915
introduce this topic when he had ample opportunity to do so in Committee, and incidentally to give us much more time to consider what he has had to say. I rather regretted the way in which he devoted so much of his remarks to what he sees to be defects in direct labour organisation as such before getting on to the matter of his Amendment. I hope he will excuse me if I do not get drawn into a discussion of the points he raised about direct labour organisation as a general idea or concept.
It would be contrary to the main principle and philosophy of the Bill to circumscribe the freedom, responsibility and right to decide how they organise their accounts in the way my noble friend has described and I cannot recommend the House to agree to his Amendment for that reason. There is no analogy with a separate statutory account for work done for another authority. When work is done for an authority's own functions there is no question of repayment to one authority by another.
My noble friend will know that Circular 57/69 has been sent out to local authorities commending within it a Manual of Principles governing the way in which direct labour work should be organised, and we have no reason to suppose that local authorities are not following it. I cannot go so far as my noble friend wants me to go in the way of giving assurances. We believe that this Circular and Manual, on all the evidence we have, go as far as it would be right for my right honourable friend and central Government to interfere in the operation of local government. For that reason I cannot recommend the House to accept his Amendment and I hope that my noble friend will not feel it necessary to press it to a Division.
LORD REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, may I from the Cross Benches welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has said on this issue? We have been trying in local government for at any rate the last ten years to persuade Parliament that it really must trust the elected representatives and those who elect them to see that their business is transacted well. This Amendment runs counter to that tendency and it was refreshing to hear the Minister say that
1916
the philosophy of this Bill would be to some extent affronted if this Amendment were made. I therefore hope that the noble Earl will agree to withdraw it.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, for his intervention from the Cross Benches. I am sorry if my noble friend feels that I tabled these Amendments at a rather late stage. It is always difficult during the passage of a Bill of this kind to table Amendments early, though I feel that I had given sufficient notice of my intention to table Amendments of this kind. I am glad that my noble friend was able to reassure the House that the Circular and Manual have been working satisfactorily and I feel that it has been useful, as a result of my having tabled these Amendments, to have had this discussion. I have no intention of pressing the matter and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.17 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 157A:
Page 141, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) The council of a district shall from time to time consult with the council of the appropriate county on the provision of such housing accommodation as may be required by that county for the purpose of its social services functions.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already explained to the House the circumstances which prevented me from being present on the day when the Committee discussed some of the critical issues concerning the inter-relationship of housing and the social services and the difficulties that arise when personal social service functions and housing functions are administered separately at different levels of local government. The House will recall that on that occasion my noble friend Lady White moved an Amendment which was designed to highlight the issues involved and to suggest possible solutions to the problems arising from the Government's decision to organise local government in two tiers outside the metropolitan areas rather than on a unitary basis.
I thought from reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of that debate that my noble friend drew most graphically on her own experience of our existing system, where

1917
the personal social services are divided from housing because they are planned and provided at county level, with housing at the district level. I thought that she deployed the arguments so fully and illustrated them so vividly from her knowledge of the heart-rending situations that can arise where effective working arrangements and co-operation between counties and districts do not exist that there is scarcely any need for me to repeat the arguments to-night.
In his reply to the debate on that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, stressed the need for a clear demarcation of function between authorities to make their responsibilities in the provision of their respective functions clear-cut and precise. Although we on this side are opposed in principle to the separation of housing and social service functions between the two tiers of local government on the grounds that the progressive development of relevant and adequate services really requires comprehensive social policies and social planning as well as continuous liaison at day-to-day level, both at the direct care level and at the provision level, we would agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord that the Bill must be precise in that the authorities concerned should know the extent of their responsibilities and discharge them properly.
I was delighted also to learn from reading his speech on that occasion that the new housing authorities are to be responsible for housing the homeless, following the recommendations of the Greve and the Glastonbury Reports which were recently issued, and, of course, the Seebohm Committee before them, since most of us would agree now that the basic need of homeless families, as indeed for all families is a stable home in normal housing accommodation rather than in special and segregated accommodation which only reinforces stigma and social distinction. Measures to avoid and prevent homelessness, as well as dealing with it at source where it already exists, will in our view inevitably require coordinated policies and action between the future housing and the social services authorities.
The latest figures which have been published setting out the circumstances in which children in England and Wales
1918
have been received into care in the 12 months ending March, 1971, reveal a stark and shocking situation. There were 1,441 children received into care by social services departments because of eviction of their families. Another 1,555 were received into care because their families were made homeless through other causes. That is a total of 3,000 children. A further 3,176 children were received into care because of unsatisfactory home conditions. That makes a total of some 6,000 children. If that were to be depicted on a television programme in relation to any other so-called developed country we should be deeply shocked. This category of homelessness, of children received into care, is the third largest category of reception into care apart from short-term illness of their parents or approved school orders. I think that they reveal that the new housing authorities that this Bill is to establish will have to adopt a much broader conception of their housing functions than has been usual in some areas in the past if we are ever to solve this tragic and costly human problem, where families are broken up, be it through eviction, homelessness, or inadequate housing accommodation, and 6,000 children are received into care in one year by already over-burdened social services departments, with all the human misery, suffering and deprivation that we know such situations inevitably involve.
The object of my Amendment to-day, which follows the recommendations of the Seebohm Committee which were quoted by my noble friend Lady White during the Committee stage, is to try to ensure that there is full, regular and on-going consultation between the new districts and the counties over the whole range of problems involved in deciding both the scale and the methods of providing, siting and designing housing for groups in special need: groups such as families that are under threat of eviction, homeless families with children in care, the mentally or physically handicapped, patients who have been discharged from mental hospitals, single parent families, or perhaps even simply single people.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and his Department, share my concern about these very difficult matters and are indeed wrestling with them daily. I have very much hope, therefore, that the Government will be sympathetic to

1919
the purposes of this Amendment. I know that the noble Lord certainly is. I therefore beg to move it in the hope that some way or other will be found of accepting it, at least in terms of principle.
7.25 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, may I just for one minute enhance and support thoroughly the plea of the noble Baroness from the Front Bench. In mediaeval England it was understood that the yeomen of England were much of the strength of the nation. I cannot understand why it is not understood that one of the strongest things in defence is a well-housed nation. It was sheer misery for those of us who had to work for more than a generation in the kind of environment where housing was the first question that confronted the young when they got married; where we had people of all sexes and ages huddled together in slum conditions. Housing is an upper height of the strength of the British Empire. Consequently, to be brief, may I say first that, speaking from a selfish point of view, our strength in defence lies in a first-class housing policy. Here is an opportunity to make housing a part of the defence system. But much more important than that, housing is part of the policy that Dickens and others talked of as necessary to make a generation of people worthy of the country in which we live. It cannot be done, neither can we get decent education, if there is not the opportunity for study and a certain amount of privacy in our homes. I sincerely hope that a constructive and at least a helpful answer will be given to my noble friend.
LORD REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, may I, from the Cross Benches, briefly say how strongly I support what has been said in favour of this Amendment. I will not go over old ground, because it would be most unsuitable, but it was a real casualty of the kind of principle which the Royal Commission put forward that it was impossible, once a second tier was adopted, not to give housing to it. It had to be done, and therefore housing had to be separated from the social services which, fortunately, have stayed with the county. I am delighted that they have not been clawed back in any way in any of the discussions
1920
that have gone on since then. But it is a great danger in the new system that the two will in practice be separated.
On the previous Amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Scrota, moved on education, there was at any rate an argument that if she had had her way there there would have been a separation between education in the metropolitan districts and the social services. Here there seems to be no conflict. Equally, on an earlier discussion, the noble Lord, Lord Molson, proposed an Amendment which rather suggested that the county would have a veto over the district councils in the matter of a particular aspect of planning. Here there is no such suggestion. There is no veto and it is all in the general line, upon which I know that the whole House is united, that we shall make this work only if districts and counties work together. But it would be a good thing if, for no Party reason at all, and in no mistrust of local authorities, we inserted in the Bill this clause which would make it absolutely plain both to counties and to districts that housing and the social services are part of a single whole and that it is essential, both for the county and the district, that they should pool their resources and their knowledge.
7.29 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very grateful that we have been able to have this short debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scrota, said, her colleague the noble Baroness, Lady White, and I grappled with the matter at the last stage but I am sure we are both delighted that the noble Baroness was herself able to move this Amendment to-day.
There is one point that I did try to make at the Committee stage (which she knows perfectly well, and I hasten to acknowledge that) and that is that a great many of these problems occur in the metropolitan areas, and that the metropolitan districts will not have this division of powers. They will have the full powers of housing which the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, has given as the ideal; they will have the housing powers, education powers, social services powers and environmental health powers and, of course, I hope very much that in due course they will have an area health authority which again will mean that the

1921
health authority will be knit in to cover exactly the same area as the social services and the authority with the other powers. For the future there is a great hope that in the metropolitan districts this co-ordination will be effective.
It would be interesting to know how many of the 6,000-odd children the noble Baroness mentioned are in fact in these metropolitan areas. My guess is that quite a large proportion of them are, and therefore this would be one case where there would be co-ordination between the housing and the social services. As the noble Baroness has said, it is fundamental to the Bill that in the non-metropolitan areas there will be two tiers; and, of course, housing is by far the principal function of the district, and we do not want in any way to blur the distinctive functions of the two tiers. At the same time, we very much hope that in creating these two tiers we are creating responsible local government authorities, and we propose that they shall consult whenever necessary on subjects of this sort. The difficulty with the Amendment is that it implies that the county level, because it has responsibility of one type, may wish or need to influence directly the carrying out of functions of another type at the district level, and it is because this somewhat blurs that distinction that I am not able to accept the Amendment as it stands. Moreover, it does not make provision for the difference in the metropolitan areas, where the council would not need to consult with the county.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the subject of homelessness, in which we are both naturally deeply interested. I hope that I did not go quite as far as she said I did in saying that it was definitely to be the district's function to house the homeless. The position is that we are at present considering the working parties' reports on the homeless in London and in the South-West of Wales and we are consulting the local authorities about them.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I would never have dared to say what I said if it had not been in Hansard. The noble Lord said at column 1039
"At least in the new arrangements the housing authority will be responsible for housing the homeless."
1922
If I misread his intention there, I apologise. But I personally took great courage from it, and if this is what he is at present negotiating I wish him every success.
LORD ABERDARE: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for putting it that way. The three working parties' studies of the problem have all recommended that housing authorities should be responsible for the accommodation of the homeless, and I very much hope that that in fact will be the case. With the spirit of the Amendment I am in complete agreement. I would suggest to the noble Baroness that if she is willing to withdraw her own Amendment I might move a manuscript Amendment to Clause 191, the social services functions clause, which would read:
"In a non-metropolitan county each district council and the county council shall from time to time consult together with respect to the nature and extent of the accommodation needed for people who by reason of infirmity or disability (whether arising from age or otherwise) are in need of accommodation of a special character."
I think this will perhaps go some way towards meeting the desire for expressed consultation, and it will be in the Bill. It will not set one authority above another; it will simply make sure that there is a requirement upon them to consult in connection with special accommodation for those who need it,
"by reason of infirmity or disability whether arising from age or otherwise".
I hope that goes some way to help.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, if it will help the House, I shall be happy to withdraw my Amendment at this stage, so that we can discuss the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 191 [Social services functions):
7.35 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move manuscript Amendment No. 158A.
Amendment moved—
Page 142, line 45, at end insert—
"(1A) In a non-metropolitan county each district council and the county council shall from time to time consult together with respect to the nature and extent of the accommodation needed for people who by reason of infirmity or disability (whether arising from age or

1923
otherwise) are in need of accommodation of a special character.")—(Lord Aberdare.)
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, before my noble friend speaks on this Amendment I should like to say, as one who took part in the debate at an earlier stage, that we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for trying to meet us on what we all recognise was a very genuine difficulty. I have been looking at the proposed manuscript Amendment, which seems to me to meet our points in every respect but one. About this I am not quite clear. It depends, I think, on the interpretation that one should put on "disability". The categories of persons about whom these consultations should be held—and we are entirely in agreement with that proposal—are those who are in need of accommodation of a special character by reason of infirmity or disability whether arising from age or otherwise. This is fine, so far as people who have a specific physical or mental disability are concerned, or a person who is suffering from the effects of advancing years. But I am not quite clear—and I should be very grateful if the noble Lord could put my mind at rest on this—whether this covers what are sometimes the most difficult people of all to deal with, those who are normally called, in the social work jargon, "problem families"; persons of whom one cannot say they are suffering from a particular defect or disorder which could be labelled as infirmity or physical or mental disability in the narrower sense of the word.
If this is going to be interpreted in a broad sense, it is perfectly satisfactory. If I may revert to the example that I used at the Committee stage, of my constituent who kept bees, he was eccentric. But the net result was that he lost his job and his wife went into a mental hospital and the four children were taken into care; and all because, in my view, the housing authority, having no responsibility for any of these conditions, simply would not have sense about evicting him. I am a little concerned whether this Amendment goes widely enough to deal with the people who are very difficult to define. As I say, we all know them when we see them. They are the problem families; they are the eccentrics of this world.
It is difficult to do this kind of thing on the Floor of the House, but I was wonder-
1924
ing whether one could possibly amend the manuscript Amendment to broaden it by saying,
"arising from age or from other physical mental or social circumstances".
That would bring in as broad a category of difficult cases as one could hope to cover in an Amendment of this sort. I think that it would leave a loophole, about which I am not quite happy, in the rather tight definition of infirmity or disability (whether arising from age or otherwise) … "Is the "otherwise" going to be interpreted broadly? That is really what I am trying to say.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think this is a very difficult point. We have had some conversations with the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, on this matter. It has proved extremely difficult to find a wording which was satisfactory. I acknowledge that this particular wording may not go quite as far as some of us would like in making it quite clear that there should be these consultations. On the other hand, if we go any further we then get into great difficulties of one authority impinging on the other.
I feel that the social services powers of the county are as complete as they can be, and we must leave it very largely to the good sense and sound administration of these counties and districts in the future, naturally urged by my Department, to undertake this sort of consultation, rather than try at this present stage to alter what is a very carefully worded Amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that we have gone some way at this very late moment in trying to meet her point. The Amendment at least ensures that these two authorities come together and consult. Once they are consulting, I should hope they would consult on all matters of mutual interest.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I think that the whole House will wish me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and those concerned in the Department, for the very great effort they have made to meet the doubts that some of us have felt over this particular problem of the interrelationship of housing and the social services in the non-metropolitan areas. We have certain reservations, which my noble friend Lady White has expressed, because of the difficulties of definition and because we are concerned with a range

