My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, we expect the present phase of studies into the Channel Tunnel project to be completed in the first half of next year. In the light of this work and of the financial negotiations now in hand with the French Government and the private interests with whom we are pursuing the project, decisions will be taken on the scope and timing of further studies and works remaining to be carried out before a final decision on the project can be made.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. May I ask whether, in deciding whether or not to go ahead with the Channel Tunnel, consideration will be given to the other forms of transport which could be available for cross-Channel use in the 1980s? Secondly, may I ask if the opinions of essential users have been sought about whether or not they would be prepared to travel in a train in a tunnel rather than use other traditional forms of oversea transport?

My Lords, with regard to my noble friend's first supplementary question, I do not think this point is being considered at the moment, because, as was published in the earlier papers, the other forms of transport were considered unsafe —a bridge for navigational reasons and roads because of fumes and for economic reasons. As regards the point about the users, that forms part of the present study.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how long, in the opinion of the Government, it will take to build the tunnel once authorisation is given? Secondly, do the Government totally exclude the possibility of constructing, not a tunnel but a "bridge-tunnel-bridge" on the lines of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge which is already in operation?

My Lords, results of the present studies are not expected before the first half of next year. We should hope to reach a decision by 1973. If the go-ahead were given, it is hoped that the Tunnel could be in use some time in 1978 or 1979. I am not quite sure whether I understand the noble Lord's second supplementary question about a tunnel bridge. I take it he means a tube tunnel laid on the surface of the sea.

No, my Lords. The suggestion is that it should be a bridge which would go down to an artificial island, continue in great submerged tubes to another island and then go up again as a bridge to the other cliff. It is perfectly possible, my Lords. It has been done in Chesapeake Bay. It is a feasible proposition.

My Lords, I am advised that this would give rise to navigational hazards; also I am told that other maritime nations would have to be consulted before this could be done.

My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that consideration of this project has been going on for quite a long time? What can be done to speed up the study which has been taking place since the project was first introduced, a project which many people in both Houses gave credence to because they thought that it would be of great value to this country and to France?

My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. The earlier studies are now out of date and more geological surveying is needed. Present studies will, we hope, be complete by the first half of 1972.

My Lords. I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, a programme of works to improve working conditions in the Old Public Offices is being implemented at the moment, including redecoration, refurnishing and new accommodation for visitors. My right honourable friend is aware that very much more needs to be done and is considering with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how best to proceed in the longer term.

My Lords. I am grateful to the Minister for reminding us of the minor works at present in progress. So far as the efficiency of the conduct of the business is concerned, may I ask whether he is aware that a quarter of a century ago this building, as a place to work in, was unanimously considered obsolete in accordance with the standards of that time? Is the Minister aware that eight years ago the then Minister of Public Works—whose name happened to be Mr. Geoffrey Rippon—said that the building was unsuitable for present, and therefore for future, purposes, and that the Duncan Committee came to a similar conclusion?

May I ask the Minister whether he can give any, or all three, of these assurances. First (and I put this without in any way wishing to prejudice what the decision will be) whether a decision can be expected in the near future as to how a radical modernisation can be carried out; secondly, whether he will press his right honourable friend—

Speech!

—to bring about this decision quickly; and, thirdly, whether in doing so he will ensure consultation with those who have to work in the building, particularly those who will still be working there when the new building comes up for consideration.

My Lords, I think I can best answer those three supplementary questions by assuring the noble Lord that my right honourable friend is very well aware of the very long time during which this issue has been under consideration. He is as anxious as everybody else is to arrive at a satisfactory and radical solution and is pressing on as fast as possible, but he is not yet in a position to make any further statement.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this really is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs? Is he aware that the staff accommodation in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is, in most cases, unsatisfactory, and in many cases positively disgraceful—unlike the accommodation for Ministers which tends to he elegant and spacious? Does be not agree that this situation of Ministerial affluence alongside official squalor needs some kind of urgent treatment; and is it not in fact the case that what we need is a new Foreign Office? It may be that the present one is more in keeping with the Government's policy, but it is not very good for the staff of the Foreign Office.

My Lords, I am aware of this problem and so is my right honourable friend. He is anxious to solve it as quickly as possible.

My Lords, can the Minister say whether the future of the site between the Treasury and Central Hall has yet been decided, or whether this would be open for a Foreign and Commonwealth Office?

My Lords, that is rather a different question, if I understood the noble Lord to be referring to Parliament Square. If he will put down a Question I will answer it.

My Lords, may I ask whether the Minister can give us an assurance that when these new offices are built, adequate accommodation will be provided for those civil servants who will be engaged on the drafting of Parliamentary Questions?

Yes, my Lords.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the plasterboard "rabbit hutch" in which I spent four years of my working life 25 years ago still houses an Under-Secretary? Will its abolition be included in the minor works?

My Lords, I was not aware of that point, but I can almost certainly assure the noble Lord that it will be.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that all Governments, though notably this Government, have been lax in dealing with a problem which ensures major loss of efficiency in Whitehall? Will he consult with his noble friend the Lord Privy Seal to see whether some progress can be made which might quite significantly reduce the number of civil servants and the amount of paper? If the noble Lord has any doubt, would he try visiting the basement in the Foreign Office late at night and see whether he can find his way out? I once got lost there.

My Lords, is the Minister aware—

Order, order!

My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has taken us rather wide of the original Question, but the object of a full and complete solution to this problem is to provide satisfactory accommodation for all people who work in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that any change in the external appearance of the present buildings would be regarded with great distaste by the majority of the population?

My Lords, my right honourable friend is fully aware of that fact.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the "rabbit hutch" in which the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, worked, apparently so unhappily, was constructed by me at the end of the war, and was at least greatly superior to the attic in which I worked for two years previously? Does not the noble Lord agree that in any reconstruction of the Foreign Office that may be undertaken it is best to think in terms of a headquarters staff next door to Downing Street, and the great bulk of the Departments being housed, not in squalor, but in comparative squalor, if you like, somewhere in the suburbs?

My Lords, all these points are among those which are being considered by my right honourable friend and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that not only do the conditions of Government office accommodation not comply with Lord Gore-Booth's Question to-day, concerning "modern business practice", but that in fact they do not comply with the Offices Act? I assure him that I can give him instances of that.

My Lords, I am advised that the work currently in hand brings the offices up to the standards required by the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963.

My Lords, while this is perhaps a superficial question, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is in a position to give an affirmative answer to the last assurance for which I asked; namely, that there will be continuous consultation with those who have to work there when the time comes for designing new accommodation?

Yes, my Lords.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, proceedings at meetings of the NATO Council of Ministers are confidential. It is our firm policy, however, that the security of the Western Alliance, in which Greece plays a very important part, should not be jeopardised. The Greek Government have not repudiated the North Atlantic Treaty.

My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I ask whether it is not the case that both Denmark and Norway have repeatedly raised this question at the Council of Ministers, and have been brushed aside? Is it not the case that the North Atlantic Assembly has expressed great concern about this issue? In view of the fact that the preamble to the Treaty of the Charter is dedicated to democracy and individual freedom, and that Article 2 makes the commitment to strengthening free institutions, is it not a mockery that Greece, with its present record, should be a member of NATO?

My Lords, I do not think I can add to what I said with regard to the meetings of the Council of Ministers; namely, that they are confidential. Of course Her Majesty's Government would like to see democratic Governments in all countries; and the Greek Government know that we look forward to the restoration of democracy in their country. But it is not for us to tell them how to manage their internal affairs.

My Lords, is it not the case that there has been martial law in Greece now for four and a half years, and that the only advance towards democracy is the present election of an Advisory Committee by 0·24 per cent. of the population? Is not there evidence of the torture of political prisoners, as indicated by the record of Lady Fleming?

My Lords, the points which the noble Lord has brought forward may or may not be true, but in the belief of Her Majesty's Government this would not alter the fact that NATO has a very important part to play, and that Greece has an important part to play in NATO.

My Lords, is it not true that the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance exists for the defence of democracy? Is it not true, also, that the Parliamentarians at the North Atlantic Assembly have not been prepared to allow Greece to attend a North Atlantic Assembly for the last three years?

My Lords, I think it would be true to say that the NATO Alliance is there for the military protection of the West. The fact that the North Atlantic Assembly has met and passed various resolutions is, of course, a indication of the feelings of those people who are members of the North Atlantic Assembly. But they do not bind any government.

My Lords, while taking the point that Greece is an important member of the North Atlantic Alliance, and of course that the collapse of that Alliance might lead to losses of freedom even worse than that which is taking place in Greece at the moment—although that is bad enough—can the noble Earl give the House an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not lag behind other members of NATO in attempting to bring pressure on the régime in Greece to return to a democratic form of government?

My Lords, the Greek Government know full well what our position is, which is that we look forward to an early return to a more democratic Government. Further than that, I could not go.

My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that NATO is primarily a military alliance and that all the senior military advisers and commanders arc wholehearted in their demand that Greece should remain the linchpin in the Eastern frontier?

My Lords, I entirely agree with what my noble friend has said, that Greece forms a very important part of the NATO Alliance.

My Lords, does not this rather isolated small island need as many allies as possible in the world, without particular regard to their local politics?

My Lords, I think that is perfectly true.

No!

My Lords, what kind of an ally and what kind of a partner in NATO? In a repressed country, with very great disruption, and where the armed forces have been very largely purged during the last few years, what asset does the noble Lord really think the armed forces represent to the NATO alliance?

My Lords, Greece has a very important part to play in NATO as one of the countries that form the Alliance, and if Greece were removed from this, it would have a deleterious effect on the security of the West.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will reconsider either now or at some later stage —but preferably now—an answer in which he appeared to give support to a suggestion that this country should find its allies anywhere and that it might find them without regard to their internal political arrangements?

My Lords, if I gave wholehearted support to that suggestion, I would certainly withdraw it. The inference that I had intended should be drawn was that Her Maejsty's Government wished to have allies, and has allies, including the Greek people. But it is not up to Her Majesty's Government to interfere with the internal political workings of another country.

Hear, hear!

My Lords, would not the Minister agree that the claimed basis of NATO is to defend democracy and freedom? Is not the inclusion of such a Government as Greece one of the reasons why there is disllusionment and scepticism felt by the youth of this country in politicians and in politics?

My Lords, I do not think that that is so. People may be disillusioned by politicians for a variety of reasons, but we have to carry out our commitments in the best way we can, and this country has great friendships with the Greek people. We wish to keep those friendships.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the noble Lord does not mention the period for which the current rent has been in force but I have no evidence of increases of the size he mentions for periodic or 3-year tenancies. For dwellings which come within the protection of the Rent Act—which are the vast majority—the rent officer can be asked to determine a fair rent. The Government are well aware of the shortage of unfurnished rented accommodation within the rateable value limits which attract Rent Act protection. For this reason the Government attach great importance to the protection given by the Rent Act in relation both to security and rent.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. The periods I have in mind were three, five, and seven year leases. Does he not think, bearing in mind the Government's White Paper, Fair Deal for Housing, that in effect tenants should be given similar protection when they have leases which come above the ceiling to which the Rent Acts refer—that is to say, £400 in Greater London? In the White Paper great stress is laid on the fact that there should be fair rents in the private sector. Would not my noble friend agree that this should apply equally to tenants of properties below or above £400 rateable value in the Greater London area?

My Lords, I think the simple answer is that when we did not lower the rateable value figure which carries with it rent protection below £400, it was in order to give security of tenure to the tenants. On the other hand, we did not want the amount of unfurnished accommodation coming on to the market to dry up completely. We felt that if we raised the figure above £400 this might happen; and the object of the Rent Act is, as you know, to protect people who if they lost or could not afford their homes would experience difficulty in finding somewhere else to live. People who can afford to live in rented accommodation having a rateable value of more than £400 usually have sufficient means to find alternative accommodation.

My Lords, does not the Minister agree that there is a great shortage both of flats and houses for renting? Because of this, is not the Government's encouragement to local authorities to sell council houses not only misguided but utterly political?

My Lords, I think house ownership has always been a good part of Conservative philosophy which does no harm to anyone.

My Lords, do the Government realise—and here I must declare an interest—that there are a large number of people at present occupying flats having a rateable value of above £400 and who would be incapable of paying the new rent that has been demanded of them, sometimes amounting to double the amount they are paying at present. Do not the Government think it time that the rateable value was increased from £400 so as to give certainly middle-class people an opportunity of being able to live, instead of having to be thrown out of their homes?

My Lords, we believe that if we pushed up the rateable value limit for protection the amount of unfurnished accommodation coming on to the market would be very little. The answer probably is that if people did not insist on living in central London, but were content a little further outside, they might find what the noble Lord is looking for.

Yes, my Lords, but surely, if nobody is suggesting that there should be an unfair rent and fair rents are being set for those houses of below £400 rateable value, there is nothing to prevent a fair rental being demanded for properties of over £400 rateable value.

Yes, my Lords, the Francis Committee, as your Lordships' House will be aware, did recommend the other way, that existing limits were too high. We believe that in £400 we have struck about the right balance.

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend (because I think this is an important matter, and there have been these increases of the percentage that I have given for short tenancies) whether my noble friend has seen the article in the Sunday Telegraph last week-end headed, "Financiers move into the Flat Business"? I will quote from it if I may. It says:

"London flats have become a favourite hunting ground for a new type of property operator often backed by City finance".

Does he not feel that, for people who are living on fixed incomes, this is something which, in view of the shortage of unfurnished accommodation and bearing in mind the White Paper, Her Majesty's Government should look into at the moment?

Yes, my Lords, it is something we should look into. We are doing so, and when our housing policy begins to take effect I think we shall find it beneficial to the country.

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat the Statement made yesterday in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The text is as follows: "I should like to make a statement about my meeting with the European Community in Brussels on the 11th and 12th of December.

"At this meeting, which was attended by Ministers of the other applicant countries, I was accompanied by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture as well as my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. The two main subjects on the agenda were fisheries and animal health.

"On fisheries the United Kingdom, together with the Republic of Ireland and Denmark, have now reached agreement on the outstanding problems. We have persuaded the Community of the need to safeguard the essential fishing interests of the applicant countries in order to ensure conservation of fishing stocks and the protection of the livelihood of our fishermen. As a result of the agreement we have reached the position would be as follows.

"First, it is clear that we retain full jurisdiction over the whole of our coastal waters up to twelve miles. In other words we have power to control on a non-discriminatory basis the conservation of stocks by such means as the regulation of size of nets, types of trawl and methods of fishing.

"Secondly, access to our coastal waters within six miles from our baselines is limited exclusively to British vessels. Next, in areas between six to twelve miles, where the baselines are not in themselves a sufficient safeguard or where the stocks are already fully exploited, the fishing will also be limited to British vessels and to those with existing rights to fish there for certain species of fish. The areas covered in this way out to twelve miles are the Orkneys and Shetlands, the North and East Coasts of Scotland, North-East England from the river Coquet to Flamborough Head, Devon and Cornwall including, of course, the Scillies and Lundy Island, and County Down.

"The effect of all this is that there is no change at all in the protection now afforded in areas from which 95 per cent. by value of the total inshore catch is taken. As far as the remainder is concerned, that is. those areas I have not mentioned earlier, there will be a generalisation of existing rights between six and twelve miles only.

"We have also sought and obtained a formal assurance from the Community that the legal application of the Common Fisheries Policy would not permit, either in form or in fact, any discrimination by a member State in waters beyond twelve miles over which it might exercise fisheries jurisdiction against the fishing vessels of other member States operating in such waters. This is a valuable safeguard for our deep sea fishermen.

"As to the future of the Fisheries Policy, we have urged upon the Community the need for common action in all our interests to ensure conservation of stocks. In consequence we have agreed with the Community that as soon as practicable, and by 1979 at the latest, the Community will attempt to determine conditions for the preservation of the biological resources of the sea.

"We have further agreed that before the end of 1982 the enlarged Community will, after studying a report on the situation then obtaining with particular reference to the economic and social conditions of inshore areas and the state of the fish stocks, examine the arrangements which could follow what we have negotiated for the first ten years.

"Here I must emphasise that these are not just transitional arrangements which automatically lapse at the end of a fixed period.

"In substance what we have achieved can fairly be described for the most part as a maintenance of the status quo for a decade, followed by a fair and open-ended review taking account of all the circumstances of the time. I am confident that when that review takes place Her Majesty's Government will continue to safeguard this vital national interest.

"Before leaving this subject I should like to bring to the attention of the House the advantage we have secured in regard to marketing arrangements which are designed to secure better and more stable conditions in the fishing industry and to which I referred in my statement to the House on the 11th of November.

"Finally, I know the anxieties that exist about conservation and effective measures of policing. As I have already explained to the House, we will retain full jurisdiction over our 12-mile limit. The Fisheries Protection Services of the Royal Navy and the Scottish Department of Agriculture and Fisheries will continue to he responsible for the enforcement of our regulations, including those governing fishing methods and for ensuring that vessels of other countries are excluded from the inner six miles and that limitations on access in areas between six and twelve miles are strictly enforced.

"Honourable Members will be aware that the Scottish Department is already ordering a new fisheries cruiser, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has undertaken to strengthen the forces at present employed by the Royal Navy on protection duties in coastal waters. My right honourable friend will be making a further statement on this in the near future.

"The other major issue on which we were able to reach agreement was animal health.

"The Community has adopted a number of Directives which, if applied to Britain would have involved a number of important changes in our animal health arrangements.

"We therefore asked for and secured agreement that pending the establishment of a common veterinary policy we would not be required to accept any animals, whether for rearing, breeding or immediate slaughter which have been vaccinated against foot and mouth disease. We shall similarly he free to continue our existing methods of test ing for brucellosis and tuberculosis. Imports of non-vaccinated animals from other Member States will continue to be covered by national rules, and imports of meat will he subject to animal and public health controls in accordance with the Community's provisions.

"These arrangements will apply for five years. Well before the end of that period the Commission will review the whole situation and the veterinary developments which have taken place and to the extent necessary make appropriate proposals taking account of those developments.

"These arrangements, which take account of the existing differences in standards and practices, will ensure that progress towards common veterinary arrangements throughout the enlarged Community will involve no increase in animal health risk.