1925
of issues that perhaps do not lend themselves to Parliamentary draftsman language quite so precisely as he would wish. Nevertheless, none of us would wish to appear ungracious, and I think it is particularly gratifying that, after this very long Committee stage at the end of one of the longest Sessions on record, the Government should have made this particular effort to meet the fears which all of us share as a result of the division of functions. We are most grateful to the noble Lord and to all his colleagues concerned, and I very much hope that the House will accept the manuscript Amendment.
7.53 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 159, which, together with Amendments Nos. 160 and 161, is again a paving Amendment to the commencement provisions in Amendment No. 308A.
Amendment moved—
Page 143, line 13, leave out ("on 1st April 1974 ").—(Lord, A berdare.)
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 160.
Amendment moved—
Page 143, line 23, leave out ("on that day").—(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 161.
Amendment moved—
Page 143, line 27, leave out ("on and after that date").—(Lord Aberdare.)
Schedule 23 [Amendments of enactments conferring social services functions]:
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 162. It is a drafting Amendment. Schedule 23 applies only to England and Wales, and it is not necessary to define the amendments made in the paragraph as so applying.
Amendment moved—
Page 353, line 2, leave out from ("1948") to ("for") in line 3.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Clause 192 [Police]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 161A:
Page 144, line 8, leave out from ("section") to end of line 12.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords I beg to move Amendment No. 161A. There is no need to provide for the procedure of a county police authority specifically because it is covered by the general provisions in paragraph 44(1) of Schedule 12 as being a committee of the local authority. Therefore, I beg to move that these words be left out.
Clause 197 [Local weights and measures authorities]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, Amendment No. 163 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 151, line 5, leave out ("and under") and insert ("section 5 of the 1963 Act and").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
Clause 198 [Public transport in passenger transport areas]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 164. This is also paving for the commencement clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 151, line 41, leave out ("On 1st April 1974").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 165. This is technical—I will go so far as to say very technical.
Amendment moved—
Page 152, line 23, at end insert ("and in section 16(1) of the Finance Act 1970 (exclusion of amounts precepted under section 13 of the Transport Act 1968 and certain grants in computing profits chargeable to corporation tax of a Passenger Transport Executive or the London Transport Executive) at the end of paragraph (a) there shall be added the words " and, in any case where that section has effect as set out in Part II of Schedule 24 to the Local Government Act 1972, any grants made to such Executives under that section".").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
Clause 200 [Licensing: licensed premises, cinemas, theatres and refreshment houses]:
7.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 155, line 24, after ("in") insert ("Part I of").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 166. At the Committee stage the noble Baroness, Lady White, made out a case for providing for appeals against the refusals of licences under the music and dancing provisions in the Home Counties which I took the view was unanswerable. It just shows how difficult it is that we have had to put down all these Amendments in order to meet it. They do meet it. I hope that the noble Baroness is satisfied. I beg to move this Amendment, and with it go Amendments Nos. 168 and 169. We have had to go so far as to amend the Long Title in Amendment No. 310, so the noble Baroness has scored a great victory.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords. I am extremely grateful to the noble Viscount. This is not a matter of very great moment, but I considered that it was a matter of inequity and injustice. The noble Viscount has put it right. He has taken great pains, or the Department has, as one can see by the length of Amendments Nos. 168 and 169 and, as I had also observed, No. 310. I am assured by those concerned that this entirely meets the case, and we should like to express our most grateful thanks to the noble Viscount and everybody concerned. In the circumstances, of course, I shall not be moving my own Amendment, as this is much more comprehensive.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 168.
Amendment moved—
Page 156, line 22, at end insert—
("(7A) The Provisions of Part II of Schedule 25 to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of conferring a right of appeal with respect to licences under the Home Counties (Music and Dancing) Licensing Act 1926; and any reference in that Part of that Schedule—

(a) to the 1926 Act is a reference to the said Act of 1925, or

1928

(b) to a licence is a reference to a licence under section 3 of the 1926 Act."—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

Schedule 25 [Amendment of Licensing Act 1964]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE or CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 169.
Amendment moved—
Page 361, line 33, at end insert—
("PART II
APPEALS IN RESPECT OF LICENCES UNDER THE HOME COUNTIES (Music AND DANCING) LICENSING ACT 1926
10.—(1) Any person—

(a) whose application for the grant, including a grant by way of renewal or for the transfer of a licence is refused, or

(b) whose licence is revoked under section 3(11) of the 1926 Act, or

(c) who is aggrieved by any term, condition or restriction to which the licence is subject, other than a term, condition or restriction having effect by virtue of regulations under section 3(3) of the 1926 Act,

may, at any time before the expiry of the period of twenty-one days beginning with the relevant date, appeal to the Crown Court.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) above the relevant date means—

(a) in a case falling within paragraph (a) or (b) of that sub-paragraph, the date on which the applicant or holder of the licence, as the case may be, is notified by the district council concerned of the refusal or revocation, and

(b) in a case falling within paragraph (c) of that sub-paragraph, the date on which the term, condition or restriction concerned becomes operative.

11. On an appeal under paragraph 10 above the Crown Court may make such order as it thinks fit and, where appropriate, may by the order give directions to the district council concerned with respect to the exercise of their powers under the 1926 Act.
12. Notwithstanding anything in section 3 of the 1926 Act, where the grant of a licence by way of renewal is refused or a licence is revoked under subsection (11) of that section, the licence shall nevertheless continue in force—

(a) during the period within which an appeal may be brought under paragraph 10 above, and if such an appeal is brought within that period, until the determination or abandonment of the appeal; and

(b) in the case of a successful appeal against the refusal of a grant by way of renewal until the licence is renewed by the district council.")—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

Clause 202 [Public libraries and museums (England)]:
7.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 157, line 44, after ("councils") insert ("metropolitan").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I should perhaps first remind your Lordships that, by and large, practically every museum in this country is sited in a town and managed by an urban authority, for the obvious reason that when museums were first started they had to be close to the major centres of population. In those early days the objective was to provide a collection representative of the arts and sciences for the education of the people in that town. It was a relatively static and inexpensive service save when major works of art had to be found, when local patriotism usually secured that rich men who lived locally gave generously to their museum.
In the last generation or so the scope of museums has increased enormously. The staff are increasingly engaged on research work both on the collections in the museum and especially on such things as archaeology and paleontology outside the town in which they are situated, and country people come increasingly into museums in towns so that by and large the country people get as much out of this as do the urban ones. The museums in fact have grown away from the authorities who originally founded them. Their functions have changed vastly, and this greater activity is creating pressure on more accommodation, and in particular is bringing an increasing demand for conservation of the older material which of course deteriorates in the course of time, as any of your Lordships who have collections of pictures and furniture at home will know, and bringing in to the museum new material which needs looking after before it can be put on exhibition or into the study collections. In fact, the resources of the smaller authorities are becoming wholly insufficient to deal with all the problems which arise in museums to-day. All of us who are concerned with museums know that. Indeed, successive Ministers have been well aware of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Lee,
1930
and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, have done a tremendous amount of work in trying to improve the situation; but inevitably they have to do the work with the tools as they find them, that is to say, with museums which have long outgrown the resources of the bodies which maintain them.
There has been set up an admirable area museum service to help local museums in all the many jobs which they have to do, and particularly perhaps, more than any other, in conservation, which is the worry of all of us to-day. The position of these area services is pretty grim. The director of one has reported that in the small museums—small museums, mark you, my Lords—in one county, and one county only, he finds that about 5,000 man hours of work are necessary on conservation, and with the staff available in that area it is impossible to provide more than something between 200 and 400 man hours a year to deal with the enormous backlog. The same story applies to the other work in museums. The Department of the Environment has been much more forthcoming recently in providing money for rescue operations when there are about to happen such disasters as a new by-pass being driven through a Roman settlement; and they are doing a great deal of good work in providing money for excavations. In my own county of Suffolk we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who has shown great interest in one of these problems, and we are hoping that a Roman site which is about to be ruined will at least be excavated before the bulldozers move in.
When that material is rescued, only half the work is done. It has to go to the local museum to be dealt with. Broken pots and glass have to be repaired; rusty iron or perished bronze have to be treated, and even, on occasions, wood or ivory or bone also needs highly skilled treatment. In point of fact, in all these local museums there are just not the people to do this work; and even where there are people to do the work they are wholly insufficient in number to be able to deal with it. In short, the resources which were adequate a generation or so ago are wholly inadequate to-day because more is demanded from the services of the museum and more highly complicated techniques are available for the museums.
That, my Lords, is the underlying reason for this Amendment. We are finding that museums have grown beyond the resources of the bodies which support them. My Amendment does not include the large provincial museums, such as those in Birmingham, Leeds and the like, which are expressly omitted; but it does suggest that the counties with their larger resources should be responsible, and solely responsible, for museums in the non metropolitan districts. I may say that in moving this Amendment I have the support of the Museums Association which is representative of all the museums of every sort in the country; I have the support of the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries, a statutory body set up to advise the Government, and both those bodies strongly support this Amendment.
When we discussed this subject at an earlier stage the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, suggested that the proper way of dealing with the problem was that counties should help with the concurrent powers which they will have under the Bill, and he reminded us that counties have concurrent powers under the existing Act, the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. Indeed they have; and they could, did they so wish, provide all the resources from the county rates to help the local museums. But I have just explained to your Lordships how with those powers which are not exercised the museum service is running down. Under the Bill, counties will have the same powers as they have to-day and I cannot believe that it can be seriously suggested that counties which do not to-day support their local museums with the concurrent powers which they have will do so to-morrow.
If I may give your Lordships one example, the county of Norfolk has for long been well known as one of the most far-seeing counties so far as museums are concerned and gives greater help to its local museum—direct local help, not for services rendered—than any other county in England. I have always been proud to be next door to Norfolk, which does that. But in point of fact the county of Norfolk gives £4,500 to the City of Norwich towards the support of its museum, which costs in total about £130,000—less than 3 per cent. When this
1932
Bill becomes an Act the rateable value of the county of Norfolk will be three times that of the city of Norwich, and it seems very sensible that the county of Norfolk should be responsible for the museum for which the city will have a third of the representatives and will pay a third of the cash.
We know from experience that counties, with exactly the same powers as they will have under this Bill, do not show themselves very forthcoming in supporting local museums for which they are not solely responsible. But we also know that when they run museums for which they are solely responsible—and I suppose that the County of Durham is probably the best example—they fling themselves into it, one might also say, with abandon. The county museums run by counties, and by counties alone, are admirably run and one cannot but be quite certain that if counties were given the sole responsibility for running museums they would run them as admirably as do those counties which at present have museums of their own. Of course those museums tend to be run in conjunction with other functions which exist in the county towns. Counties, since they have had museum powers, have naturally tended to fill the lacunae and have not set up museums in competition with those which already exist.
I think we can draw two lessons from our experience in the past: first, that the museum service is tending to run down, because it has outstripped the resources of the bodies which originally founded it; and, secondly, that there are larger bodies, with larger resources, which have shown that they are not only capable but willing to run an admirable museum service if given half a chance, and I believe that that is the right solution. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I rise to support what the noble Earl has just said with regard to his Amendment. When he made his point at the Committee stage I thought, if he does not mind my saying so, that it was a very strong and powerful argument for the Government to accept his Amendment. I think, in a sense, that in repeating it tonight he has made an even stronger argument in favour of the Government's accepting this Amendment and I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, will

1933
feel able to do so. Those of us who have the good fortune to live in a large area (I live just outside Oxford, where there are many university museums and a number of other museums) where there are State museums, such as we have in London, can see the value of museums of this kind. It has been a national feature, it is part of our heritage, to find small museums all over the country not only serving a very useful purpose but taking a pride in what they have been able to acquire, to dig up and to put on show, and it would be a great pity if we were to lose that, as I think we arc in danger of doing.
Anyone who knows about the museum situation in this country, knows that many of these smaller museums are finding it extremely difficult to maintain themselves; their work has often come to a standstill; they are not able to add items which should be added. I should have thought it was desirable that we should put them in the responsible hands of the much larger units who are able to maintain the museums in their areas. It is quite unrealistic to expect district councils, of which there are a large number in this country that are responsible for museums, to go on hoping that they will be able to maintain them. In these circumstances, I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, will feel able to accept this Amendment, because it is important to our culture that we maintain the museum situation in this country at, perhaps, a higher level than we have hitherto been able to do in recent years. I hope that this House will accept the Amendment.
8.7 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): My Lords, the main objective behind the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, which has been supported by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is of course fully shared by the Government. We know only too well that the organisation and financing of many of these provincial museums leaves a very great deal to be desired. It is an area of very uneven standards, and I endorse all that my noble friend said about the sad cases where collections are deteriorating and where there is not enough money for the staff to provide the facilities which the public to-day want. The whole question
1934
is: when we are reforming local government, what is the best way to give a new impulse to the museum service in the country?
If we were dealing with a statutory service, and therefore, as in the case of public libraries, could use the law to secure the most efficient and professional organisation, then I suppose there might be an argument—though I am not quite sure—for compelling all the museums to be grouped under the new county councils and the metropolitan authorities. We might then feel that it would be right, however brutal, to take away all powers from the new districts to control and manage museums and hand the lot over to the first-tier authorities. But the museum service is not mandatory, for the reasons which I gave in the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. All the museums outside the 18 national museums and galleries have been started here and there by local initiative, and many of the best of them, as my noble friend said, were quite naturally established in cities and towns which will now be included in the new districts. The situation to-day is that a few counties nave developed a museum service as good as any city or town in their area, and I fully support what my noble friend said about the County of Durham. Others—and I will not go through many—such as Hampshire, have had no cause to establish museums comparable to the great museums at, say, Southampton and Portsmouth. Plymouth and Exeter provide a parallel in Devonshire, as does Brighton in Sussex.
I recently visited the museum in Merthyr Tydfil. I did not put any questions to the local people, but I had a very distinct sensation that they are very proud of their museum which contains a local collection, and that they would not be very pleased to hand it over to Mid Glamorgan. At any rate, many of the best museums outside London are now run by county boroughs which will become districts under this Bill, and it would be very unwise to expect them to welcome the loss of their local status, which of course would happen if this Amendment were accepted. Then what do we do, my Lords? The Government believe that the best way to regroup museums within the new local government structure—and it is highly important