"I am therefore satisfied, as is my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, that our essential animal health requirements are fully safeguarded now and will remain so in the future."

My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.

My Lords, may I, on behalf of your Lordships, express to the noble Baroness our thanks for repeating that Statement the day after it was made in another place. My noble friend made the request that it should be repeated in this House because of your Lordships' interest in this particular problem. May I discount the latter part of the Statement about animal welfare and regulations and confine my questions to the fishing industry? The noble Baroness talked about a new fisheries cruiser being ordered by the Scottish Office, but is it not a fact that this cruiser was coming, whether we went into the E.E.C. or not? It was necessary for the protection of our fishing grounds and has nothing to do with this particular problem.

When the noble Baroness says that all things have been safeguarded until ten years ahead, is she not in fact saying that the only matter that will be considered in ten years' time is whether the countries of the E.E.C. will have an entry into our fishing grounds or not? That is the only question that will then arise, because there are no other fishing grounds available to us. As a result of this agreement, would the noble Baroness not agree with the summing up in a very ex-parte paper, the Daily Telegraph, of yesterday which said that the conclusion for Britain is that Britain has in effect dropped her demand for a formal automatic right of veto over free access by Market fishermen to her waters after the first decade of membership? Whether the noble Baroness agrees or disagrees, I do not think that the agreement is what she makes it out to be. It may have been the best that could be obtained, but it certainly has nothing to do with the promises that have been made.

If that is so, may I ask the noble Baroness what our position is vis-à-vis our partner, Norway? On October 25 the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said in another place:

"We have also to protect the position of our partners in EFTA."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, col. 1241.]

He made that perfectly clear. The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries said in another place on December 7:

"Our approach is a joint approach with Norway, Ireland and Denmark and we shall hope to continue in that way. It would be a great mistake to be hypothetical on what may happen if any of these countries should fall out. We hope that this will not be the case."—(col. 1106.)

If Norway has fallen out, how can the Government declare that they have maintained the British position by not claiming anything less than Norway? If Norway has not accepted, it is because she wants rather more and we must have rather less.

In this respect I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would either confirm or deny a statement made in another place last Thursday when an honourable Member sought to raise the matter on the Adjournment, and said that the Prime Minister of this country had written to the Prime Minister of Norway and said to him, "For goodness sake ! tone down your claims about these fishing agreements." In other words, "You are going to make it awkward for Britain in these negotiations. You must accept less than you have." Indeed it has been regrded in the Norwegian Press as a great interference in the rights of Norway herself. It comes very strange, on the day when the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in reply to another Question, says that we have no right to interfere in the affairs of another country. Did the Prime Minister in fact send this letter? If he did, was not his reason to try to tone down Norway's request and get somewhat less than we had been promised before? Finally, would the noble Baroness not agree that, as a result of these negotiations, there are considerable parts of the fishing industry in this country, with which I have been associated for many years, who not only are disappointed but feel that they have in fact been betrayed by the settlement that has now been reached?

My Lords, my answer to the first question, whether a new fishery cruiser was necessary whether we joined the E.E.C. or not, is, yes, it is necessary. In answer to the second question, quoting the Daily Telegraph, whether in 1892 we have given up our right to an automatic veto—

My Lords, 1982.

My Lords, I apologise. I meant 1982—I have written the date down wrongly. As to whether we have given up our rights to an automatic veto, that is not so, because we have declared that fisheries are of course a vital national interest, and that being so they attract the unanimity rule. On the question of the position of Norway, we have always said—in fact I said this on the last occasion when this matter was discussed —that we sought comparable opportunities for all the applicant countries. As I have already said in the Statement, the Republic of Ireland and Denmark together with ourselves accept these conditions, and we hope very much that Norway will, too.

Regarding the last question, whether the Prime Minister of this country wrote to the Norwegian Prime Minister, I also read the remarks in the Press. The point is that we are always in constant touch with all our negotiating partners. We believe that, as we have secured for this country that 95 per cent. of the fishing for the inshore fishing interests is preserved in this country, all the arrangements, including the review arrangements in 10 years' time, are very satisfactory; and we hope that Norway will join, too.

My Lords, may I press the noble Baroness on one question before we go any further? The noble Baroness says we are always in touch with the other countries. I asked a specific question. Did the Prime Minister of this country write to the Prime Minister of Norway and ask him to tone down the negotiating position of Norway with regard to transactions in the E.E.C.? Was a letter sent or was it not sent? That does not require a difficult answer.

As a matter of fact, my Lords, it is a difficult answer to give because I do not happen to know. I will certainly try to find out the answer. Even if it has been sent, I would suggest that that is a perfectly fair position. If four applicant countries are negotiating together on fisheries, and three of them agree that the results are good, I should have thought it was a friendly act to suggest to the fourth country that they were satisfactory to them, too.

My Lords, what we on these Benches feel is that the agreement now reached on fishing is certainly the best that could have been achieved in the circumstances. All that we might be disposed to criticise is the impression previously created, I think, by Mr. Rippon, that he could achieve something even more cast-iron in the way of long-term guarantees. Obviously the Six have abandoned their original position and have agreed to most important and far-reaching derogations from their fishing regulations, which was presumably the chief object of the exercise. Nor can anybody legitimately object, I suggest, to the arrangements proposed for the 10 years following on our entry into the E.E.C. What will happen then will be the result of some further long negotiation in which all the members of the enlarged Community will of course do their utmost to safeguard the legitimate interests of all their fishermen. It seems to us there is no reason to suppose that the British Government in 1983 will be unable to fight their corner perfectly well; but the eventual agreement will have to be something which reflects the interests not only of one country but of the group as a whole, and this will naturally include sensible arrangements for conservation.

However, what we surely cannot do—and this is something which I hope is accepted by the Government; indeed, from what he said yesterday in another place it seems to have been accepted implicitly by Mr. Rippon—always supposing we propose to join a Community which is something more than a collection of totally independent States, is to bang the table and say that unless we obtain complete satisfaction on every point, on any question that may be under discussion, including of course fishing, then we shall veto (as the saying is) any collective decision. If we go into the Community in that frame of mind, it will not work, and indeed there would be small point in our joining.

My Lords, I have only one question to ask.

Hear, hear!

I always understood, my Lords, that on Statements one could make a statement in reply, provided it was limited to a minute or two. I have only one specific question. Supposing, as now unfortunately may be the case, the Norwegians cannot reach any agreement on fishing, and therefore decide not to proceed with their negotiations for entry into the E.E.C., is such a fact likely in any way to upset the timetable respecting our own entry and that of the other candidates?

My Lords, if I may speak for everyone I think the House will be very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who has taken such an interest in the European Communities, has welcomed this final, very difficult stage of the negotiations. If I may say so, he is of course absolutely right. The Common Market countries have in fact gone a very long way from their Common Fisheries Policy in agreeing to the very large derogations that we have, happily, been able to achieve with our partners. It is certainly true, I would agree also with the noble Lord—and this is why we have said we must do this at least before 1979—that we must all agree on a policy of conservation. This is absolutely vital. He asked also whether it is not a fact that we must not all the time be speaking about a veto. I think this is true. I believe I used those words during our debate, saying that the European Community has been a success so far because it rests upon consent. While one might have the power of veto in the background, one would hope to achieve what one wished by negotiation. On the question of whether, if Norway did not join, it would affect our signing of the Treaty of Accession, the answer is, No. We hope to he able to do this about the middle of January; but of course we hope very much that Norway will join.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to congratulate the Chancellor of the Duchy on a remarkable achievement after these days and nights of arduous negotiation, which I should have thought unjustified and unnecessary because the whole problem should never have arisen? But what happens after 10 years? That is the nub of the problem. Is this merely a stay of execution, or do Her Majesty's Government consider that in practice the arrangements now negotiated and concluded can never be changed without our consent?

My Lords, I will certainly gladly convey to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the congratulations of my noble friend Lord Boothby because they come from someone who has taken a lifelong interest in fisheries and knows a great deal about them. As regards his question, a very important one, whether after 10 years, in 1982, the agreement will have been merely a stay of execution, or whether it would mean in practice that the arrangements negotiated thereafter could not be concluded successfully without the United Kingdom's consent, the answer is, Yes; the arrangements could not be concluded without the United Kingdom's consent.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her answer.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to clarify a point? She is resting on the unanimity rule in the Council of Ministers regarding matters touching national interests. Is she aware that that unanimity rule has been subject to some discussion recently, and that there are many inside the Common Market who believe it should be changed to a comprehensive majority vote situation in the Council of Ministers? If the unanimity rule were changed to a majority rule between now and 1982, would it still require the consent of Her Majesty's Government before the fisheries situation could be changed?

My Lords, there is no question at the moment of any change whatsoever in the unanimity rule. In fact, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said so yesterday. Also, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will remember that when the Prime Minister came back from meeting President Pompidou he particularly referred to this question: it was agreed between them that subjects which were of vital national interest would be subject to the unanimity rule. In fact, if I may quote it exactly, it was on May 24 that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said:

"the maintenance and strengthening of the fabric of co-operation in such a Community requires that decisions should in practice be taken by unanimous agreement when vital national interests of any one or more members are at stake."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; 24/5/71, col. 32.]

That is really the answer to the noble Lord's question.

My Lords, does that not mean that we should have the right of veto if we objected?

Yes, my Lords.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness two questions? First, has she observed that throughout the whole of these negotiations those who are seeking to put us into the Common Market have used the argument, "This is the best we can get"? The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, used that very phrase a moment or two ago. It is not what is in our interests but, "the best that we can get". I should like to receive an answer to that question.

Secondly, has the noble Baroness observed in the public Press—and I thought my noble friend might have mentioned this in his welcome to this alleged concession—that my noble friend Lord Boothby had a conversation with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster yesterday about these negotiations, when he said that he was now satisfied that the scheme was what we wanted. Could the noble Baroness furnish us with the information as to what it was that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said to my noble friend Lord Boothby which converted him?

My Lords, I think I had better answer that—

My Lords, perhaps I should answer first, because I think the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, wanted to know whether this was only the best agreement that we could get or whether it was a really satisfactory arrangement. As I said earlier, if we can preserve 95 per cent. of the total inshore fishing of this country and 98 per cent. of the total catch, I think that is a very good agreement. In regard to the public Press, I also observed that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, had approached my right honourable friend, but as I was not present at the meeting I cannot, of course, say what transpired.

My Lords, I do not know whether I am allowed to reply, with the leave of the House—

My Lords, I know my noble friend is trying to be helpful to the House as a whole, but nevertheless I think he can put himself in order only by putting a question to the Minister.

My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, whether he is aware—

My Lords, I am afraid the question must be addressed to the Minister.

My Lords, I would ask the Minister whether she is aware that I saw the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster this morning; that he gave me satisfactory assurances that the breeding grounds and our inshore waters would he completely protected under the arrangements made, and that I then asked him the specific question I asked the noble Baroness, as to whether in practice Her Majesty's Government consider that the arrangements now negotiated can never be changed without our consent, and she said, "Yes", and he said, "Yes", and that satisfied me?

My Lords, in reply to my noble friend, may I say that I hope very much that those assurances have been conveyed to other parts of the House?

My Lords, a very important issue has been raised. I am not saying that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, should reply to my question, because he is not a member of Her Majesty's Government. But now we are informed that, in addition to the communiqué yesterday which the noble Baroness repeated this afternoon in your Lordships' House, something has been said privately to a Member of your Lordships' House which apparently was not contained in the Statement made yesterday in another place and repeated this afternoon in your Lordships' House. Surely, we are entitled to know what transpired between the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my noble friend Lord Boothby which has not been disclosed to us. Because if it were disclosed to us we might also be converted.

My Lords, it has been disclosed.

My Lords, I am quite certain that nothing could have been added to what has already been said by me to your Lordships' House this afternoon.

Hear, hear!

My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is hoping that there was some secret pact, but I do not think he can raise that hare.

My Lords, may I ask whether this agreement includes a 12-mile limit for a considerable extent of the French coast, and, if so, whether this will not give the French considerable opportunity for the conservation which they so badly need to do; and that further, when the benefits of this conservation are achieved by the French, they will then wish to continue with the present arrangements?

Yes, my Lords, it does. The 12-mile limit is extended to five Departments of Brittany. I agree with my noble friend that it should ensure that the French are very interested in conservation, and therefore we hope they will be interested in the arrangements after the next decade.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that when I made my first statement she said that three countries had agreed and one had disagreed. At that time agreement had not been reached at all. When the Prime Minister sent his letter he was seeking to get agreement, but no decision was reached. If the noble Baroness is now saying that we have the right of veto this was not referred to yesterday in another place. Indeed, on December 11 the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said that any agreement that had a time period written into it, be it five years or ten years, could not be accepted in Britain. Now, apparently, we have a 10-year limit.

My Lords, that makes all the difference.

No, my Lords, it does not make any difference to what the noble Lord said, because he said that no matter whether it was five years or ten years, both periods were unacceptable. He is on record as having said that just a few days ago. I am now asking the noble Baroness, as Minister of State, whether this is not in fact going much further than the Statement in the House of Commons yesterday. If the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is in agreement with the noble Baroness it will not be difficult for her to request him to repeat this Statement in another place.

The noble Baroness has said that there can be no change in the unanimity rule, but the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, did not take that view. He said that we have not got the right of veto. What the noble Baroness is now saying to the noble Lord is that we retain the right of veto. If that is correct, then obviously the noble Lord is wrong. The only request I make is this: if in fact we are retaining the right of veto in ten years' time, the least that the Government can do is to arrange for a Statement to that effect to be made in another place, and I would respectfully ask the noble Baroness whether she can arrange for this to be done.

My Lords, I was present in another place yesterday and I heard all the replies made by my right honourable friend to the questions on his Statement, and while I do not have the complete Hansard in front of me at the moment I can remember clearly that he spoke of the question of unanimity, and that if there is a unanimous decision it means what it says. But it also means that if unanimity cannot be reached, then each country has the right of veto if they have declared a particular question to be of vital national interest.

My Lords. would not the Government agree that the so-called unanimity rule is a convention, nothing more, nothing less, and that in the Treaty of Rome there is provision for qualified majority "voting? Would not the noble Baroness also admit that if, by any chance—I hope myself that if will indeed be possible—we came back in the next few years to acceptance of the majority principle, we should still then be able to block any suggestion as regards fishing, or anything else, if we had only the support of two small countries, namely, Ireland and probably Norway? Even under that system, which in my view we ought to accept, we should be in a position which in practice would be fully safeguarded—even to the extent desired by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy.

My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord. Lord Gladwyn, said earlier, that we must not proceed to enter the European Communities by considering that we shall always rely on the veto; we must try to reach agreement and be part of the membership of the Community. The Six members of the existing Community have shown great understanding of the needs of the applicant countries as regards fisheries. So far as voting is concerned, if noble Lords look at paragraph 70 of the White Paper they will observe that it makes quite clear that in practice

"Where a member State's vital interests are at stake it is Community practice to proceed only by unanimity".

If, however—to answer the noble Lord's second point—we did in fact have qualifield majority voting, there would have to be 43 votes cast in favour of the decision, and as the United Kingdom would have 10 votes, Denmark and Ireland three each, and Norway, if she becomes a member, three, we should outvote anyone, not taking into account the position of France, who now also has an extension of her rights.

My Lords, will the addition of one cruiser be sufficient to protect British fishing interests, and will this protection fall exclusively on British forces, or will the other States of the Common Market agree to collaborate in maintaining that protection?

My Lords, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned that responsibility lies on British forces. At the moment, for England and Wales there are six minesweepers which undertake this duty on behalf of the Navy for the Ministry of Agriculture; in Scotland we have seven fishery protection vessels, and we have another one building at this moment.

My Lords, may I turn from the very popular subject of fisheries to the less popular but none the less, to my mind, important question of animal health, which the noble Baroness mentioned, and ask her whether she is aware, in the first place, that the agreement on brucellosis and foot and mouth disease will give great satisfaction to the fanning industry in this country? Is she also aware of the enormous importance, when all the veterinary regulations come to be discussed, of maintaining the position that this country has, because it is an island, particularly with regard to foot and mouth disease?

Yes, my Lords. I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Walston, raised this matter because it is a very important part of the Statement. It is for just the reason that we wish to help to improve the standards throughout the Community that we have maintained the present arrangements, which for ourselves are very strict, for the next five years; then we shall see what veterinary developments come within those five years.

My Lords, if we may return to fisheries at a more parochial level, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware of the grave alarm in the Western Isles, which I think have been not too well treated in the terms of limits? They would like to enjoy the 12-mile limit allowed to Orkney and Shetland. We have protected the Inner Minches, but surely it is the Western seaboard of the Long Island, where herring spawn in the shallow water of the Long Island to the Butt of Lewis and down to Barra Head. This is at the mercy of anyone who cares to come in and rake the bottom. It is one of the most important areas of spawning fish and fish nurseries in the Highlands. With unemployment running at 29 per cent., I feel the whole of that area's future is in serious jeopardy. The noble Baroness talked about a fishery cruiser. Having sat in the House for nearly forty years, I know that there has been talk of fishery cruisers since time began, and poaching goes on in the Minch nightly. The position is extremely serious for the island fishermen, who have come into their own since 1964 when the 12-mile limit was introduced.

My Lords, as my noble friend rightly says, the way in which the base lines are drawn does include the whole Minches, which are very rich in fishing—much richer than the West coast of the Long Isle. As far as the breeding Grounds are concerned, if it were necessary to extend any limit beyond six miles it would be possible because we still have our national jurisdiction up to twelve miles, provided it is non-discriminatory to any State.

My Lords, without wishing to prolong this exchange too far, may I ask the noble Baroness to clarify one matter for the benefit of the House, as I think there is some confusion about the question of unanimity? Will she confirm that the unanimity rule, so-called, is in fact only a practice or convention and that it has no basis in law, and that the only rule governing voting in the Council of Ministers is the rule of qualified majority?

My Lords, it is perfectly true that it is a practice, a convention. But, as I said earlier, on major questions the Six Common Market countries as at present constituted have always had to proceed by consent.

My Lords, would my noble friend answer my question as to when we can hope to see the new fast fishery cruiser?