1935
to do that, for the reasons my noble friend gave—is by agreement and not by compulsion. Therefore we propose concurrent powers; that is, both counties and districts will have the power to run a museum, but if a district elects to continue to run a museum in its area and there is a county museum service, it will also have to contribute towards the county museum service. We therefore face a very complex situation in regard to the relationships between one museum and another in any given area, and we arc quite certain that fresh consideration has to be given to this, and that the creation of the new local government areas is exactly the opportunity for doing it. I have no doubt that, for the reasons of poverty and such like advanced by my noble friend, many museums now locally controlled will wish to come under the county. But, my Lords, we must remember that there are local collections which relate to their immediate neighbourhood.
I expect your Lordships can all think of a benefactor, even in very recent times, who has given a collection of pictures or prints, or of pottery or silver, or of the tools and equipment of the trade in his town—and the latter is now becoming a most interesting development—and who has given them to his own town because he did not want them to be broken up or to go elsewhere. if a collection of that kind is to come under the control of the county council—and of course some counties are very large, and the county council may be a long way from one of these local museums—then it is right that it should be done by agreement and not by compulsion. Compulsion, I am certain, would not only be very much resented—we have had a number of representations already in view of the Amendment to which I am now speaking—but I think it might choke off future benefactions of most interesting and valuable local objects and collections.
My noble friend said that the museum service is in a bad way and that Ministers in the last two Governments have had to work with the tools as they found them. But that is exactly what we do not intend to do. It is for that reason, because the tools as we found them are so inadequate, that my Department set
1936
up the inquiry into the needs of provincial museums, which goes much wider than any previous inquiry. We expect the report by the end of the year; and recommendations will be made on a very large range of matters, including the structure of the museum service. When we have the report we shall be in a position to give guidance to the new local authorities on the problems of organisation and on their possible solutions. It really would be a great pity to prejudice the reforms which we hope will follow from this report—and indeed we intend to see that there is every opportunity for persuading the various local authorities to take up the recommendations—by arousing the opposition of those museums which, in advance of hearing the committee's views and without being able to make their own case, if this Amendment were passed would be compelled immediately to hand over their management to the county.
Finally, your Lordships will have noted that the effect of the Amendment proposed by my noble friend is both illogical and in many cases manifestly unfair. If the Amendment were passed, metropolitan districts would have the power to run museums but non-metropolitan districts would have no such powers. It is quite true that in South Yorkshire and in the West Riding the new metropolitan areas have run some very splendid museums. I think my noble friend quoted Leeds as an example. But in most of the new metropolitan districts they have not run major museums, and quite a number of them are smaller than the non-metropolitan districts. Why, then, should the non-metropolitan districts be deprived of their powers? Your Lordships should think of who they are: Chester, Leicester, Norwich, Exeter, Plymouth, Southampton, Portsmouth and Brighton. That is only a selection. All of those cities have established good museums, and under the Amendment all would lose their powers to the counties whether or not they agreed to the transfer.
On a previous Amendment my noble friend Lord Redcliffe-Maud said very wisely that if only districts and counties would work together they could solve the particular problems of which he was speaking. It is exactly the same in the museum service. We have here many

1937
instances of local pride, many instances of long tradition; but we need a major reform in the provincial museum service. We have set up an inquiry which will put into our hands the instrument with which we can hope to persuade the museums, county by county, metropolitan county by metropolitan county, to evolve a pattern that really will enable the museum service to go forward. Therefore, I must warn your Lordships that to pass this Amendment would provoke justifiable protest. It is much better that we should proceed by agreement. I therefore hope that the House will not entertain this Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I must say that I think the reply of the noble Viscount the Minister has been rather disappointing. If I may say so, the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell nut up a very strong case, and I think the combination of views of those two noble Lords, together with the wishes and desires of the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries and the Museums Association, carry a great deal of weight. I have little to add to what the noble Earl has said. He has, I think, made it very clear that in the future the resources required of these museums will in many ways be far beyond the local districts if they are to give the service that is required. The public is rightly requiring far more from the museums now, with advice and so on; there are problems of security the type of keeper who is gradually becoming required, even in the districts, is now needed to be of a much higher educational standard; and I think all this requires far more financial backing. The noble Viscount the Paymaster General seems to think that all this should be done by agreement, and I am sure that in many cases this will work out very well; but often local districts are very jealous of their prerogatives. They may not wish to give up responsibility for a museum which perhaps they may not be running as well as they could run it if they had greater resources. They may not wish to do this; and the proposals in this Amendment would make it mandatory and would ensure that far larger resources were available.
1938
The noble Earl cited the example of Norwich, which I know very well. I was at school in Norfolk. I think he gave a good example of how the county gives quite a large sum every year. Also the noble Viscount spoke about bequests and how this might choke off bequests in the future to local museums. I should have thought that someone wishing to make a bequest would want to know that it was going to be properly looked after. It could be properly looked after only if the museum to which it was donated received as much from the resources of the county as it possibly could. Therefore I hope that the noble Earl will expect a rather fuller reply than he has had so far before he decides what to do.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, in listening to the noble Viscount on the question of museums, it seemed to me that he was placing far too much emphasis upon the desire and ability of small bodies to maintain effective museums. From my slight experience of museums, it seems to me that the real trouble when dealing with small museums under the control of a rather small council is that they are never able to put enough resources at the disposal of the museums or to attract good enough people in order to run them. I have noticed this over the last 25 years when living in Newcastle-on-Tyne, which is not a small town. There they have a museum of industry and science quite pitifully maintained. I expect that the noble Viscount knows about this museum. Really, it is quite ridiculous how little effort has been put into it, largely because it was not the responsibility of a big enough authority. I believe that unless the museums are put under the control of a large authority one will not get the effort put into them to maintain them effectively. We may therefore suffer from having lots of museums which are pitifully inadequately maintained.
A new museum has been developed in County Durham. This museum was started on the initiative of a local curator and it has gone ahead reasonably well; but it has gone ahead because he got involved in it not just the city of Durham but the county borough of Newcastle and County Durham as well. He has been able to get a lot of support in this

1939
way, with the result that the museum has not been maintained by a small municipal authority but by a large authority. I think that we shall be doing a grave disservice to the museum structure of this country if we continue to let it be split up under the control of a number of minor authorities, rather than giving the work to the major authorities with whom it will be easier to deal and who will be in a much better position to profit from the inquiry that the noble Viscount has so sensibly set up.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: MyLords, I must confess to be profoundly dissatisfied with the reply of the noble Viscount although I should like to congratulate him for batting as well as he did on what It looked upon as rather a sticky wicket. I think that almost all the points he raised had little to do with the point which I made in my argument. He first twitted me slightly for having treated the metropolitan districts in a different way from that in which I treated the non-metropolitan districts. There I find myself in the same difficulty as did the Government over education. In the case of the large museums like Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester and the like, the only ones which have really adequate resources, it clearly would have been ridiculous to have suggested that they should not retain their museum powers. There was then the lead given me by the Government in making the metropolitan districts education authorities in the same way as the non-metropolitan counties were made education authorities. I thought I ought to follow their example.
I do not believe that the noble Viscount could have consulted the representatives of museums. I know that he is very close to them. I know that the whole museum service is one in which he is as keen as and perhaps keener than I am; but there is a very strong mood of support among the museum service for my Amendment. He may not know that the museum committee of one of the municipal museums to which he refers, the Leicester City Museum, expressed themselves strongly in favour of the service being a county service. I believe that if he were to talk to the people running the museums—I do not mean only the staff of the museums but the individual
1940
members of the museum committees—he would find that they who are really keen on their service are anxious to be supported by the full rate of the county instead of by the rate of the district, and would happily go in. I think that almost inevitably the museum service is one of the services in which any wise county is bound to use the districts, certainly the districts that have been county boroughs, as agents for them. I believe that the county boroughs will have their cake and eat it. They will get the support of the county rate: and the individual members who are keen on their museums (and those are the ones who matter, not the people who, as I think the noble Viscount said, dislike losing their powers) will support my argument. Powers seem to me to be of no importance in themselves; it is the way that they are carried out that matters. The people who are doing the work on the museum committees would support my Amendment. I am not speaking of the one or two elderly gentlemen who have sat on the local council for years and who are nervous about losing their so-called powers.
I found it extraordinary that the noble Viscount should make the suggestion he did about the gifts which people have made, generation after generation, in counties like mine—not only people living inside the borough but also those living on the outside in the rural areas. These people are as proud of their local museum as are the citizens of the county borough themselves. People from inside and outside the towns have always given presents to their county museum and will continue to do so. It is inconceivable that any county taking over the responsibility for a museum to which a collection of pictures has been left by some generous person in the past should think of breaking it up. I cannot believe that is a good argument against my Amendment.
What the noble Viscount said was that what we now want is a new emphasis in the museum service. The new emphasis, I believe, would come from putting the responsibility on the counties. That would give the new impetus we all require. There is one other matter which worried me. This was the noble Viscount's reference to the Committee which has been set up and which is now drafting and whose terms of refer-

1941
ence appear in the White Paper on the Future Policy for Museums and Galleries. The terms of reference are to review the needs of the principal museums and galleries with particular regard to conservation and display of their collections and links with related activities, and to make recommendations about the interrelationship between those museums, the national institutions, with the principal local museums. I cannot but believe that if that Committee really were going to say anything germane to this current Bill they should have been asked to make a preliminary report (they have been sitting for some time and must have the facts at their finger tips) on what they thought about the appropriate body for running museums under this Bill. They have not so been asked, and presumably nothing to affect this Bill will come out because the Bill will be passed by the time the Committee reports. It does not seem to me that that Committee's deliberations have any relation to my Amendment at all. The Amendment is purely to try to get the maximum resources which the museums need and which can come only from the counties.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to answer two points. First, on the Committee of Inquiry, I think that my noble friend will see that in working on those terms of reference it becomes essential to consider the relationship between one museum and another within an area. It would not be right for me to say anything about what the Committeee has decided or is considering putting in its Report. But it is clear that it has to consider where the resources can come from in order to carry out a very ambitious programme of expansion and reform which it is the business of the Committee to outline. It is not much good telling us that all kinds of things need to be done in the Provinces without some recommendation about where the resources are coming from. So I think that perhaps I could help my noble friend a little on that.
It seems that noble Lords who support the Amendment think that there is a difference of opinion between the Government and themselves more or less on what needs doing in the museums. There is no difference of opinion; we all want these museums to be grouped in the most
1942
effective way and to receive money from whatever source they can get it, and substantially more money, in order that these things may be put right. The difference between us is that the noble Lords who support this Amendment feel that some museums—the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones put the point clearly—may not wish to come in, and therefore the noble Lords want compulsion. It is not right to use compulsion when we are in the middle of working out a great reform by agreement, and when we know that if we use compulsion there are many cities—I will not go through that list again—who would be very unhappy at parting with their museums; not because they had agreed to do so but because they were ordered to do it under this Bill. Therefore I ask the House to let us have another six months and this programme will evolve from the Committee and we shall be seeing our way to what I hope will be a new chapter in the history of provincial museums.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 203 [Public libraries and museums (Wales)]:
8.35 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, this Amendment is very similar to an Amendment moved during the Committee stage which at that time was defective in drafting. I beg to move Amendment No. 171.
Amendment moved—
Page 158, line 10, leave out from first ("councils") to ("each") in line 12 and insert ("and district councils and, subject to the provisions of section 5 of that Act").—(Lord Belstead.)
Clause 205 [Youth employment services]:
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, this is one of the commencement provisions. I beg to move Amendment No. 172.
Amendment moved—
Page 160, line 39, leave out ("On 1st April 1974").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 173. With No. 174 it is a part of the commencement package.
Amendment moved—
Page 160, line 42, leave out ("that date") and insert ("1st April 1974").—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 206 [Charities]:
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg co move Amendment No. 174.
Amendment moved—
Page 161, line 72, leave out ("on that date").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 174A:
Page 161, line 36, at end insert ("then, if the rural district is coextensive with a parish the new authority is the parish council, and in any other case").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are three parishes in England which are coextensive with rural districts. They do not at present have parish councils and the rural district councils exercise the functions of parish councils. The Bill now provides that these three parishes will have parish councils. It is appropriate that any charitable property should continue to be held at the present level rather than go to district councils and this Amendment provides accordingly. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 175 to 179, all of which are consequential on the commencement package.
Amendments moved—

Clause 206, page 162, line 33, leave out ("at that date").

Clause 206, page 163, line 2, leave out ("then as from that date").

Clause 207, page 164, line 17, leave out ("on 1st April 1974").

Clause 208, page 164, line 43, leave out ("as from 1st April 1974").

Clause 208, page 165, line 6, leave out ("on and after 1st April 1974".—(Lord Sandford.)

LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 179A:
Page 165, line 20, leave out from ("section") to ("is") and insert ("19 of the Land Charges Act 1925, and set out in Schedule 4 to the Land Charges Act 1972").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment corrects a reference to the Land Charges Act 1925 which has been affected since the introduction of this Bill by the Land Charges Act 1972. In moving this Amendment I should point out that there is a printing error and that the second "and" should read, "as". So that the Amendment should read"…Land Charges Act 1925, as set out in Schedule 4…" With that correction I beg to move the Amendment.
Clause 209 [Local licence duties]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. It was taken with Amendment No. 105 to Clause 176 on commencement. I beg to move Amendment No. 180:
Amendment moved—
Page 165, line 22, leave out ("On and after 1st April 1974").—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 210 [Cemeteries and crematoria]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 181 and 182 which are also commencement Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 166, line 42, leave out ("on 1st April 1974").
Page 167, line 1, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 2.—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, Amendment No. 182A is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 167, line 23, leave out ("affirmed") and insert ("approved").—(Lord Sandford.)
Schedule 26 [Cemeteries and crematoria]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 182B which is consequential on that group of Amendments to do with finance and borrowing.
Amendment moved—
Page 363, line 18, leave out from ("provisions") to ("relate") in line 22 and insert
Amendments moved—
("of this Act, that is to say, sections 100 to 105. 109, 110, 122, 123, 136 and Part I of Schedule 13, so far as they").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, Amendment No. 183 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 364, line 10, leave out ("district") and insert ("area").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendments Nos. 184, 185 and 186:
Page 364, line 29, after ("sections") insert ("15, 25, 27, 28, 30 to 35").
Page 365, line 11, at end insert—
("15A. In section 1 of the Burial Act 1859, for the word "churchwardens", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words "burial authority", for the words from "churchwardens" in the second place where it occurs to "situate" there shall be substituted the words "council of the district or London borough or the Common Council of the City of London, as the case may be" and for the word "churchwardens", wherever it subsequently occurs, there shall be substituted the word "Council ".")
Page 365, line 20, at end insert—
("16A. It shall not be necessary for a burial authority to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State under section 1 of the Burial Act 1900 for the consecration of any portion of a burial ground.
16B. Section 2(3) of the Burial Act 1900 shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords I beg to move Amendments Nos. 184, 185 and 186. These are all Amendments tidying up, to some extent, the Burial Act. They are little more than drafting Amendments. I think the only point to which I should draw the attention of your Lordships is that contained in Amendment No. 186 and shown on the Marshalled List marked 16A, which provides that it shall not be necessary for a burial authority to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State—that is, the Secretary of State for the Home Office—under Section 1 of the Burial Act 1900. That is the only matter of any substance.
Clause 211 [Maintenance of a closed churchyard]:
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, Amendment No. 188 is a drafting Amend-
1946
ment to ensure that all certificates issued to local authorities since the coming into force of the Welsh Church Act 1914 are covered by Clause 211(4). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 168, line 35, leave out ("an existing") and insert ("a").—(Lord Aberdare.)
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I should just like to say on behalf of Wales that we are delighted to have this assurance.
Clause 213 [Justices of the peace and magistrates' courts]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, Amendment No. 189 is part of the commencement package. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 169, line 38, leave out ("on 1st April, 1974").—(Lord Sandford.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 169, line 41, at end insert—
("(a) a non-metropolitan county which is not divided into petty sessional divisions").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will move Amendments Nos. 190 to 204 inclusive en bloc. Surprisingly enough they are consequential upon the Isle of Wight. We now have a county which consists of only one petty sessional division. Therefore the City of London, which also consists of one petty sessional division can be dealt with in the same way and we do not need to have special reference to it. There is one joker in my pack, namely Amendment No. 199, which is purely technical and does not concern the Isle of Wight. All the rest are consequential on the Amendment which we had yesterday. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 169, line 41, at end insert—
("(a) a non-metropolitan county which is not divided into petty sessional divisions ").
Schedule 27, page 369, line 24, after ("words") insert ("a non-metropolitan county which is not divided into petty sessional divisions").

Schedule 27, page 369, Line 26, after ("divisions") insert ("and").

Schedule 27, page 369, Line 26, leave out ("and the City of London").

1947

Schedule 27, page 369, Line 48, at the beginning insert ("non-metropolitan county or").

Page 370, line 1, leave out from ("words") to ("acting") in line 2 and insert (""or borough" there shall be substituted the words or, as the case may require "").

Page 370, Line 5, leave out ("each place") and inset ("the first two places").

Page 370, Line 6, at the beginning insert ("non-metropolitan county or").

Page 370, Line 6, leave out from ("borough") to end of line 9 and insert ("shall be omitted and for the words" or borough "there shall be substituted the words " or, as the case may require, acting for the district".").

Page 370, Line 20, after first ("words") insert ("non-metropolitan county or").

Page 370, Line 29, after ("words") insert ("non-metropolitan county or").

Page 370, Line 31, after ("words") insert ("or, as the case may require, the clerk to the justices ").

Page 371, line 3, after ("words") insert ("a non-metropolitan county which is not divided into petty sessional divisions").

Page 371, Line 5, after ("divisions") insert ("and").

Page 371, Line 6, leave out ("and the City of London").

Clause 216 [Coroners]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, in Clause 216 Greater London and the City and the Temples are dealt with separately. Therefore when you define Greater London you ought to make it clear that Greater London in this particular case does not include the City and the Temples. This is what Amendment No. 205 does. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 172, line 23, at end insert ("other than the City and the Temples").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 173, line 19, at end insert
("(a) so much of section 5 of the Coroners Act 1844 as requires a coroner to reside in or within two miles of his district.").
The noble Viscount said: In 1884 it probably was a very good idea that coroners had to live within two miles of their district, but now that they can go by car it is unnecessary to preserve this rather difficult provision any more. In fact, when the coroners' districts are being
1948
reorganised this could produce great difficulties. I do not think it is anything that needs to be preserved for the benefit of the public. I believe that coroners can live further away and still satisfactorily fulfil their functions. Therefore I suggest that this Amendment, which repeals that provision, should be inserted in the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, having regard to the state of traffic on our roads, I wonder whether coroners can now get to places they have to get to from 20 miles out any more quickly than they could get in those days from the two miles.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think so, my Lords. Of course, they drive very carefully in the process.
Clause 220 [Arrangements by principal councils for custody of records, etc.]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, with Amendment No. 207 we come to Part XI of the Bill, General Provisions. In this Part there are 17 Amendments: 8 are drafting, 3 are technical Amendments dealing with the service of notices, 2 are consequential, and one, No. 208, deals with parish records. All I need say is that Amendment No. 208 enables me to give my noble friend Lord Teviot the reassurance for which he asked about the custody of parish records. If he wishes me to do so, I will go into that matter more fully. However, unless my noble friend or any other noble Lord wishes me to go into these Amendments, I would suggest that I might move the Amendments en bloc and the House might accept them en bloc. In that case, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 207 to 219.
Amendments moved—
Page 174, line 29, leave out ("records and").
Clause 222, page 175, line 7, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
("(1) All specified papers of a parish or community shall—

(a) in the case of a parish which is coextensive with an existing rural parish, remain in the same custody as before 1st April 1974; and

(b) in the case of any other parish or any community, be in the custody of the body to which the documents of that area, other than documents of a specified class, are transferred on that date;

but the parish or community council or, in the case of a parish or community not having

1949
a separate parish or community council, the parish meeting in England or the district council in Wales may direct that any such papers shall be deposited in such custody as may be specified in the direction.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall affect the custody of registers of baptisms, marriages and burials and of all other documents containing entries wholly or partly relating to the affairs of the church, as defined by the Local Government Act 1894, or to ecclesiastical charities, as so defined, except documents directed by law to be kept with the papers of a parish or community.
(3) Any person having the custody of any documents mentioned in subsection (2) above shall have reasonable access to the papers mentioned in subsection (1) above and—

(a) in a parish or community having a separate parish or community council, that council;

(b) in any other parish, the parish meeting;

(c) in any other community, the district council; and

(d) in any area in England not falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, the district council, London borough council or Common Council, as the case may be;

shall have reasonable access to the documents mentioned in subsection (2) above.
(4) Any difference about the custody of or access to any documents mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) above shall, if the area is in a London borough or the City, be determined by the Secretary of State and in any other case by the county council.")

line 26, leave out ("the public documents") and insert ("specified papers").

Clause 224, page 176, line 10, leave out first ("The") and insert ("Any")

Clause 224, page 176, line 16, leave out ("abstract") and insert ("extract")

Clause 224, page 176, line 20, leave out from ("any") to ("mentioned") in line 21 and insert ("document deposited as")

Clause 224, page 176, line 23, leave out ("abstracts") and insert ("extracts")

Clause 225, page 177, line 11, after ("authority") insert ("or parish meeting")

Clause 225, page 177, line 12, after ("authority") insert ("or parish meeting")

Clause 225, page 177, line 16, after ("authority") insert (", or the chairman of the parish meeting,").

Clause 227, page 177, line 45, after ("meeting") insert ("or the chairman of a parish meeting")
Clause 227, page 178, line 11, at end insert ("or the chairman of a parish meeting")
Clause 229, page 179, line 28, leave out first ("it") and insert ("the document")

Clause 229, page 179, line 31, at end insert—

("(7A) This section shall apply to a document required or authorised by or under any enactment to be given to or served on any person by or on behalf of the chairman of a
1950
parish meeting as it applies to a document so required or authorised to be given to or served on any person by or on behalf of a local authority.")
Clause 234, page 182, line 24, leave out from ("sign") to end of line 25 and insert ("the certificate")
Clause 236, page 183, line 18, after ("under") insert ("this Act or")
Clause 237, page 184, line 41, leave out ("the commencement of this Act") and insert ("1st April 1974")
Clause 241 [Status of certain districts, parishes and communities]:
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved Amendment No. 219A:
Page 186, line 47, at end insert—
("(6A) The council of a community may resolve that the community shall be called a parish.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I do not want to repeat very much of what I said last night in moving an Amendment which I would call an allied Amendment to this one, but I must repeat just a little. I must say again that what the Government are forcing upon Wales is something to which every single one of the county associations of parish councils, without exception, objects. I think that is going a hit far; but it is true. It is also true, I admit, that there may be some additional communities created by this Bill which have not been consulted but, as I say, we have no means of finding out what they think because they do not yet exist. What we know is that this is strongly objected to in Wales by the people concerned. I would point out respectfully to the House that this Amendment is purely an enabling Amendment, and therefore it compels nobody to do anything. Surely a more harmless Amendment has hardly ever passed through this House.
If the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is right in what he says, if this Amendment is passed nothing will happen: no harm will be done to anybody nothing will be done. On the other hand, if I am right the parishes in Wales will be enabled to chose by which name they shall be called in future. Perhaps I can put it in this way. Is it at all objectionable to allow them to chose their own name? That is all that this Amendment

1951
does. I suggest that the only way to find out who is right, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, or I, is to pass this Amendment and to see what, if anything, happens. Can anybody say that I am wrong in saying that? I challenge your Lordships to pass this Amendment and see what happens. If the Government Benches are right, nothing will happen: they cannot deny that, surely. But if I am right, those who want something to happen will find that it happens and it will do no harm to anyone. I therefore invite the Government to vote for me in order to prove that they are right; and I invite the Opposition to vote for me to do what they have been known to do before now—to prove that the Government are wrong.
There are only one or two other points that I want to make. I said something about them last night. Why does this provision apply only to Wales? What about the English parishes? Why are they going to be compelled to retain their name and not even be offered the chance of changing it? I hope that the noble Lord will deal with that point in his reply, because it is the first time that I have raised it. What about the towns that may arise in England when this Bill is passed? Will they not object to being called parishes? We are told by the noble Lord and others that this is one of their reasons for introducing this change—"parish" apparently is some kind of rude word that will not be at all relished by the big towns. What about the English towns? Has he consulted them? One of my chief complaints is that Her Majesty's Government seem to have kept the departments entirely cut and dried and have never put the two together. I am also told that not only might the towns object to this but people might object to being confused with the churches. I reminded the House last night that for 53 years at least that is just what they have been subject to, and no harm whatever has been done. What about the English parishes? Are they not going to object to the confusion between them and the churches? I really think the Government are making a huge mistake in dividing this country on the very day (yesterday) when they received the Royal Assent for leading this country into a United Europe, with my entire support. It was a curious
1952
coincidence that on the same day they divide their own country in this way, by means of this Bill.
LORD CHAMPION: Shame!
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, one more question which has not been raised before, so far as I have heard. The Government are going to call these parishes "communities" and are going to give them community councils. What are they doing about the existing community councils? I am a member of a county community council in Wales which has been in existence for many years—I think I was the first chairman of it. What is to happen in future about the utter confusion of name between the county community councils and all the other community councils? I shall be grateful to the noble Lord if he will deal with that point in his reply. I beg to move.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, I should like to rise as a member of a rural community council in an English county and also as President of the Parish Councils Association. I am in a county which will shortly border Wales, and so our county will share with Lord Merthyr the double problem of these two ambiguities which have arisen. I do not wish to take up the time of your Lordships' House because we have many more Amendments to deal with, but I should like to support this Amendment.
8.53 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, it is these simple Amendments which are always the most difficult to answer convincingly, but I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has not quite grasped is the completely different systems which will obtain after 1974 in England and Wales. The two proposals in the Bill are quite different. The noble Lord knows far more than I could ever possibly know about parishes in England and Wales as they are at the present moment. They are mainly related to the countryside. They are called rural parishes and they exist only in rural districts. The Bill as it was originally introduced in the other place applied the present rural parish system for England substantially unchanged. Since then, under certain pressures in the other place, we have been persuaded that it was right to allow

1953
some small free-standing towns in England to continue as parishes, applying the old rural parish idea to them; but the Welsh approach has been different from the start. The proposals are still substantially different from those in England.
The principle in Wales is that the whole of Wales should be divided into what we have called, for want of a better word, "communities", and these will succeed the existing rural parishes and all the existing boroughs and all the urban districts. It will be quite a new system. There are reasons for this, of course. The way in which the populations of the two countries are distributed is different, and in England it is reasonable to divide the country into two substantial types of areas where a parish system on the present lines is sensible in rural areas but where in the large towns and conurbations it does not really fit in. But in Wales we have an opportunity now of creating over the whole country a new and uniform system of community councils, which could be a very effective tier in the whole organisation of local government.
Therefore, so far as Wales is concerned the idea is to produce a new system which will build on the foundations laid by the parish councils of the countryside but which will also be adapted to the needs of the towns. A fundamental part of this approach, which again is quite different from that in England, is the special community review dealt with in Schedule 10 which is to be undertaken by the Welsh Boundary Commission soon after April 1, 1974. This review will be directed at drawing new community boundaries everywhere so as to produce areas which have a community of interest and, wherever possible, a population large enough to support an effective community council. This is a completely new and different concept. It will mean combining small rural parishes in many places, including, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Pembrokeshire.
LORD MERTHYR: Hear, hear!
LORD ABERDARE: And possibly splitting up some boroughs and urban districts. The present law as regards rural parishes cannot be applied indiscriminately to the system for Wales. In
1954
particular, it is very difficult to insist that every community, before or after the special community review, must have an elected council if the electorate exceeds 200, whether or not the electorate want such a council. Further, the idea of a parish meeting which all the local electors are entitled to attend being required to meet at least once a year with limited executive functions could not sensibly be applied to towns with a population of 30,000 and upwards where it had not existed at all. So this is a quite different concept; these are quite different entities. They will be initially based on the old parishes in the rural areas, but in the urban areas they will be what were the previous urban districts and boroughs.
After 1974, when the Boundary Commission comes to review them, they will be new areas, formed of communities. If we allow them to go on calling themselves "parishes" after 1974 we shall get confusion. They will think they are the same as parishes in England. They will think they have the same powers as parishes in England. There could be confusion and we think it is better, as we are reorganising the whole of local government, to start afresh with these new communities which are different "animals" to the old parishes.
Much as I am intrigued, and rather tempted, by the noble Lord's blandishments that nothing would happen, I believe that legally his Amendment will not be completely effective unless we make it clear that any resolution to call a community a parish has no effect on its legal position as a community: under the law we are passing it will be a community. But that is a fairly minor point. What interests me, and what is more effective, is that it is a new body and we should call it a community. That was the best word we could find. I know that there are other community councils; I can only suggest to the noble Lord that he calls his community council a parish council! I know that there are difficulties, but we have not been able to find a better word. I think the noble Baroness, Lady White, went into this when she was at the Welsh Office. I believe that "community" expresses what we are looking for in these new bodies.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, could my noble friend tell us whether the local

1955
authorities were at any time consulted about this change and which local authorities expressed views in favour and which against? Was it just something which was put into the Bill and produced as a fact?
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, as I came in at the earlier stages, perhaps it would be appropriate if I said that we had considerable discussions with all the local authorities in Wales at all the different levels about these problems, including the very difficult one with regard to the name.'We found that a real headache. We recognised that there were certain rural community councils in parts of Wales, and there might be some confusion on that account so far as nomenclature was concerned. I made a very unpopular suggestion—I was thinking of the Common Council of the City of London, and this did not go down at all well. The title "community council" seemed on balance to express the concept we had, which was to embrace very much the urban and industrial areas as well as the rural areas. This seemed to us to be the one word that could fairly be used for all types of community in Wales, the small towns, the industrial valleys and the country areas.
I quite understand the difficulties of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, in the matter. He is absolutely right to raise this because it has been the cause of a good deal of discussion. I can certainly assure the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, that the matter has been fully discussed and there has been ample consultation, certainly when my colleagues and myself were in the Welsh Office, and I have no doubt since that time also.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, in replying to this debate may I ask either
the noble Lord or the noble Baroness whether they will answer my question, which they have not yet done? What is to happen to the present community councils and the confusion that could arise when there is a second community council in the same county? May I have an answer to that question? They must have considered this matter. The present community councils have been going, to my knowledge, for certainly 30 years.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we have considered this matter; but this was the best word we could find in a statutory sense. It will be part of a community. Perhaps the other community councils may find themselves in a position to choose a new title if they feel that this is necessary.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, is there not a difference between the council of a community and a community council? Is that not the differentiation?
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I have not heard of that one. I am sorry but I am not going to withdraw the Amendment; I cannot do so. I am quite unconvinced by the Government's case. They have laboured to-night the great and increasing difference between Wales and England. That is exactly what I object to. Who created these differences between Wales and England? The body that created these differences, which I deplore, was Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, I cannot withdraw this Amendment.
9.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 219A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 11; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Merthyr, L. [Teller.]

Auckland, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Phillips, B. [Teller.]