My Lords, the tender has just gone out. In about a year, I hope.

My Lords, I want to support the noble Lord opposite on the question of animal health and ask the noble Baroness whether there is any possibility of preventing pollution of the sea by atomic waste and other horrible things that go into it?

My Lords, international discussions are going on about the question of pollution of the high seas.

rose to move, That the following amendment be made to the Standing Orders relating to Private Bills:—

Leave out Standing Order 163 (Appointment of new trustees to be with approbation of High Court).

My Lords, in moving the second Amendment in my name, which is to leave out Standing Order 169, I should explain that this Standing Order was originally inserted because a trustee appointed by Act of Parliament, that is, as a result of a Personal Bill, could not refuse to accept the appointment. I am, however, of the opinion that the consent of trustees is covered by Standing Order 166, which provides that the consent of all parties concerned in the consequences of a personal Bill shall be proved to the satisfaction of the Committee on the Bill. Trustees affected by a Personal Bill are clearly concerned in the consequences of the Bill. In addition, this Standing Order requires trustees to give their consent in person before the Committee on the Bill. I suggest to the House that this additional precaution is unnecessary, because it is quite sufficient to obtain their consent in writing. For these reasons I am asking the House to agree to this Amendment. I beg to move.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships have the Bill before you and I think you will agree that it is not a complicated or long one. It is simply asking that the live theatre should have the right to perform on Sundays. This right is already enjoyed by cinemas and by orchestras, large and small. People in their private homes are able to look at theatre on television; and, not least, in our pubs, more and more on a Sunday evening there is a sing-song or a concert of some kind, and, although it is not strictly within the letter of the law, there is no doubt at all that costume is quite often used. So it seems odd that I should have the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, representing Covent Garden, the National Theatre, the Coliseum, about sixty repertory companies, ardently asking that the theatres, for which he has a special responsibility as Chairman of the Arts Council, should have this privilege. The noble Lord. Lord Goodman, may be here before the end of this debate, but he has other pressures on him, and if lie fails to be here in time, I have his personal consent to say that he most ardently wishes the support of your Lordships' House for the passage of this Bill.

At the same time the managements of our commercial theatre are most anxious that your Lordships should agree that their theatres should be open on a Sunday—not for the whole of Sunday but only after one o'clock, so that many morning church services will not be interfered with at all. As we know, modern churchmen of all denominations have discarded the idea of a gloomy old-fashioned Sunday, on which you get people to church because there is nothing else that they can do. There are very few modern churchmen who would take this point of view. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, was kind enough, speaking as a distinguished Methodist leader, to say that he agreed with the purposes of this Bill. Other leading churchmen—I do not want to claim too much support—of all kinds of denominations have taken the same point of view.

Several Members of your Lordships' House have been a little worried whether the Bill would result in actors, mechanics, and other people being compelled to perform on seven days a week. They have also been a little disturbed because, in the original drafting of the Bill, there was specific mention of the six-day week. That specific mention is not included in the present Bill. I think I could best explain why by reading to your Lordships a passage from a letter which I received from Mr. Emile Littler, the chairman of the Theatres' National Committee. He says:

"I am writing to you because I thought it might be as well if I explained to you the reasons why we are deleting from the previous draft of the Bill the provision that no performer would be employed on a Sunday who had been employed under the same contract to act on each of the six previous days. We were advised by the Home Office officials that it would be very difficult to draft this provision satisfactorily, "—

this is the important matter—

"and as we have previously given an undertaking to Equity in writing, which they have acknowledged, that we would not require their members to work more than six days a week on the same contract, it was agreed that it would be better to leave the matter to be dealt with between the Unions and Management in collective agreement negotiations."

The management side and the union side (Equity and the technical unions) feel it would be better that this question should be left for negotiation among themselves.

Mr. Littler goes on to explain part of the reasons. He says:

"Had the six day clause been part of the Bill, it might have stopped a small variety artiste, who works only during the Christmas season, from taking a Sunday engagement for a Christmas party, if he had been working in a variety bill, even doing only 10 minutes in a show, during the week. It might also have prevented an artiste who was appearing in a show, from giving a charity performance on a Sunday."

He then explains that he himself was very keen to have this written into the original Bill, but by common consent and the will of both management and unions it is agreed that this matter should be left to private negotiations between them.

I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, would have been Present, but to-day in his full-dress rehearsal for the Eugene O'Neill play which begins a week to-day. It was impossible for him to be here in person but he has written to me, and I could not possibly answer some of of the doubts and give some of the reasons behind this Bill more adequately and eloquently than in the way he writes in his letter. If your Lordships will bear with me, I should like to read a passage or two from his letter. He begins by saying:

"I will never forget during the war, how appalled I was by the sight of soldiers on leave having absolutely nothing to do on the Sunday except go to the pubs or sec a movie at the local cinema. What they saw at the local on the Sunday night was always a specially cheap old film that the cinema could foist on to these captive audiences."

I am not saying that that is the contemporary situation, but the noble Lord is recalling that he became concerned about this first of all during the days of the Second World War. He continues:

"There was a big movement afoot to open theatres on Sundays to look after these fellows a hit and the people in favour tried hard to sell the idea to the membership of my profession, at least as a wartime measure and to feel, if you like, that this was part of their war effort, but so strong-ingrained was the feeling of affectionate tradition regarding the famous English Sunday, that we did not succeed."

Lord Olivier goes on to make what I think is a very important point; namely,

"If the Sunday Observance Society had been strong enough to keep pubs closed on the Lord's Day and the cinemas shut also, not to mention Sunday concerts, the English Sunday would at least have consistency.

"But I do think the times of performances on Sunday should be restricted to between the beginning of the usual matinee time and the usual end of the evening performance time, and it must of course be"—

taken for granted that the free day will exist. He says:

"I think from every realistic point of view, from that of good business to that of employment, we must now bring the theatre within legalised Sunday entertainment."

He talked about fair play for our live theatre on a Sunday. He has expressed himself as a family man, and indeed in his last passage he writes:

"Perhaps I am strengthening my case a little by declaring that this is not to my own personal advantage, in fact being a family man, very much the reverse as it will indeed be to any professional person who is a parent, but cardinal in the nature of our business is that our work is other people's play."

I think that last paragraph expresses the generosity of Lord Olivier's personal character. Of course he does not want to work on Sunday, and neither does his talented and distinguished actress wife. They want a free day on Sunday. Who does not? But the theatre, like so many other occupations, is casual in its labour. There are times when there is no work at all—alas! far too many times. There are times when, although their main contract may be for a six-day week, those employed, want to be free, if an offer comes along from television, a charity show, perhaps a seaside performance, to take on this extra work.

I have talked about our great repertory companies. Most of the young people engaged in them are underpaid, and often have to starve for years. The lazy ones are weeded out, because it is no good just being Daddy's girl, or Mummy's boy. You may have influence to get your start, but you will not get very far unless you have staying power, and unless you can accept the disciplines of the training. I think almost without exception the young ones are eager for Sunday opening. Some of them say, "Normally when we travel on a Sunday it is the fish or us." Sunday is not an ideal day for travelling, so even in terms of their personal convenience they would see some advantages in the theatre opening on Sunday.

Another important point is that if the live theatre is not only to survive but to flourish, it must attract a wider audience. After all, at the beginning of the century there were the music halls, and not only in the large cities; there were concert halls even in the smallest towns. In fact, my playground as a child was a music hall. I owned it and everything around it, in the way a child owns everything. Actually, my father managed it, my great uncle owned it, my grandmother owned the hotel, and my mother managed it, so that the whole world I surveyed was my world. It was very common at one time for there to be a lively music hall where there would be folk music, sentimental plays, old-fashioned plays, D'Oyly Carte and the visiting opera companies. But the cinema came, together with radio and television; and since then our little theatre has had a very bad time indeed. Most of the theatres have either vanished or been converted into cinemas, and many of the cinemas have now been converted into bingo halls.

We are not engaged in banning people from the leisures that they choose, but what civilised society must surely do is to give a diversity of choice. If anyone wants bingo, then good luck to him! If anyone wants to go to a good old do "in his local pub, then good luck to him, too ! But I hope that no one will encourage my friend and colleague Lord Longford to go to some of our Midland clubs on a Sunday. They are not vulgar; they are bawdy—and there is a big difference. All we are asking is that we do not take away from anyone what gives him pleasure. and that we should encourage our living theatre, the best of our actors and actresses. And I am not talking only of high drama or opera or ballet; I am talking about the family that goes for a holiday at the seaside. What guarantee have they that it is not going to be wet on a Sunday evening; and why should this one form of entertainment be denied to them? They can go and get drunk in a pub if they want to; they can go to a sleazy night club, or to a cinema, good or bad; but they cannot go to a living theatre. That seems so wrong. Many of your Lordships have an enthusiasm, which I do not share, for going into the Common Market. On the Continent they think we are crazy to have our theatres closed on a Sunday. In this island we depend for our livelihood on attracting as much tourist trade as we can, but visitors from abroad, as well as our own people, coming to the cities for a week-end find that the theatres arc closed on a Sunday.