Brecon, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Sandys, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gisborough, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Chelmer, L.

Hoy, L.

Balfour, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Limerick, E.

Beauchamp, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Belstead, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Berkeley, B.

Ferrers, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gowrie, E.

Northchurch, B.

Champion, L.

Hawke, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Rankeillour, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

St. Davids, V.

White, B.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly

Sandford, L.

Report from the Standing Orders Committee that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Bill ought to be dispensed with; read and agreed to.

9.13 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 220 and with it No. 221. Both of these Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 187, line 4, after ("(6)") insert ("above").

Page 187, line 9, after ("resolution") insert ("under subsection (6) above").—(Lord Sandford.)

Clause 242 [Preservation of powers, privileges and rights of existing cities or boroughs]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 222 and with it Nos. 223, 224 and 225. These are all concerned with the concept of Charter Trustees. The group amount to no more than minor additions and refinements. They do not in substance alter the concept in any way from the form it was in when I introduced it to the House towards the end of our Committee stage. I could go into these Amendments more fully if noble Lords wished me to do so, but I do not think it is necessary and the group of Amendments speaks for itself. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 188, line 13, leave out from beginning to ("may") in line 19 and insert—
("(a) there shall as from that date be a body corporate by the name of "the Charter Trustees of the City" or "the Charter of Trustees of the Town", as the case may be, with the addition of the name of the existing city or borough, consisting of the district councillors for the wards wholly or partly comprising the area of the city or borough or, if the number of those councillors is less than three, consisting of those councillors and such number of local government electors for that area appointed by the district council as will make the number of charter trustees up to three;
(b) the charter trustees.").
Page 189, line 22, at end insert—
("(10A) Where the amount of the income received by charter trustees in any year from their property exceeds any expenditure incurred in connection with that property, they shall pay the excess to the rating authority for the rating area in which the area for which
1958
the charter trustees act is situated to be credited to the last-mentioned area.")
Page 189, line 31, leave out from ("as") to end of line 32 and insert ("if the charter trustees were the council of a parish or community consisting of the area for which they act ").
Page 189, line 34, leave out from ("as") to end of line 35 and insert ("if the charter trustees were the members of the council of a parish or community consisting of the area for which they act ")—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 247 [Consequential and minor modifications and amendments]:
9.14 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments 226 and 227, which are on commencement, and No. 228 which is drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 193, line 11, leave out ("As from 1st April 1974").

Page 193, line 15, leave out ("As from that date").

Schedule 29, page 375, line 13, leave out from first ("in") to end of line 15 and insert ("any enactment to an officer specified in section 110(4) above.").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on those minor technical planning matters which I mentioned earlier on, where it is now necessary to distinguish between the district planning authority and the county planning authority. I beg to move Amendment No. 228B.
Amendment moved—
Page 378, line 40, at end insert—("Gas
19A.—(1) In paragraphs 4(2)(a), 7(3)(a), 12(1)(a) and 16(2)(a) of Schedule 2 of the Gas Act 1965, for the words "local authority", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted the words "every local authority who are not a local planning authority and every".
(2) Every application for a certificate under Schedule 3 to that Act with regard to planning permission for the carrying out of controlled operations shall, outside Greater London, be made to the district planning authority, but shall be dealt with by the local planning

1959
authority who would have dealt with an application for planning permission for the carrying out of those operations, and the district planning authority shall, as soon as may be after they have received any application for such a certificate which falls to be dealt with by the county planning authority, send the application to the latter.")—(Lord Sandford.)
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, may I just ask why this refers to gas and not to electricity?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, there are different kinds of planning applications to be made in connection with laying gas pipes in the one case and erecting electricity pylons in the other, and in our view the kind of consultations that the two undertakers have to have with the planning authorities call for a rather different approach, the difference being that one thing goes underground and the other goes overhead. The gas pipes affect the urban scene, and therefore district authorities; the pylons have an impact on the countryside in addition and this calls for a different kind of approach.
LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords, would not this be wrong in the case of a conservation area, where the electricity would go underground?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords; that is just the kind of matter that the planning authority is there to deal with.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 229:
Page 379, line 6, at end insert—
("House to house and street collections
20A. In section 5 of the Police, Factories, &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916, in subsection (1) for the words "A police authority "there shall be substituted the words" Each of the authorities specified in subsection (1A) below "and for the words" the police " there shall be substituted the word "their", and at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
"(1A) The authorities referred to in subsection (1) above are—

(a) the Common Council of the City of London,

(b) the police authority for the Metropolitan Police District, and

(c) the council of each district;

but any regulations made by a district council under that subsection shall not have
1960
effect with respect to any street or public place which is within the Metropolitan Police District as well as within the district."
20B.—(1) In section 2 of the House to House Collections Act 1939, in subsection (1), for the word "police", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "licensing" and the word "police", in the second place where it occurs, shall be omitted.
(2) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
"(1A) In this section "licensing authority" means—

(a) in relation to the City of London, the Common Council;

(b) in relation to the Metropolitan Police District, the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis; and

(c) in relation to a district exclusive of any part thereof within the Metropolitan Police District, the district council."

(3) In that section, in the proviso to subsection (2) and in subsections (3), (4) and (6), for the word "police", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "licensing".
(4) In section 4(2)(e) of that Act the word "police" shall be omitted.
(5) In section 9 of that Act, in subsection (2), for the words from "said Commissioner" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words" Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis by virtue of his being a licensing authority within the meaning of section 2 of this Act ".").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, at the Committee stage of the Bill somebody (I cannot remember which noble Lord or noble Baroness it was) was very unhappy about the situation of house-to-house and street-to-street collections. I do not altogether blame them because when one studies this and looks at the legislation, which consists of an Act of 1916 and an Act of 1939, and one sees what has happened to the authorities which are in fact now in charge as a result of copious amendments to the law, largely relating to the organisation of the police, one comes to the conclusion that it is high time that this matter was rationalised.
The effect of this Amendment is to place the whole of the control, except for one minor point relating to one-off temporary collection, which remains with the police, in the hands of the authority which I think the House would agree is the right one; namely, the district council. This is largely an urban matter. We pull the whole thing together with these Amendments and we give to the district council the licensing and the other supervisory levels of control. I think this is

1961
sensible. It clears up something which has got into a dreadful mess over the years. I beg to move.
9.20 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, this is another technical Amendment to do with planning matters. It identifies the planning authority with whom ecclesiastical authorities have to deal in the case of redundant churches. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 382, line 22, at end insert—
("Redundant Churches, etc.
35A. In section 90(1) of the Pastoral Measure 1968, for paragraph (a) of the definition of local planning authority " there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
"(a) outside Greater London, means the district planning authority ".").—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 248 [General power to adapt acts and instruments]:
9.20 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: Amendment No. 231 and Amendments Nos. 232 and 233 are all consequential on the commencement Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 193, line 20, leave out from ("time") to ("in") in line 21.—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 232.
Amendment moved—
Page 193, line 23, leave out ("that date") and insert ("1st April 1974").—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 250 [Consequential and supplementary provision]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 233.
Amendment moved—
Page 194, line 15, leave out from ("time") to ("by").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: Amendment No. 234 and Amendments Nos. 235 and 236 are technical Amendments. I beg to move the first of those Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 194, line 38, leave out from ("applying") to ("instrument") in line 39 and insert ("with or without modifications, or amending, repealing, or revoking, with or without savings, any provision of an Act passed or an").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 235.—
Amendment moved—
Page 196, line 46, at end insert—
("7A. An order under this section which extends the area for which any local statutory provision is in force shall be provisional only.")—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 236.
Amendment moved—
Page 197, line 1, leave out ("an") and insert ("any other").—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 251 [Transfer of officers]:
9.23 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 237:
Page 197, line 30, leave out from ("transfer") to ("he") in line 33.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would not take up the time of the House at this late hour and after gruelling days of debate but for the fact that the matter to which this Amendment and Amendment No. 238 refer is one of substantial importance to a great many people, and it is in response to their concern that I have seen fit to pursue the matter on Report. I hope that it will be convenient if I address my remarks at the same time to Amendment No. 238.
When this matter was dealt with in Committee I moved three Amendments designed to safeguard the interest of a local authority employee who is transferred to another authority as a result of reorganisation. I wish to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for his having written to me during the Recess regarding removal and travelling expenses. I found his remarks very reassuring, as indeed did those with whom I discussed the matter, as I indicated I would do when I withdrew the Amendments in Committee. They, like me, are most grateful to the noble Lord and, in

1963
the light of what he wrote, anticipate that experience will justify letting the matter rest. One feels that there is good reason to anticipate a satisfactory solution being arrived at. But the same cannot apply to what the Minister said in regard to Amendments similar to those to which I now speak. That is why it is opportune to consider the matter at this stage.
Amendments Nos. 237 and 238 are intended to ensure that following transfer to a new authority the transferred officer will suffer no detriment as to pay and grading. These should be preserved on a personal basis, applying to the person—I emphasise "person"—and not to the job. I am not aware of any difficulties having arisen where this "no detriment" principle has been applied. I do not accept that other staff would be upset. Rather, they would see it as an act of justice. If they have any perception, which I think they have, they would say, "There, but for the grace of God, go I". The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, suggested that the application of the principle of no detriment on transfer might lead to redundancies. I would have thought that that could have been left to the Staff Commission to take care of.
It is a well known principle in trade union circles that on any major reorganisation in industry personal rights should be preserved on a personal basis. There are scores of local government officers who, on account of the re-shaping of pension schemes in the past, continue to pay contributions at lower than the standard rate. Their colleagues do not object. I should like to stress that the proposed arrangements would be of a transitional nature, would be personal to the officer—that is, any successor to his post could claim only the remuneration fixed for the job.
What these Amendments seek to do is to ensure that when an officer is transferred he would continue to enjoy terms and conditions of employment, both as to remuneration and otherwise, no less favourable than those he enjoyed before transfer. He (the employee) who might be adversely affected has been placed in this situation through no fault or wish of his own. It seems to me to be elementary justice to make sure that he is not a victim of circumstances not of his making and over which he has no control. I
1964
should indeed be happy if the Minister is able to indicate that the Government are prepared to accept these Amendments which would have no very serious effect on the finances of any authority but would ensure that those who may be adversely affected in regard to the nature of the employment they were called upon to do status-wise, would at least feel that they are suffering no financial loss as a result of it. I beg to move.
9.27 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, and I differ on this one point. We have fairly successfully agreed on most of the other matters concerning the staff of the local authorities, but on this one particular point our principles do not match and I am afraid I am no better able to accept his Amendment on this occasion than I was at the Committee stage, for the very same reasons that I gave at that time.
We feel that the right course is for an officer to be paid the appropriate rate for the job that he is doing and to be compensated if, as a result of reorganisation, he loses on his present earnings. I did spell out—and I think the noble Lord is well aware of the stages that occur on this—that immediately on transfer he enjoys the same terms and conditions; that when the new employing authority offers him new and permanent terms and conditions, all the conditions must be the same except for pay and must be no less favourable than those which he enjoys at the moment; that if his permanent duties continue to be reasonably comparable to those he was performing immediately before transfer then his salary scale must also be no less favourable. Provided the transferred officer finally is doing a reasonably comparable job, as certainly the great majority will, then there is nothing between us: his pay scale and other terms and conditions of service are guaranteed. If, however, his new job is not reasonably comparable he will get the appropriate rate for the job and be entitled to compensation by virtue of regulations under Clause 247.
We believe that is the right way to tackle the matter. We believe that the employees of an authority are likely finally to receive comparable scales of pay for comparable jobs. There are, after

1965
all, recommended national scales as a result of the normal negotiations, and we believe that the Amendments which the noble Lord proposes would promote friction between officers and between staff and their authority. The authority would be under pressure to deal with anomalous situations by general pay increases not perhaps justified by normal criteria. The new authorities will want to produce sensible and efficient management and staff structures and this will take time to work out in practice. The un-covenanted disadvantage of a number of anomalous situations in sensitive areas for senior officers—rather than junior staff doing routine jobs—who are likely to be at risk, could well tempt an authority to take an easy way out and live with a muddle, to the detriment of the public service; or they might take another line, by putting the public interest first and see no alternative to a stringent redundancy policy. For these reasons we believe that what we are proposing is in the best interests of local authorities and staff; we feel that the rate should be paid for the job and compensation should go to those, I hope relatively few, staff who find that they are in jobs where their pay is less.
The noble Lord mentioned industry as a comparison. Of course, the field of industry is so wide and scattered that it is very difficult to be sure of what happens in every case, but I am told that there is rarely, if ever, a no-detriment provision comparable to what these Amendments seek to provide. It does happen in industry that if there is a different level of remuneration for similar jobs between two firms that merge those on the higher level will retain their existing rate on a personal basis until the general rate catches up. But Clause 244 already goes further than this by guaranteeing an equivalent scale of remuneration if the new job is comparable to the old. There is generally no guarantee in industry of either a job or remuneration at the same level as previously. If, for example, a foreman in a firm taken over could not be offered a foreman's job after the merger. he would normally be declared redundant. If he is offered employment at a lower level, this is normally coupled with compensation, as it would be in our case.
On the other hand, the Bill's provisions have a precedent in Section 85 of the London Government Act 1963. The
1966
provisions in that Act worked very well, and I see no reason why those in this Bill should not work equally well. They maintain a scrupulous and humane balance between the interests of serving staff and the public service. I know I cannot convince the noble Lord, but I hope he will see that we are genuine in this; we believe the precedent of the London Government Act is a good one, and we believe we have done what we can to protect the interests of the staff.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the patient and careful way in which he has replied to what I had to say. He has certainly gone to great pains to make clear the attitude of the Government. It may well seem to your Lordships that this is a somewhat technical matter and that there probably is no great difference between us. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I had to keep saying to myself, "What is it that is wrong with what he is saying?" I think we shall let the matter rest by agreeing that our principles just do not match up here. He referred to the public interest. I believe it is in the public interest, when this kind of reorganisation in the field of local government takes place, just as if reorganisation in a Government Department took place, that justice should be done. The fact of the matter is that it may well be just the odd case where it is not done. I would accept that. But at the moment nobody knows who it is that is going to be affected. That is why I think my Amendments to-night would command a great deal more support outside than might be thought, after one has listened to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. I should just like to say that the odd case out, the person who finishes up with a grave sense of injustice, develops a sense of frustration and bitterness.
This evening there has been somebody in the Lobby trying to get me to go out to discuss with him a sense of grievance much as can develop in the odd case that will arise here. I have not been out. I have had correspondence with the man. T can understand his bitterness. I can understand his annoyance with me that I have not spared the time to go out to see him. I do not know whether he will know that I have taken note of his grievance and that I have done my best to

1967
bring home to your Lordships that the odd case out is well worth sympathising with, is well worth understanding. If we I are concerned with the real public interest that goes deep down and is concerned with the odd case out where injustice is being done, then perhaps he will understand that I have gone as far as I possibly can in pressing this matter. May I say again that I am grateful to the noble Lord. I appreciate the patient way in which the House has listened to me pursuing this matter. I think I have no course but to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.36 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 239 and 240 together. The purpose of these two Amendments is to extend to civilian employees of police authorities the same protection as that afforded to staff of local authorities affected by the reorganisation of local government.
Amendments moved—
Page 198, line l, at end insert—

("(a) a police authority ").