I am not going to go into the details of this Bill, which is a very simple one. This is only the Second Reading, and there will be ample time for any legal points to be raised. Furthermore, there are other Members of your Lordships' House, with a lifelong knowledge of the theatre, who will contribute. I just want to say this. For me, in my childhood, Sunday was the best day of the week and it was the day we looked forward to. For us, it was both a holiday and a holy day. My father was a deeply religious man, not in a narrow sense, but not as one who belonged to any particular Christian denomination. If you had to put a label on him, he was a humanist. But he worked very hard for his trade union' movement and in the Labour Movement, trying to help his fellow-men in the fight against poverty and in the attempt to get a better life. Sunday was the day that we were with our father. It was a family day. But there was no reason why you should not go to a Socialist Sunday School and hear the ten Socialist commandments. or go to the Methodist chapel, to the Catholic church, or to the Jewish synagogue. One thing does not exclude another. But I feel that Sunday is the family day, providing an opportunity for old and young to enjoy themselves, together or separately. There is surely no reason at the present time why families should not be able to go to the theatre together. You might ask: what about the other nights of the week? But more than ever these days men and women do not leave their work at the factory door. At the end of the days' work they have to get a bus, a train or a car home, and life is such that, by the time they have earned their living and have got home and cooked themselves a meal and done a bit of cleaning up, very often all they want to do is to put their feet up and look at the television.

I am not speaking in opposition to television, but I would say this about it. We are told,

"A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deep or leave it alone."

I say the opposite about television. I say that a little television is not a dangerous thing, but that to drink deep and have too much of it, and too continuously, especially where children are concerned, is a dangerous thing. Indeed, there is a danger of the "telly" becoming a substitute for the old-fashioned dummy teat: the way to keep the children quiet is just to sit them in front of the "telly". But there is a revolution beginning in our schools, which I think will come to the rescue of the theatre. Particularly in the primary schools, children are being given a sense of movement and drama and design. These will be the theatre-goers of the future, and the theatre of the future will be what we care to make it; there are fashions in the theatre, as there are in everything else. Surely it is better that, instead of thinking of a nation sitting like fascinated rabbits for hour after hour watching television, there should be a diversity of choice. They should have all the television they want, especially if they are very tired and their feet are sore and they cannot go out. But if at the week-end the old and the young want to go out to the enchantment, excitement and stimulus of the living theatre, then they should be able to do so. I hope that we in this House feel that we are no enemy of any man's religion; that we do not want Sunday to be the same as any other day of the week; that we want Sunday to be a day of rest, a day of refreshment and recreation, but that we want it to be a happy day, a holiday, as well as a holy day.

This is a simple Bill. It has nothing to do with sport, or with the fear that some people have of a great deal of congestion and noise. We can leave those questions entirely aside. I am simply asking your Lordships to be good enough to agree that this ban on the live theatre on a Sunday is an anachronism, and that the time has now come when, in the interests of employment, in the interests of the living theatre, in the interests of that vast talent that we have in our theatres, and in the interests of the enlargement of life, it should at last be lifted. My Lords, I beg to move.

My Lords, I hope that it will be acceptable to your Lordships if I now repeat the Statement that has been made by my honourable friend the Minister of State to the Department of Employment. The Statement is as follows: "With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the future of the public employment service. My right honourable friend has to-day made available in the Vote Office and through the Department's local offices copies of a Report entitled People and Jobs which outlines a programme for modernising the Employment Service. This programme is based on a review my right honourable friend has been making of all the Department's manpower services. We acknowledge the debt we have owed during that review to earlier work on the Employment Service including the comments received from many individuals and organisations on the Consultative Document of May, 1970.

"The Employment Service has important economic and social functions. It has responsibilities for improving the operation of the labour market and for helping people who have difficulty in finding or keeping satisfactory employment. The present service is undoubtedly doing good work in both these respects; but for largely historical reasons it is not able fully and effectively to meet the many and varied needs of employers and workers in a modern labour market.

"Accordingly the Government is making major changes in the way the service is organised and run. These are set out in detail in the Report. The main changes are: First, the Employment Service is to become a departmental agency—that is, a self-managing unit within the Department of Employment. A newly appointed Chief Executive will be directly responsible for the efficient performance of the service.

Second, the staff and offices dealing with placing and other employment work, on the one hand, and administration of unemployment benefit, on the other, will be separated and unemployment benefit will be paid by post.

Third, job self-service and vacancy displays will be extended to all local employment offices, and the staff and training requirements of advisory interviewing work will be thoroughly reviewed.

Fourth, a new network of attractively designed well located employment offices will be developed.

Fifth, plans for re-styling the pro. fessional and executive register and charging employers for the service will be urgently followed up.

Sixth, a new division of responsibility between the Department of Employment and local authorities will be established for giving careers guidance and a placing service for young people.

"As the House will realise, it will not be possible to make all these changes overnight. The Chief Executive, supported by a management team which has been freed from responsibilities for day-to-day work, will be responsible for carrying out the modernisation programme as quickly as practicable in full consultation with staff and other interests concerned.

"The Government is determined to carry through this programme with all urgency, and believes it will provide the positive and dynamic public service which is required as an effective instrument of manpower policies in modern employment conditions."

My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating what is an extremely important Statement, and one which really will be very significant in the field of employment. I am grateful, too, for the noble Lord's acknowledgement of the previous work done. These proposals are, as he said, based on the Consultative Document of the previous Government. and I only wish the noble Lord had referred to the part of my right honourable friend Mrs. Barbara Castle, who brought energy to bear on this matter.

Although I have given a broad welcome to this Statement, the fact remains that I am disappointed that the Government have taken so long to make it. I can only conclude that they were so busy with the Industrial Relations Bill that that took priority; and I would ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that, as we pointed out in the debate on industrial relations, the saving of even a single day in placing each person unemployed would in total exceed the number of days lost through strikes. We gave the noble Lord these figures during the debate, and my noble friend also has them. If the noble Lord works it out, he will find that this is so. Therefore the highest priority is necessary; and all the more so while unemployment is running at its present level. I will not enter into a discussion on that now, but the need for a much more highly-geared employment service is very great indeed. I note that the noble Lord said that a new management team is going to look at the setting up of the organisation. I am glad to see that the same concept of semi-hived-off. management by objective style and accountable management style organisation is to be set up. Intending no reflection on the excellent work previously done, I would say that it will need to take on a rather different image; and I am sure the noble Lord will acknowledge that.

May I ask the noble Lord how far the discussions with the staff side have gone? I would have hoped that in the seventeen months that have elapsed since this Government came into office we might have gone a lot further along the road. My main complaint is that these proposals are not as sweeping as ours were. But, as I said, I give the Statement a welcome. I urge the Minister to use his influence to press on as hard as possible, and possibly even look at some of the devoted work which was done, both in the Department of Employment and Productivity and, indeed, in other Departments, on this subject.

My Lords, I slightly deprecate the rather grudging welcome from the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition. The prodigal son was welcomed home, not chided for being late when he came home. It is so rare to get something very good from this Government that we must welcome it indeed. From these Benches I should like to welcome it wholeheartedly, and to say how particularly important think the separation of the administration of unemployment benefit will be, and the payment of unemployment benefit by post, and also the careers guidance for young people. The only question I would ask is, I think, an important one. Would the Minister care to comment on the one really important subject which is not mentioned in this Statement at all? Surely almost the most important job of the Department and of the service will be channelling people into retraining—which is so important, as we on these Benches have been pointing out, at this particular moment, with the large amount of unemployment that exists. There is no mention of this at all in the Statement. I wonder whether the noble would like to repair the omission.

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will not mind me—

Is the noble Lord going to answer?

I will willingly answer, but I thought it might be convenient if so distinguished a noble Lord as the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, were to speak first. If the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, would prefer it, and thinks it is more in accordance with the usual custom, I will of course answer his points now.

My Lords, I am bound to say that I am in a difficulty and I apologise to the House that I should be at a Committee of the House; but it is customary, I think, to answer the first two speeches before the points get lost. I fully agree with the noble Lord's comments about the importance of any contribution which will come from my noble friend.

Then perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, will allow me to reply now: I shall listen to his contribution later. My Lords, I am very grateful for the way in which this Statement has been received, and for the recognition of its importance. I fully recognise this is an urgent matter. On the other hand, I think I am bound to point out that, in the nature of the case, the whole body of these proposals will take some time to work out. But I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that, as I have said, the Government are determined to proceed with all possible haste in these matters. I am sorry if he thinks that the acknowledgement in the Statement was in any way grudging. I am not sure that it is always necessary to refer to personalities in these matters, but I thought the acknowledgement was—

Better than most.

—better than most.

The noble Lord asked about the discussions with the staff side. Of course, these mainly relate to the matters affecting the employment of staff, and these will arise mainly in the sector dealing with separation. In the nature of the case, this is bound to proceed slowly. So far as the general question of the staff's duties is concerned, the management has been set a goal for its proposals: that they should be completed by October of next year; and that will, I hope, give adequate opportunity for discussions with the staff side. I am also glad that the noble Lord welcomed the management team. It is, I think, a good team. It is a small one, I believe, and it has representatives from outside the Department as well as from inside.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for his remarks. He asked about channelling people into retraining. I fully agree with him on the importance of this work, and this is something that has not been overlooked in any way. The occupational guidance service which was set up during the term of office of the Party opposite is already dealing with something like 45, 000 people a year, and it is expected that this number will increase very considerably. The advice given to those who come to the employment board will certainly include advice on the retraining facilities that are available. As the noble Lord will understand, the actual training does not come immediately into this Statement, but advice about what is existing does.