Page 198, line 11, at end insert ("but in their application to police authorities shall have effect as if any reference to a person in the employment of an authority were a reference to the civilian employees of a police authority.").—(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, may I move Amendments Nos. 241 to 245 en bloc? These Amendments extend the jurisdiction of the Staff Commission in respect of staff recruitment and transfer arrangements to passenger transport executives and other authorities defined in Clause 253(4).
Amendments moved—
Clause 253, page 199, line 4, leave out from ("by") to second ("and") in line 5 and insert ("relevant authorities")

Clause 253, page 199, line 8, leave out from ("of") to end of line 9 and insert ("this Act").

Clause 253, page 199, line 33, after ("a") insert ("Passenger Transport Executive").

Clause 254, page 199, line 42, leave out from ("by") to second ("and") in line 43 and insert ("relevant authorities").
Page 200, line 2, leave out from ("of") to end of line 3 and insert ("this Act").—(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 246:
After Clause 255 insert the following new clause:
Provision for early retirement in lieu of compensation for loss of office.
".—(l) In order to facilitate the early retirement of certain persons holding office, under, or in the employment of, existing local authorities, any person who—

(a) is the holder of any such office or is in any such employment as may be prescribed for the purposes of this subsection, and

(b) attains or has attained the age of fifty on or before 31st March 1974, and

(c) fulfils such other conditions as may be prescribed,

may by notice given before the prescribed date and in the prescribed manner elect that this section shall, and that section 255 above shall not, apply to him.
(2) Where any person has made an election under subsection (1) above, then unless, within the period of one month beginning on the day on which the notice of election is given, notice of objection to that election has been given to him by the local authority under whom he holds office or by whom he is employed, this section shall, and section 255 above shall not, apply to him on his retirement within the prescribed period and before attaining the normal retiring age.
(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, the Secretary of State shall by regulations provide for the payment by such body or such Minister as may be prescribed by or determined under the regulations to or in respect of a person to whom this section applies of benefits corresponding, as near as may be, to those which would have been paid to or in respect of that person under the relevant superannuation scheme if

(a) at the date of his retirement he had attained the normal retiring age; and

(b) the actual period of his reckonable service were increased by such period as may be prescribed, being a period not exceeding the period beginning on the date of his retirement and ending on the date on which he would attain the normal retiring age.

(4) Regulations under subsection (3) above shall be so framed as to secure that the sums which would otherwise be payable under the regulations in accordance with that subsection to or in respect of any person are reduced to take account of any benefits payable to or in respect of him under the relevant superannuation scheme.
(5) Any sums payable under regulations made under subsection (3) above shall be treated for the purposes of section 73 of the Finance Act 1972 (compensation for loss of office or

1969
employment chargeable to tax as a payment made on retirement or removal from office or employment) in like manner as compensation paid under section 255 above.
(6) In this section—
"normal retiring age" means,—

(a) in relation to any person to whom an age of compulsory retirement applies by virtue of the relevant superannuation scheme, that age, and

(b) in relation to any other person, the age of sixty-five in the case of a man and sixty in the case of a woman or, in either case, such other age as may be prescribed;

"reckonable service", in relation to any person means service in respect of which benefits are payable under the relevant superannuation scheme; and
"relevant superannuation scheme", in relation to any person, means the instrument which is applicable in his case and which makes provision with respect to the pensions, allowances or gratuities which, subject to the fulfilment of certain requirements and conditions, are to be, or may be, paid to or in respect of persons who are employed in local government service.
(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 246. The purpose of this Amendment is to enable payments to be made to chief officers who opt for early retirement as an alternative to waiting and taking compensation terms. This clause is needed to ensure proper authority to deal with certain proposals for voluntary early retirement of chief officers. There has been a great deal of consultation and discussion about the compensation terms to be provided, and the general assumption has always been that the standard compensation clause as in Clause 255 was adequate to cover all the components in the new compensation deal.
One of these components is, however, new, and that is the provision of an enhanced pension for chief officers who elect to retire and leave the scene before the reorganisation takes effect. This was advocated by the Royal Commission on Local Government, who deplored the alternative adopted on London reorganisation of creating unnecessary associate chief officer posts. There were recently some doubts about whether the proposed payments to chief officers really were compensation. They seemed to be a sort of hybrid between pension and compensation. Eventually they have had to be
1970
classed as a retirement benefit, and so we have had to make this new provision in this new clause. The clause enables the employing authority to pay a sum equivalent to enhanced pension from which there is a deduction for the pension actually received out of the pension fund. I beg to move.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I should like to ask whether it is perfectly clear that this new clause refers only to chief officers, or whether these are people who will in fact be cited in regulations under Clause 255 as chief officers or grades of that category? I cannot see in this clause any reference to chief officers as such. Perhaps I have missed something, and I should like to be sure on this point.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the terms are intended for those known as designated chief officers and their deputies, that is those whose terms and conditions of service are negotiated by the joint negotiating committee of clerks of county councils, joint negotiating committees of town clerks or district clerks and the joint negotiating committees of chief officers of local authorities. Quite how that is included in the clause I am not quite sure. I imagine it would be in the regulations made in the new clause subsection (7):
"a Statutory Instrument containing regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
Clause 257 [Local Acts and instruments]:
9.42 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, this is another paving Amendment to the main Amendment on the commencement. I beg to move Amendment No. 247.
Amendment moved—
Page 205, line 14, leave out from ("above") to ("shall") in line 15.—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 248 and suggest we consider with it No. 249. These two Amendments have two objectives; they are to complete the purpose of Amendments 235 and 236 which make

1971
orders extending local Acts subject to the Provisional Order procedure instead of Negative Resolution, and secondly to permit some flexibility in the arrangements for long term rationalisation of local Acts. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 206, line 23, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 26 and insert ("cease to have effect in metropolitan counties at the end of 1979 and elsewhere at the end of 1984, but—

(a) the Secretary of State or any appropriate Minister may by order exempt any such provision from the foregoing provision of this subsection;

(b) the Secretary of State may from time to time by order postpone the date on which all the local statutory provisions applying to the whole or part of any local government area, so far as they so apply, are to cease to have effect under this subsection.

(9A) An order under subsection (8) above which extends the area for which any local statutory provision is in force shall be provisional only.").
Page 206, line 27, leave out from ("containing") to ('''9") in line 28 and insert ("any other order under subsection (8) above or an order under subsection").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 250, 251, 251B. These are all drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 206, line 31, leave out ("applying") and insert ("which is in force").
Page 206, line 32, leave out from ("provision") to ("outside") in line 33 and insert ("which is in force partly in Greater London as is in force").
1972
Page 207, line 3, leave out ("or").—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 261 [Orders, rules and regulations]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 251A which is consequential on the package of Amendments to do with finance and borrowing which we introduced on Clause 68. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 211, line 25, after ("Minister") insert ("or the Treasury").—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 266 [Savings]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 252 and suggest that we consider with it No. 253. Both these Amendments are consequential on the passing of the Gas Act 1972. Clause 266(1), saves the existing boundaries of Gas and Electricity Area Boards within the meaning of the Electricity Act 1947 and the Gas Act. 1948. The Gas Act 1972 has abolished the Area Gas Boards and the saving of their boundaries in Clause 266(1) is no longer necessary. These Amendments make the necessary deletions. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 216, line 11, leave out ("or gas").
Page 216, line 12, leave out ("or the Gas Act 1948").—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 267 [Repeals]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 253A, which is a paving Amendment to the commencement Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 216, line 28, leave out ("As from 1st April 1974").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, I wonder whether I might seek assurance here. My noble friend Lord Sandford has already given an assurance earlier this afternoon of the early implementation of functions under Part IX. I wonder whether he is able to confirm—if not immediately then at a later stage to-morrow—that early implementation will be given to Clauses 122, 124 and 125 which concern transactions of land by parish councils.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think perhaps my noble friend was not in the Chamber when I explained that when we came to the first of these Amendments we should be able to have a proper debate on the whole business of commencement. We shall be having that very shortly, when we reach my Amendment No. 308A, introducing a new clause after Clause 267. So there is still plenty of time for debate
Page 384, line 31, at end insert—
Page 384, line 33, at end insert ("10").
Page 384, line 34, at end insert—
Page 386, line 44, column 3, after ("expressions" ") insert ("the words").
Page 386, line 45, column 3, leave out (""respectively"") and insert ("the word "respectively", in the first two places where it occurs, and the words ").
Page 387, line 19, coloumn 3, leave out
Page 387 line 21, column 3, after ("9") insert ("the words "any such "and").
Page 388, line 28, column 3, leave out ("county").
Page 389, line 3, column 3, after ("(5)") insert ("and in subsection (7) the words from "and includes" to the end of the subsection").
on commencement, and we can deal with that subject then.
Schedule 30 [Repeals]:
9.46 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I should like to suggest a way in which we might handle Schedule 30 rather more expeditiously. I cannot quite propose that all of the Amendments to Schedule 30 should be considered in one block, because there are four Amendments which are not to be moved. They are nos. 275A, 286D, 293F, which I take it will not be moved as the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, has not been here to move any of his other Amendments, and 300E, which falls into the same category. So I suggest that all the remaining Amendments to Schedule 30 should be moved en bloc and I will propose each block in turn. The first block is Nos. 255 to 275. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 384, line 9, column 3, at beginning insert ("In section 5, the words from "and shall reside" onwards").
Page 384, line 17, column 3, leave out ("41").
Page 384, line 31. column 3. leave out ("and 11") and insert ("9, 11 to 17 and 19").
("Section 18 except in its application to the City."
("In section 10 the words from "in any cemeteries" to "like burials".
In section 23, the words "churchwardens or such other", and the words "churchwardens or other", wherever occurring.")
Page 387, line 2, column 3, at beginning insert ("Section 7").
Page 387, line 5, column 3, after ("and" ") insert ("and the word "accordingly"").at end insert ("Sections 53 and 62").
("Section 3") and insert— ("In section 1, in subsection (1), the words from "approved" onwards and subsection (2). Section 2(3). Sections 3, 5, 6 and 10.")
Page 389, line 20, column 3, after ("52") insert ("and").line 21, column 3, leave out ("and 62(3)").line 22, column 3, leave out ("Section 3(14)") and insert ("In section 3, in subsection (6) the words "the clerk of", in both places where they occur, and subsection (14)").
Page 389, line 24, at end insert—

("16 & 17 Geo. 5. c.52

The Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1926.

In section 9, the words "borough or urban or rural", and the words "borough or" in each place where they occur.")

line 55, column 3, at end insert ("In section 12 (4), the words "residence and ").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos.276 to 286C en bloc
Amendments moved—
Page 390, line 4, at end insert—

("18 & 19 Geo. 5. c.19

The Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Act 1928.

In section 4, in subsections (1), (2)(bb) and (2)(c the words "or county borough".

In section 5 the words "or county borough", in each place where they occur, the words "in the case of a county council", the words from "and in the case" to "borough rate" and the words "and county boroughs".")

Page 391, line 38, column 3, at the beginning insert—

("In section 4(2) the words "county, municipal".")

line 43, column 3, at end insert ("and the word " metropolitan"")
Page 392, column 3, leave out lines 6 to 28 and insert ("the whole Act.")
line 54, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 196(1), the words from "and for" to the end.")

Page 393, line 11, column 3, leave out ("section 4(3)") and insert ("section 4, sub-section (2) and, in subsection (3) ")
Page 393, line 14, at end insert—

("1 & 2 Geo. 6. c.6

The Air-Raid Precautions Act 1937

In section 1, in subsection (2), the words "and county boroughs" and, in the proviso to that subsection, the word "county" in the second place where it occurs and the words "borough or urban" in each place where they occur; and, in subsection (3) the words from " boroughs (including "to "urban" and the words from "and the council to the end of the subsection.

In section 4, in subsection (1) the words from "nor shall functions" to the end of the sub section.

Section 5.")

Page 392, line 54, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 187(2) the words "or county borough".")
Page 393, line 16, at end insert—

("2 & 3 Geo. 6. c. 31.

The Civil Defence Act 1939.

In section 11, in subsection (1) the words "or county borough", in the proviso to that subsection, in paragraph (a) the words "borough or urban "and" borough or " and in paragraph (b) the word "county", in the second place where it occurs; and subsection (2).

In section 25, the words "county borough or county".

In section 35, the words "county borough or county".

In section 64(1), the words "or county borough" and the word "county", in the next place where it occurs.")

at end insert—

("2 & 3 Geo. 6. c.44

The House to House Collections Act 1939.

In section 2, in subsection (1), the word "police in the second place where it occurs.

In section 4(2)(e) the word "police".

Section 7(1).

Section 9(1).")

Page 393, line 17, column 3, at the beginning insert—

("In section 1(6) the words "urban or rural".

In section 2 the words "urban or rural" in both places where they occur.")

Page 393, line 19, column 3, at beginning insert—

("In section 6(2) the words" and III".

In section 68 the words from "or in accordance" to "1946".")

Page 393, line 19, column 3, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert—

("In Schedule 1, in Part II, paragraph 2 and, in the proviso to paragraph 7, the words from "or" to the end of the paragraph; and Part III.")

Page 393, line 24, at end insert—

("8 & 9 Geo. 6. c.18

The Local Authorities Loans Act 1945.

Section 8.")

Page 393, line 25, column 3, at the beginning insert—

("In section 3(4) the words " and county boroughs".")

Page 393, line 31, column 3, at end insert ("and the word "metropolitan".").
Page 393, line 32, column 3, at beginning insert—

("In section 8(1), in the definition of "local authority", the words "county borough, metropolitan".")

Page 393, line 34 at end insert—

("9 & 10 Geo. 6. c.50

The Education Act 1946.

Section 10.

Section 12.

Section 13(2).

Section 14(2).

In section 16(1), the definitions of "divisional executive" and "scheme of divisional administration".

In Schedule 2, in Parts I and II, the entries relating to Part III of Schedule 1 to the Education Act 1944 ").

Page 393, line 43, column 3, leave out ("and")
Page 393, column 3, leave out lines 47 and 48 and insert—

("Section 4(3).")—(Lord Sandford.)

Page 393, line 44, column 3, at end insert ("and, in subsection (3), the words from "including" to "delegated powers"")
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he intends to move No. 286B? I understood him to say that he was not moving that.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I said that I should not be moving No. 286D.
Page 394, line:48, at end insert—

"(12, 13 & 14 Geo. 6. c. 55.

The Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949.

In section 1(1) the words "county boroughs".")

Page 396, line 40, column 3, after ("(3)(c)") insert ("the words "or agreement "and")column 3, leave out lines 55 and 56.
Page 396, line 57, column 3, at end insert ("section 10")
Page 397, line 12, column 3, at end insert—

("Section 90(2).")

Page 397, line 54, column 3, at end insert ("In Schedule 2 in paragraph 10(3), the words residence and ", and the proviso")
Page 397, line 39, at end insert—

("14 & 15 Geo. 6.c.35

The Pet Animals Act 1951.

In section 7(3), in the definition of "local authority", the words "county borough or " and the word "metropolitan".")

Page 397, column 3 leave out line 40.
Page 397, line 46, at end insert—

("15 & 16 Geo. 6 & 1 Eliz. 2. c. 31.

The Cremation Act 1952.

Section 3(2).")

Page 399, line 13, column 3, at end insert—

("Section 13(2)(c).")

Page 399, column 3, leave out lines 42 to 51 and insert ("Sections 1 to 3.")
Page 399, line 51, column 3, at end insert—

("Section 14.

In section 15, paragraph (a). Section 16.")

Page 400, line 7, column 3, at end insert ("" metropolitan" and")
Page 400, line 11, at end insert—

("2 & 3 Eliz. 2. c.39

The Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954.

Section 9(3).")

Page 401, line 40, column 3, at the beginning insert—

("Section 1(3).")

Page 401, line 41, column 3, at end insert—

("Section 8(2)(a).")

Page 402, line 2, column 3, at the beginning insert—

("Section 145.")

Page 402, line 26, column 3, at end insert ("metropolitan")
Page 402, line 44, leave out ("(3)")
Page 402 column 3, at end insert—

("In section 56(2) the words from "of the council of a borough" to "applies or ".")

LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 286E to 293E.
Amendments moved—
Page 397, column 3, leave out lines 9 and 10.
Page 397, line 11, column 3, leave out ("(89(7))") and insert ("89, subsection (2A) and, in subsection (7)")
Page 398, line 30, column 3, leave out ("Section") and insert ("Sections 68 and "")
Page 404, line 25, column 3, leave out ("and")
Page 404, line 26, column 3, at end insert ("and" road or"")
Page 405, column 3, leave out line 18.
Page 406, line 47, column 3, at end insert—

("Section 292.")

Page 407, line 18, column 3, at end insert—

("Schedule 19. Schedule 21.")

Page 407, line 25, at end insert—

("7 & 8 Eliz. 2 c.54.

The Weeds Act 1959.

In section 5 the words "or borough" in both the places where they occur")

Page 407, lines 38, at end insert—

("8 & 9 Eliz.2. c.34.

The Radioactive Substances Act 1960

In section 19(1), in the definition of "local authority" the words"county borough, metropolitan".")

Page 407, line 42, column 3, at end insert ("and "metropolitan"")
Page 408, line 25, at end insert—

("8 & 9 Eliz. 2. c.67.

The Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960.

In the Schedule, paragraph 1(e).")

Page 408, line 29, at end insert—

("9 & 10 Eliz. 2. c.29

The Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act 1961.

Section 1(2).")

Page 408, column 3, leave out line 38 and insert ("Section 1.")
Page 409, line 2, column 3, at the beginning insert—

("In section 11(4)(a) the word "(including and the words from" borough which "to" urban or rural ".")

Page 409, column 3, leave out line 14.
Page 409, line 27, column 3, leave out ("or")—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 293G to 300D inclusive. Amendment No. 300D is in the middle of page 38.
Amendments moved—
Page 410, line 5, column 3, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections (2) and")
Page 410 line 25, column 3, at end insert—

("Section 54(1)(a)

Section 57(1).")

Page 410, line 33, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 71, in subsection (1), the-words from "and without" to the end of the subsection.")

Page 410, column 3, leave out lines 54 and 55 and insert ("Schedule 4.")
Page 411, line 8, column 3, at end insert ("15 and 39")
Page 411, line 13, column 3, after ("paragraphs") insert ("(15, 9(b)
Page 411, line 15, at end insert—

("1963 c.37.

The Children and Young Persons Act 1963

In Schedule 2, in paragraph 8, the word "or", in the last place where it occurs, and sub-paragraph(b).")

Page 408, column 3, leave out lines 18 and 19
Page 408, line 22, leave out ("of a ")
Page 410, line 8, column 3, leave out from ("1") to ("7") in line 11 and insert ("subsections (4) and")
Page 410, line 19, at end insert ("and (7)")
Page 410, line 21, column 3, at end insert ("in subsection (6) the words " and in paragraph 6 of Part II of Schedule 4 to that Act" and subsection (7)")
Page 411, line 21, column 3, after ("words") insert ("a")
at end insert—

("1963 c. 43.

The Animal Boarding Establishment Act 1963.

In section 5(2), in the definition of "local authority", the words "county borough or" and "metropolitan".")

Page 411, column 3, leave out lines 22 to 26 and insert—

("Sections 1 to 4. Sections 6 to 11.")

Page 411, line 28, at end insert ("Schedule 1.")
at end insert—

("1964 c. 21.

The Television Act 1964.

In section 9A(6) the words "county borough".")

Page 412, line 19, column 3, leave out ("19(3)") and insert ("19 in subsection (3)")
Page 412, line 22, column 3, at end insert ("and, in subsection (4), paragraph (b)")
Page 412, line 48, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 11, the words "county borough", in both places where they occur, and the word "or" in the last place where it occurs.")

Page 412, line 49, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 21, in subsection (3), paragraph (b), the words "including a clerk" onwards and paragraph (f); and subsection (4).")

Page 413, line 8, column 3, after ("27") insert ("the definition of " consolidation agreement".")
Page 413, line 28, column 3, at end insert—

("In Schedule 5, in paragraph 2(2), the entry in the Table b. ginning with the words" Rive Tyne ".")

Page 413, line 30, column 3, at end insert ("and the words" or a county borough".")
Page 413, line 38, at end insert ("and the amendment of section 18 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953.")—(Lord Sandford.)
Page 414, line 32, at end insert—

("1964 c. 77.

The Local Government (Pecuniary Interests) Act 1964.

The whole Act.")

Page 414, line 46, at end insert—

("1965_c. 63.

The Public Works Loans Act 1965

Section 2(2).

In the Schedule, Paragraphs 8 and 9.")

Page 415, leave out lines 11 and 12.
Page 415, line 30, at end insert—

("1967 c. 5.

The London Government Act 1967.

The Whole Act.")

Page 415, line 53, column 3, leave out ("district' )
Page 416, line 14, at end insert—

("1967 c. 22

The Agriculture Act 1967.

In section 75(2), in the definition of "local authority", the words "borough, including a county borough and a" and the words "urban or rural".")

Page 412, line 45, column 3, after ("occurring") insert ("in subsection (4) the words" or borough" ")
Page 412, line 46, column 3, leave out ("to 11") and insert ("and 10 ")
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 300F to 308, which is the last Amendment to Schedule 30, inclusive.
Amendments moved—
Page 416, line 20, column 3, at the beginning insert—

("In section 18, in subsection (4), the words from "and without prejudice" to the end of the subsection.

In section 23(3), paragraphs (c) and (b).")

Page 418, line 22, at end insert—

("1968 c. 67.

The Medicines Act 1968.

In section 108(8), the words "or county borough".")

Page 418, line 24, column 3, leave out ("mayor") and insert ("(including
Page 418, line 24, column 3, leave out ("mayor") and insert ("including")
Page 420, line 2, column 3, leave out ("para graph 7") and insert ("paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 20 and 23 ")
Page 420, line 30, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 48(1), the words " or county borough".")

Page 420, line 35, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 67(1), the words " county borough".")

Page 420, line 40, column 3, at end insert—

("In Schedule 2, paragraphs 2 to 4, 7 and 9.")

Page 420, line 49, at end insert—

("1971 c. 7.

The Local Authorities (Qualification of Members) Act 1971.

The whole Act.")

Page 420, line 56, column 3, at end insert ("and paragraph 23")
Page 421, column 3, leave out lines 27 to 29.
Page 421, line 32, column 3, at end insert—

("Section 31(3)(c).")

Page 422, line 3, column 3, at end insert ("In section 256, the words "county borough".")
Page 422, line 12, column 3, at end insert ("In Schedule 3, Paragraphs 3(5),5 and 6")
Page 422, line 15, column 3, at end insert ("In Schedule 3, Paragraph 9")
Page 422, line 23, at end insert—

("1972 c. 5

The Local Employment Act 1972.

In section 8(3), the words "county borough".

In section 9(1), the words "county borough".")

Page 423, line 17, at end insert—

("1972 c. 47.

The Housing Finance Act 1972

Paragraph 21 of Schedule 1.") 1972.

—(Lord Sandford.)

9.51 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 308A:
After Clause 267, insert the following new clause:
COMMENCEMENT
".—(1) The provisions of this Act to which this subsection applies shall, except so far as brought into force earlier by an order under subsection (2) below, come into force on 1st April 1974.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order appoint an earlier date for the coming into force of any provision to which subsection (1) above applies and different days may be appointed under this subsection for different
1986
purposes and, in particular, different days may be so appointed for the coming into force of the same provision in different areas.
(3) Subsection (1) above applies to the following provisions of this Act, that is to say—

sections 13, 16(1) and (3) and 17;

section 40;

section 48(8) and (9);

section 50(4) to (7);

sections 53 to 59 and Schedule 8;

section 62;

section 75;

section 89(6);

Parts VI to XI, except as provided by subsections (4) and (5) below;

section 247 and Schedule 29;

section 257(3) to (7);

section 267 and Schedule 30;

1987

paragraphs 5 to 9 and 10(2) of Schedule 6;

in Schedule 12, Parts II and III, and Part VI so far as applicable to parish councils.
(4) Subsection (1) above shall not apply to the following provisions of Parts VI to XI of this Act, that is to say—

sections 103 and 105;

section 108;

section 115;

section 135;

section 166;

section 178(3) to (9) and (11);

so much of section 180 as confers a power to make or direct the making or amendment of development plan schemes and so much of section 179 as applies to the interpretation of the provisions relating to such schemes;

section 183(6) and (7);

section 187(4);

section 188(3);

section 192(6) to (9);

section 193(2) and (3);

section 194(3) and (4);

section 196;

section 197(3) and (4);

section 198(4) to (8);

section 201;

section 203(2) to (8);

section 211(4);

section 216(4);

section 228;

section 238;

section 239;

paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 13 and so much of section 169 as relates thereto.
(5) Without prejudice to section 37 of the Interpretation Act 1889, any provision of Part IX or X of this Act—
(a) which empowers or requires any person to make any arrangements or any instrument with respect to the exercise of functions under any such provision or with respect to the setting up of any body of persons or the appointment of persons to any office or employment with a view to exercising any such functions or with respect to the deployment of officers in connection with the exercise of such functions;
(b) which empowers or requires any person to give directions, take steps or make representations with respect to any such arrangements or instrument; or
(c) which amends or applies any enactment which empowers or requires any person to make any such arrangements or instrument;
shall come into force so as to enable those functions to be exercised in accordance with the arrangements or instrument on 1st April 1974.
(6) Section 99 above shall come into force on 1st April 1973.
(7) Sections 80 to 92, 103 and 105 above shall not apply to the Greater London Council or members of that council before the day on which the councillors of that council elected at the first ordinary elections of such coun-
1988
cillors after the passing of this Act come into office.
(8) Sections 80 to 91, 103 and 105 above shall not apply to a London borough council or the members of any such council before 1st April 1974.
(9) The following provisions shall have effect with respect to parish councils in England and the members of such councils:—

(a) sections 44(4) and (Temporary appointment of members of parish and community councils) above shall not apply to them before 1st April 1974;

(b) sections 80 to 91, 103 and 105 above shall not apply to them before the day on which parish councils elected at those elections come into office; and

(c) sections 93 to 97 above shall not apply to them before 1st April 1974.

(10) Part V of this Act shall not apply to existing parish councils in Wales or to members of such councils.
(11) Sections 103 and 195 above shall not apply to members of the Common Council before the day on which any common councilmen elected at the first ordinary election of common councilmen after the passing of this Act come into office."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this new clause, to follow after Clause 267, as set out on the Marshalled List—and we now come to a matter of rather more substance, for which there have already been several paving. Amendments. Basically, the Local Government Bill provides for new authorities to take over the functions of local government outside London on April 1, 1974, and for these new authorities and the areas to which they relate to be established meanwhile. As a result, the provisions governing functions need to come into effect on April 1, 1974, but constitutional provisions are needed before then. The commencement clause therefore provides, basically, that the provisions of functions shall, with a few exceptions, come into effect on April 1, 1974; and it is silent on the constitutional provisions, which thus, again with a few exceptions, come into effect on Royal Assent. This division covers the great bulk of the provisions in the Bill, but there are some complications. Although the main structure of local government in London is unaffected by the Bill, some changes are proposed for London, and the modernisation of local government law will similarly apply there. Commencement dates are needed for these changes. The same applies to local

1989
government at parish level in England, and to the establishment of communities in Wales. As a result, it may be necessary to bring some provisions into effect at a date in between Royal Assent and April 1, 1974, and at different dates for different authorities. Other considerations affecting individual clauses may also suggest similar treatment. In general, the clause provides for these matters by a commencement date of April 1, 1974, provision being made for this date to be brought forward by order where necessary. It does not apply to existing local authorities other than London authorities and English parishes except when specifically stated in the individual clause; for example, in the new power to act in emergencies, which is Clause 135.
The details of the clause, my Lords, can be seen fairly clearly from page 40 of the Marshalled List. I do not suppose that noble Lords will wish me to run through the details of every single section cited there. I hope that what I have said has been sufficient to explain the general principles behind the operation of the Bill; but if noble Lords wish to raise particular questions about particular aspects of the Bill or particular functions I will do my best to deal with them after they have indicated on which topics they want to draw me further. I beg to move.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR had given Notice of his intention to move two Amendments to the Amendment (Nos. 308B and 308E):
Line 20, at end insert ("section 99")
Leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 308B, and I will, with leave, move at the same time Amendment No. 308E which is consequential upon it. The Government's new clause will bring Clause 99 into force on April 1, 1973. That is the clause we discussed at length last night, because there was an Amendment moved to it by my noble friend Lord Mansfield. In the course of that debate a number of noble Lords, including myself, urged that this clause, which relates to the admission of Press and public to committee meetings, should not be brought into force as early as that because a good many matters need to be ironed out in the meantime. I understood from my noble friend Lord Sandford that the Government took a
1990
similar view, that it would be wise to postpone for 12 months the coming into operation of that clause. This is the purpose of my Amendment. If it is accepted then the clause will come into effect on April 1, 1974. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 308B and 308E.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, there is no need for me to speak at greater length than did the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, on this particular Amendment to the Amendment. It is one to which I have added my name—or, rather, I put in the same Amendment at the same time, and I have explained to the House that occasionally grapevines move along parallel lines. They did so in this case. Subsequently, we learned that another noble Lord, Lord Sandford, had joined with us. The fact is that we think that this Amendment is a sensible one, and I am sure that he does also. If he gets up and says that he accepts this Amendment to his Amendment, and will accept the subsequent Amendment, then further debate will be unnecessary.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am glad to be able to confirm that three minds worked alike, and therefore I can say that the Government are able to accept these two Amendments.
9.59 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, as a further Amendment to Amendment No. 308A, Amendment No. 308C:
Leave out lines 32 and 33 and insert ("sections 108 to 121 ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 308C. This also is an Amendment to Amendment No. 308A. It might be to your Lordships' convenience if we were to discuss with it Amendments Nos. 308D and 308F, which are also Amendments to the proposed new clause. The purpose of these Amendments is to seek to ensure that certain clauses of the Bill shall come into operation earlier than April 1, 1974. I am aware that there is power in the Government's new clause by order to bring forward that date, but it seems to me that the clauses to which my Amendments direct attention will undoubtedly need to be in force before April 1, 1974, and therefore it would be