My Lords, while we may agree with the noble Lord that the method of payment, the method of training and the method of placing is very important, I think we ought to keep a sense of proportion about this matter. In a situation where there are almost a million unemployed people we are at this stage almost in the realm of theory. If any message at all were to go from this House to the other place, I hope that it would be a message about the urgent need to do everything possible to relax the overall economy, so that we can get the size of this great army of unemployed labour down to proportions where the proposals may have some meaning.

My Lords, I fully take the noble Lord's point, but I think that in this regard Lord Shackleton's point was also relevant, and the more quickly we can get people into the jobs available as they arise the better. The whole object of this exercise is to get the needs of the employers, for jobs to be filled, and those of the workers, to find jobs, satisfied as efficiently and as quickly as possible.

My Lords, it would obviously be a great convenience if the payment of unemployment benefits were made by post. But what is going to happen in the event of disputes as to the entitlement amounts? These will be quite numerous, and I wonder whether the noble Lord has any specific arrangements in mind for dealing with this matter.

My Lords, the noble Lord says that these arrangements will be quite new. They have been in operation already in the Greater London area and I am not aware of any particular difficulty arising through mistakes in payments. But I will make inquiries and let the noble Lord know.

My Lords, I endorse what was said by my noble friend Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath and I agree with him that one must see this matter in the perspective of the present unemployment situation. I am also mindful of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. Nevertheless I am bound to ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, whether he would not agree, after this delay of 17 months, that the proposals which were put forward on a consultative basis by the former Government have not been developed or expanded during this lapse of time; that rather, so far as one can judge from the Statement made, they have been substantially diminished? Would he not agree, for example, that the proposal for a network of manpower centres, which was a feature of the Consultative Document, does not have a place in the present proposals? I do not think that the new employment offices to which the noble Lord referred are intended to cover the ground of the manpower centres. Would he not further agree that these proposals appear likely to be giving, over a fairly wide field of employment, a further lease of life to fee-paying agencies? I take the point, of course, that in respect of professional persons the Department is to seek to take over this work; hut, as I understand it, in the remaining fields of industry the fee-paying agencies, where they exist at the moment, will have a further lease of life. Lastly, would the noble Lord say whether it is intended to make the careers guidance work mandatory on local authorities?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, asked about the comparison between what is proposed here, what is to be brought into operation, and what was proposed by the Labour Government. I think, my Lords, that to a large extent it is a matter of nomenclature. What was to be done by the manpower centres is, I understand already being worked out. For example, there is the computer service for vacancies circulation in London; the experiment that has been made in Birmingham, and the extension of that experiment to some ten cities in the coming year. There are also the proposals for manpower intelligence which will be brought within the duties of the manager of each employ ment exchange. It will be for the management team to decide how best to coordinate those. So far as the question of a fresh lease of life to fee-paying agencies is concerned, I must make clear that the Government do not envisage any kind of monopoly of the services in this area. Nor would it be posible for them to give the variety of services that are required, both by employers and also by employees, if they did envisage a monopoly. My Lords, the last question which the noble Lord asked was about the new employment service and whether it would be mandatory. This is a matter which my right honourable friend is going to discuss with the local authority associations. He has not yet made up his mind about it.

My Lords, I am very concerned about this problem because I am probably one of the few who have "signed on the dole" for years and wondered why. I have discovered, in the years that have passed by, that unless there is sufficient investment inside industry there is no hope at all of curing the unemployment problem. I have discovered that, following the investment, following the provision of the necessary money, you must have the necessary skilled employees. That brings me to the question: is the present employment exchange, which we used to call the unemployment exchange, sufficiently able to obtain the necessary skilled labour which would warrant the necessary investment in industry? The unskilled labour in any country—make no mistake about this, my Lords—is completely dependent on two things: first, money, and secondly, skilled labour. It seems to me that the question posed to the House is whether independent selective employment agencies can supply the skilled labour better than State-controlled employment agencies. I do not know the answer to that. If the State can supply the skilled labour, let it say so. If the independent agencies can supply the skilled labour, let it not be denied. Because we have to decide which of these can supply the skilled labour before we get the investment. If we then decide how to get investment in this country. we shall resolve a lot of problems. I have heard many arguments lately about whether we should have foreign capital in this country, and whether we should have the highest concentration of capital inside the country or whether we should not. I think that we must attract the capital inside the country before ultimately deciding what is to be done about labour. Having got the capital, we must then get the skilled labour. If we are to exclude the independent people who really got the skilled labour inside this country—

Order!

My Lords, I will give way for a reply.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I began to think that perhaps he was going a little further than we generally go in putting a point after a Statement had been made. Perhaps I could reply simply in this way. In this Statement we are not really concerned with the actual supply of trained labour; we are concerned with the means of bringing together the employer, whoever he may be, and the possessor of that skilled labour. The view that I expressed in response to a question asked earlier was that in discharging this task we need to call upon all available agencies. The employer may himself prefer to advertise directly for his requirements; he may prefer to do so through an employment agency, or he may prefer to go to the employment exchange. The object of these proposals is to encourage him to prefer to go to the employment exchange, and to put down his requirements and notify his vacancies there. The difficulty in the past has been that employers have not been notifying as many of their vacancies as we should like. We hope that in future it will be possiable for them to double the number of vacancies that they notify.

My Lords, I accept that argument. I was not aware that I was arguing against it. We must encourage people to go to the labour exchange; but the fact is that they have been encouraged by events to go elsewhere. Is the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, suggesting that we ought to exclude all the outside agencies who bring skilled labour into contact with the money which is necessary for the development of industry? His argument must surely be—and I am sure this is the view on this side—that if we cannot bring together the skilled labour and the necessary investment there is no hope for the future. Surely what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is arguing now is that we should encourage all vacancy notifications to come within a certain ambit.

Order!

My Lords, may I ask a question? I must at least be allowed to ask a question. Is it suggested that if employers who want skilled labour make a different approach from the State-controlled one suggested by Lord Drumalbyn—if they go to the independent people who bring together investment and labour—this is wrong?

No, my Lords; I have tried to suggest the contrary. We want to use all available agencies possible in order to match those offering jobs with those seeking jobs. What I said was that we think that the employment exchanges, after 60 years in more or less the same pattern, could he modernised in such a way as to attract a greater share of the employers to notify vacancies to them, so that they could place a greater proportion of the employees in work.

My Lords, may I ask a further question? Is the noble Lord advocating the eradication of all the employment agencies except the State-controlled ones? It seems to me that that is what this argument leads to.

No, my Lords. I was merely saying that we do not think the employment exchanges do as large a share of the work as they could do.

My Lords, after listening to the various contributions that have been made, am I to assume from the Statement that all the employment exchanges are to come within the ambit of the main employment exchange? Is that to be the position? Or will there be the employment exchanges with this proposal additional to them? The noble Lord said that the Government want other sectors who may he able to help. I have recently seen on Tyne-Tees Television advertisements of certain vacancies in Newcastle and the surrounding area. This is a means of advertisement which could be of some assistance: and if more of this were done it might help.

My Lords, I hope I have made it clear—I have endeavoured to do so—that there are three main ways of recruitment. One is by the employer advertising directly: the other, is by going to private exchanges, and the third is by using the employment exchange. We do not intend to cut off any of those three sources. We want to improve the last.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—

Order!

My Lords, I am going to insist.

My Lords, if I may speak for just a moment, there is a great deal of additional Business on the Order Paper. The noble Lord has already spoken—

My Lords—

Order!

My Lords, I am still on the original question. I am in order. I am asking the question now. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that not enough work is going to the labour exchange, which is where it should be going. I am asking whether there is a reason for this. I am asking whether the labour exchanges are sufficiently capable of dealing with this problem. If they are, does the problem of the outside agencies arise? But this problem does arise; and it increases unemployment.

Order!

My Lords, I have a right to ask this question. I do not care how many agencies we have so long as they help to decrease unemployment. I am going to follow that particular line.

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with the answers I have given because I do not see how I can add to them. I am sure that he will read this paper, People and Jobs, and then perhaps we could discuss the matter further.

My Lords, I conclude by saying that, with a million unemployed, I am not at all sure that any agencies are satisfactory. But I shall pursue this question at a future date.

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

Since the war, much has been done to encourage the writing and production of plays. The reputation of the British theatre to-day stands very high. Visitors from overseas have paid many well-deserved compliments to the standard of acting, of writing and of production. We can take pride in the fact that artistically the theatre is flourishing to an extent that has not often been achieved in the past. But while the tourists and the visitors turn up at the box office in their thousands, we have not yet done enough to attract British audiences. Cinemas have been open on Sundays in most cities and towns for many years now; and a wide variety of television programmes are available on three channels. These newer media (partly perhaps because they are newer) are privileged in comparison with the theatre, and in a way that is contrary to the best interests of the Arts.