1991
a mistake to leave the Bill in a state of suggesting that they will not come into force until that time.
My Amendment No. 308C deals with Clauses 108 to 121 of the Bill. Clause 109 concerns the subsidiary powers of local authorities. Clauses 110 to 117 deal with certain staff questions and it seems to me undoubted that some of the new local authorities will have to appoint some staff before April 1, 1974, and therefore the clauses in this Bill relating to the appointment or staff should be in operation to assist them. Clauses 118 to 121 deal with the acquisition of land. Here what I have in mind is that some of these new authorities will be required to secure offices before April 1, 1974. Therefore it seems to me clear that the clauses relating to the acquisition of land by local authorities should be in force before that date.
Coming on to Amendment No. 308D, that would bring forward the operation of Clause 140 which deals with power of local authorities to subscribe to local authority associations, and Clause 148, which deals with arrangements by local authorities for the receipt and payment of money. I should have thought it desirable that both of those should be in operation before April 1, 1974. Finally, Amendment No. 308F deals with a number of clauses of the Bill which cover the new system of allowances for members. It would seem to me wrong that if Parliament has agreed on this new system of allowances it should be delayed until April 1, 1974. Members of the new authorities who will be taking office during the year 1973–74 will have some very important decisions to take and may have a great deal of work to do. I cannot see that it would be reasonable to postpone the new system of allowances to members so that it would not operate until 1974.
My Lords, those, in brief terms, are the reasons why I move these Amendments, to draw attention to the need for these particular clauses to be brought into operation before 1974. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, if my noble friend would agree, I should prefer to confine my initial remarks to his Amendments Nos. 308C and 308D and
1992
then perhaps deal subsequently with Amendment No. 308F which raises a different question. Dealing with the first two, these Amendments, as he said, affect the date on which certain clauses of the Bill would come into effect. Amendment No. 308C would bring Clauses 109 to 114 and 116 to 121 into operation from the Royal Assent, instead of from April 1, 1974, as is provided by the Bill. Those clauses relate to land transactions, the appointment of staff and general powers to take action in connection with functions. Similarly, his Amendment No. 308D would bring Clauses 140 and 148 into operation at Royal Assent instead of on April 1, 1974. These clauses provide for subscriptions to local authority associations and arrangements for local authorities for the receipt and payment of money.
These provisions are related to the exercise by local authorities of their functions and, that being so, it is in our view probably more appropriate that they should come fully into effect from April 1, 1974. It is certainly true, as my noble friend has surmised, that the new local authorities will need to take preparatory action, but preparatory action of the kind involved under these clauses could easily be taken under the authority of subsection (5) of the clause that I have just introduced as Amendment No. 308A. That is not to say that there will not be some provision, timed at the moment for introduction on April 1, 1974, which will be introduced at an earlier stage by order under subsection (2) of the new clause. shortly after Royal Assent, and well before the new authorities are elected, my right honourable friend will be approaching the local authority associations to discuss which clauses need to be brought into operation earlier. These clauses could certainly be considered if the local authority associations felt that was necessary. With that explanation and assurance that I have just given my noble friend, which I think recognises the points that he has been making, I hope that he will not feel it necessary to press these Amendments, because I believe that the points he has been making will be met in one or other of those two ways.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said; he has helped me

1993
very considerably. What troubled me was the implication in the new clause as it stood, without further explanation, that these clauses would not operate until April 1, 1974, and I could see grave difficulties flowing from that. However, what my noble friend has now said will be on the Record and known to all concerned, and I feel quite sure that his remarks will pave the way to constructive discussions with the local authority associations. I am grateful to him for giving the assurance that, so far as it is required, these new powers will be made available before April 1, 1974. I am also extremely grateful to him for his acceptance of my previous Amendment No. 308B. Having said that I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 308C.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Amendment No. 308D is not moved.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think we ought to invite my noble friend Lord Brooke to move Amendment No. 308E.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I put Amendment No. 308E, with permission, en bloc with Amendment 308B, so that it has in fact been agreed to.
10.6 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 308F:
After subsection (11), insert—
("(12) Sections 170. 171, 172, 174 and 175 above shall come into force on 1st April 1973.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 308F. As I explained a few minutes ago, Clauses 170 to 175 deal with the system of allowances of members. My suggestion is that those should come into operation earlier than April, 1974.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, this Amendment raises a number of different points. I am not absolutely certain which of them concerns my noble friend most, and I propose to deal with all of them. The main argument that I would put forward in favour of deferring the introduction of these allowances until 1974 is that it is not until then that the new councils will be responsible for providing
1994
a full range of services, executing the full range of their responsibilities and being concerned with the day-to-day management of business. Before then they will be only shadow councils carrying out shadow functions, though I would not for one moment imply that those are light duties. Although members of local authorities would no doubt appreciate earlier payment of the new allowances, to the extent that they are more generous than the old ones, the Government consider that there is insufficient: reason for giving special treatment to this subject and anticipating the general date of operation of the new system. It is, we feel, logical that the new allowances should be paid as from the date when the new authorities take up their actual duties. An order will of course be made so that their members will receive the existing allowances from their election until April, 1974, and those shadow councillors who are continuing to function as full councillors will receive allowances for both sets of duties.
But there are a number of other subsidiary points. It is of course important that candidates, and particularly new candidates for new local authorities, should know what sums they are likely to receive in recognition of their services under the heading of attendance allowances and other allowances prescribed in the Bill. As I have said earlier in other debates related to this subject—in the first debate that we had to-day—I confirm that as soon as this Bill is on the Statute Book my right honourable friend will consult urgently with the local authority associations, and as soon as practicable after the end of those consultations he will announce the maximum scale of allowances, as he is required to do—certainly in good time for candidates standing in the local government elections to know the kind of allowances they are likely to receive.
All the councillors, whether serving as shadow authorities or running local government at the moment, will receive existing allowances, even though the shadow authorities are exercising only shadow duties. I think there would be a considerable anomaly here if the new shadow authorities, while still serving as "shadows", were to enjoy a higher scale of allowances than existing councillors, bearing the full weight of responsibility for local government, have been drawing

1995
for the discharge of that full range of responsibilities up to this moment. It is for those reasons that the Government have come to the view that April 1, 1974, is the right date. With that explanation and the assurance, which I think is important, that an announcement about the scale of allowances will be made in good time for the new authorities, I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I am sorry that these long debates of ours should end on a slightly sour note, but frankly I believe that the Government are being a bit stingy about this. It is quite true that the new authorities will not be assuming their full range of functions until April, 1974, but they will have to take some very important decisions of a strategic character before that date. They will have to appoint their senior officers, than which there can be hardly any more important decision that a local authority ever has to take. I should have thought that, Parliament having agreed that there should be this new form of attendance allowance for councillors, it should apply to everybody from April, 1973, onwards, for members both of the new authorities and of the old authorities.
I hope that the Government may be persuaded to think further over this, because I believe that means could be found to bring the new scheme into effect earlier, even if this Amendment is not carried. I do not feel inclined to withdraw the Amendment. I do not know whether any other noble Lords have feelings about this, but I would personally regret the Government's decision. I think it is so important that at the earliest possible moment those who are undertaking this very considerable public service of working for the public good on local authorities should be able to receive the allowances of a new character which Parliament has decided upon for the future.
LORD REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, as a Cross-Bencher, and having been Chairman of a Committee on the Management of Local Government which reported on this question of allowances some five years ago and very strongly recommended that members should be
1996
treated better and more generously and rather along the lines that have now been agreed for the future, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is right in feeling some reluctance to leave it at that.
I believe that when I last checked this something like £5,000 million a year was being spent by local authorities in Britain, and even if a very generous maximum was set and local authorities agreed in all cases to live up to the maximum, the amount that would be spent on allowances would be an absolutely negligible proportion of the total spent in local government. Furthermore, I do not suppose there has been any time in the history of this country when local government has demanded more of its elected members than in the period we are entering, when the Queen's Assent is given to the Bill we have been discussing during these last few days. I think it would really be ridiculous to risk not having the very best talent available for the purpose of dealing with this transitional phase. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, mentioned, for instance, the appointment of officials, and that is very important; but there are a great many other decisions about the organisation of the new authorities—the committee structure and so on—which rank very high in the order of priorities, and where we need the very best people we can get.
Although I absolutely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, says, that the Government will be as speedy as possible in having discussions and giving news to potential candidates for the elections in 1973, about what sort of allowances they may expect, the more generous those allowances can be and the sooner candidates can expect to receive them, then to that degree the more likely we are to get the cream of the potential local governors that we really want. I urge the Government not to take the view that they have said its last word on this matter. I cannot help feeling that in this matter it is not so much the members of the Government whom we have with us this evening so much as their Treasury colleagues who need persuasion in this matter. I hope the House emphatically endorses what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said.
LORD DIGBY: My Lords, I feel that someone ought to come to the support of the Government. I cannot believe that it is the Treasury or the Government who want to be stingy. Surely it is the situation that one will have real councillors and shadow councillors. I can see a lot of hard feelings among councillors who are going to lose their seats probably being paid a different allowance from the new shadow ones. Therefore I feel that it would be correct that the change should be made as it is intended.
10.15 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the only thing I can say about that is that many of the councillors who will be on the shadow councils will have to travel very much greater distances than they would have to travel under the old set-up. That is an important point. I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, in this matter. We are not giving the Government power to introduce these matters under subsection (2) of this new clause—or are we? If we are by any chance doing that, we should ask the Government to give us an assurance that they will consider this and introduce as soon as possible such new allowances as are decided upon. If the noble Lord cannot give us the assurance which I feel we ought to have in this connection then I think the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, should put this Amendment down for further consideration tomorrow, after the Department has had a chance to look at it. I know the difficulty; tomorrow we shall be on Third Reading and this House does not like manuscript Amendments on Third Reading. But if the noble Lord puts down his Amendment tonight I do not think that it would be a manuscript Amendment in the technical sense. He might consider that. Certainly these allowances should be brought in as soon as possible. If they are by chance brought in both for the shadow councillors and for the old councillors there is nothing wrong with that—indeed, that is something we could very well welcome.
I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to reply to my earlier question, whether it would be possible for the Secretary of State by order to appoint a day which would cover the clauses mentioned in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. If so, then
1998
we shall have to rely upon the Secretary of State to do what will be necessary in that connection. So far as I can see, moves are taking place to and from the Box. Perhaps it is possible that information may be on its way which may be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in answering the question that I have put. I can cease to talk, because the matter has been delivered to him by "pigeon post". He appears to be happy about it. Or does he? Pigeons are flitting to and fro. I sincerely hope that the final carrier will soon arrive and with it the information that we are seeking, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is seeking, in this connection.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, what the noble Lord has been saying is extremely important. We want to be clear about it. Would the noble Lord be good enough to repeat what he has said from the beginning over again?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I would repeat everything that I said if I thought it necessary; but I do not think it is necessary now. Everybody concerned is sitting expectantly on the Front Bench except the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who is itching to get up and reply.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, before the noble Lord does that (this will give him time for further reflection), may I ask whether he could take into account the position of some persons—they may be fairly numerous—who will be both members of existing authorities and also members of the future authorities? These people will be carrying a very heavy burden indeed. Under the existing provisions they may or may not be able to claim for loss of earnings. They will of course be able to claim for travelling expenses, but they will not have anything further to compensate them for the considerable extra burden and extra time that may be spent by councillors with a dual role. This is an important point which we should take very much into account.
10.21 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, if I may, by leave, respond to those invitations to elaborate, may I say that I agree with what the noble Baroness has just

1999
said. Dealing with the last point first, perhaps I did not make myself clear enough in my opening remarks. Of course those individuals who are continuing to serve in this period as councillors—carrying the full weight of responsibility on the existing councils, discharging all the functions of local government—and who at the same time have been elected to the shadow councils and are serving as shadow councillors, will be carrying a very heavy burden. But, in so far as this heavy burden can be recognised by the payment of allowances, they will be perfectly entitled to draw allowances for both sets of work, and to that extent will be drawing more allowances than they are drawing at the moment. To that extent there will be some recognition of this extra burden.
I should like, at least partly, to meet the criticism that the Government are being unduly mingy "about this, to invite your Lordships to look again at the anomaly which would arise if these new allowances were introduced at a date earlier than April 1, 1974. In passing, I would confirm that the Secretary of State has the power to introduce the new allowances at whatever scale he will announce—and I have confirmed that he will announce it as early as possible, certainly before the election of the new councils. If he were to introduce this before April 1, 1974, the situation that would result would be that this new scale of allowances at a higher level (because everybody recognises that it should be at a higher level) would be paid to those councillors who were elected to serve in a shadow capacity up to April 1, 1974, whereas the existing councillors, who cannot under the Bill be paid allowances at any rate other than the existing rate, because they are not local councillors within the terms of this Bill (this Bill being effective only in relation to the shape of local government to come), would receive the lower rate. We should have two groups of councillors serving: shadow councillors drawing allowances at a newly increased rate for carrying out shadow functions; and the existing councillors, in the last year of their office still bearing the full burden of local government—although they will be going out of office the burden will be immensely increased by all the business of preparing for the
2000
changeover—drawing allowances at the existing, lower rate and not capable of having their allowances increased.
It is in view of these considerations, and the other considerations that I mentioned, that the Government do not think it would be wise, right, just or fair to introduce the new scale of allowances until the new shape of local government is fully effective, with its newly elected councillors, on April 1, 1974. I hope that the explanation will serve to show that it is not just "minginess" which has led the Government to come to this conclusion.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I can speak again only by leave of the House, because I have exhausted my right to speak, but we have now received from the Government the assurance that it will be statutorily possible for the Government to bring in new allowances at an earlier date than April, 1974, and Parliamentary pressure can therefore be brought to bear upon the Government hereafter to do so. In those circumstances, I doubt whether we should pursue the matter further, either today or tomorrow, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment to the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 268 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
10.25 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 309, which is consequential on all the other commencement Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 217, line 6, leave out subsection (2)—(Lord Sandford.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the last Amendment, No. 310, is consequential on Amendments 166, 168 and 169. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, line 4, after ("1968") insert ("to confer rights of appeal in respect of decision relating to licences under the Home Counties (Music and Dancing) Licensing Act 1926.")—(Viscount Colville of Cuirass.)
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, may I say that together the noble Viscount and I have ended this momentous Bill with music and dancing.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: In the Home Counties, my Lords.

PORT TALBOT CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: the Queen's Consent signified; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
Eighth Report from the Select Committee made and to be printed.
  NURSING: THE ASA BRIGGS REPORT
  NURSING: THE ASA BRIGGS REPORT