The live theatre must draw audiences —domestic audiences as well as visitors —and at times that are convenient for the widest possible theatre-going public. As the noble Baroness reminded us, not everyone has the time, even perhaps the energy, to get to the theatre after work in the evening. Things are more leisurely on Sunday, and there seems little doubt that if plays could be performed on Sundays they would attract a bigger audience than on Mondays, and perhaps than on some other days of the week, too. This can only be in the interests of a healthy theatre, in close contact with and appreciated by as many people as possible.

The noble Baroness referred to the fact that her Bill does not specifically lay down that no one employed in the theatre should work for more than six days out of every seven. Such an omission would not, I think, find favour with many of your Lordships if the promoters could not tell us that they have discussed this with the unions concerned, and that in their view satisfactory arrangements and safeguards can be made. The Government see no objection to a Bill of this kind without a clause on seven day work, because we believe that it is desirable, wherever possible, to regulate terms and conditions of employment by means of voluntary collective bargaining rather than by statutory provision. I understand that this will be the case here, and no doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, will give us such information as she can on this matter as the Bill progresses through your Lordships' House.

But, my Lords, this Bill is not only about the theatre and those who work in it. It is also about Sunday, a day of worship for some and of rest for most. I doubt whether any of your Lordships would want Sunday to be the same as Saturday or as Monday. We may have a religious concern for keeping Sunday different; or our concern might spring from reasons of health, physical or mental, or just common sense. As the Crathorne Committee acknowledged. Sunday has a special character quite apart from its religious significance. So the arguments are very strong for keeping Sunday as a day of rest for the great majority. But inevitably some people have to work on Sundays to keep certain public services going. As an increasingly large proportion of the population have the opportunity to go out and enjoy themselves on Sunday, employment has to go on in all sorts of ways to provide for leisure activities—traffic control, garages, restaurants, pubs, park-keepers; all those whose work, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, which the noble Baroness quoted to us earlier, is "other people's play ".

My Lords, I do not believe that there is any chance that the Churches will be threatened by this Bill. if there was evidence to the contrary, the Government would want to think long and hard before declaring themselves to be even benevolently neutral. A man becomes, and remains, a Christian because he believes. If he does not believe, restrictions on the opening of theatres on Sunday seem hardly likely to encourage his conversion. In 1780, when the Sunday Observance Act was placed on the Statute Book, the relationship between the Churches and the people, between work and leisure, were very different from what they are to-day. Maybe an essentially modern obstacle to the propagation of the Christian faith can be found in the widespread ignorance that there is any reality that lies behind what we Perceive with our senses and apprehend with our reason. I hope it is not too high-flown to claim that the Arts can contribute to removing this ignorance. Good art has always taught men something true about the human condition.

Let us not, therefore, as we consider this Bill, make the mistake of setting up considerations of religious observance, on the one hand, and of leisure activities, on the other, as being in conflict with one another. They are not in conflict. They are part of the same continuous spectrum, the whole of which is illuminated—or is capable of being illuminated—by art. Of course, not all theatrical performances on a Sunday, any more than on any other day of the week, will measure up to these aspirations. But some will—make no mistake about that—as they do now, not only in the West End, but in other parts of the country as well. Others may do little more than make live performances available to people who at the moment can see drama only though the filter of the cinema screen or the television set. If we have faith in the theatre and its potential, as we should; if we take pride in its achievements, as we can, then it is difficult to see why the two-centuries-old restrictions on Sunday opening of theatres should survive for much longer.

It is for reasons of that sort, as well as those which I mentioned earlier, that I can congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, on her initiative in bringing forward this Bill, and assure her of the good will of those who sit on this Front Bench.

My Lords, I should like to give my support to this Bill, which I think is a major step forward. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, is not here this afternoon: he might find that A Long Day's Journey into Night is going on here too; but I will do my best not to add to that. As noble Lords have previously said, finding and planning the means of recreation for the country is going to be a growing problem. This is so regardless of the days we are talking about. If there is going to be growing technological unemployment, as many of us fear, the whole idea of recreation and its provision will require a great deal more thought than it has had in the past; and I think it is unrealistic to put up too many artificial barriers in the way of particular dates, times or places.

The theological problem is not, I think, a difficult one. In speaking of this, I was going to apologise for possibly pre-empting the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. But as we have both already been pre-empted by what seemed to me to be a very good theologi cal exposition by the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench, there is no need for me to follow him except to say that, as Christians, we have a duty to decide whether a measure put forward, as seen by us as Christians, is for the good of society; and if we do so judge that it is good for society, then it is no part of the Christian duty in any way to object to that merely because it might be inconvenient for Christians, as such. Christians are here to be at the service of the world for what is generally good, rather than to put barriers in the way from a selfish point of view.

I have one reservation, and one extra point of condemnation, on this Bill. The reservation is about not writing a six-day week into the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Lee, assured us about the amount of agreement that will go forward between Equity and the technical unions, on the one side, and the theatre managements, on the other. But she will not be unaware that the Government's Industrial Relations Bill has grievously weakened the position of Equity with regard to the employers. Many of her colleagues and many people on these Benches, and some people from the Conservative Benches, voiced fears during the passing of the Industrial Relations Act that it opened the way to fly-by-night managements who cannot have agreements forced on them by Equity. Nothing has happened since then to calm those fears. I know that it is likely to concern a minority of cases, but I believe that this is a point that we might well consider at a later stage of the Bill.

The extra thing which I believe to be in the Bill's favour is that it will allow increasing opportunities for the young in an already overcrowded profession, in that the spare day--Monday or whichever day it is—can well be given over to performances by members of Equity producing one-night stands without charging, as is sometimes done, or club performances on Sundays. This will be a very good vehicle for young people to gain experience and for the trying out of productions of one kind or another. I see this as a very valuable by-product of the Bill as it is drafted.

Lastly, I would say that, if I did have any doubts about this Bill, it seems to me that in judging the measures before us in a free society the burden of proof should be on those who wish to restrict freedom, and the assumption should always be in favour of freedom. I do not see that any burden of proof has been undertaken by anybody as to why these restrictions should have been made or, since they have been made, why they should be continued. I think it will be a very good thing indeed when they are taken off, and I hope that the Government will be able to sec their way to give this Bill a bit of a fair wind later.

My Lords, I must confess to a somewhat more tempered enthusiasm for the Bill than was exhibited by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, whichever of his collars he is wearing, because I do first of all speak positively, wishing to make my own the sentiments voiced by the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of York, from these Benches in 1965 when the Crathorne Committee Report was under consideration. If I may briefly quote him, he said:

"I welcome the case for the whole man which has obviously motivated the drawing up of this Report, and I welcome, as indeed the vast majority of Churchmen would. the desire to eliminate from the Statute Book anomalies and anachronisms in legislation which only bring the matter of Sunday Observance into ridicule. It is clear to my mind that those who served on this Departmental Committee had in mind that we must work for such conditions as will allow men and women to have, not a Sunday which is drab and boring, but one which provides for re-creation … of body, mind and spirit, for refreshment and renewal of the whole person. Such a day once a week is a very important factor— would say a vital factor—in the growth of men and women."

With those positive sentiments transferred from the Crathorne Committee to this Bill I would fully identify myself. I have nevertheless three reservations, which arc themselves based not on religious grounds but precisely on the ground which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, referred to, on the restriction of liberty. The first is my doubt as to whether there is in fact sufficient safeguard for those who do not wish to be compelled to work a seven-day week. When I say "compelled" I do not mean legally compelled, but compelled by those sorts of pressure which in a crowded profession exercise a very considerable pressure: the fear of losing work and pay through not competing with one's neighbours when everybody else is doing it, and often thereby having to accept roles which are uncongenial and undesired simply because the pressure of circumstances released by such a Bill would make it very difficult to resist.

My second scruple, when I read the Bill in its second form as compared with the first, was whether the local option was sufficiently retained. I find it hard to see where this is provided for in the No. 2 Bill. There was, for example, an expression of opinion on behalf of the Welsh Churches, that while agreeing in principle they would wish to see freedom for local opting out if relaxation took place, so that areas in Wales could be given local options. It would seem, my Lords, a very important part of all cultural legislation that we should recognise that the United Kingdom is a community of very varying cultural climate. One of our important considerations in such a representative House as this is to remember continually that London is not England and although the Bill does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland I still believe that there are many parts of the United Kingdom in England and Wales where the climate of sentiment would not so readily wish to avail itself. I want to be reassured that this draft of the Bill makes provision for local opting out in the way that I understood the first draft of the Bill to do.

Thirdly, I have scruples about the hour of 1 p.m. It seems to me too early. not because church services are affected—that position clearly is safeguarded so far as morning worship is concerned, and in any case that was not an aspect of the matter on which I should wish to dwell—but because of an entirely different matter, that of Sunday dinner. I believe that in many parts of this country the Sunday midday meal is one of the really few family occasions that remain, and this is vastly important at a time when more and more housewives arc themselves employed. I would regard it as a very sad restriction of the fullness of family life if, by encouraging a curtailment of that all-too-rare occasion when the family gathers as a family, we were to encourage that almost sacramental moment to be abandoned.

I listened most carefully to the very persuasive advocacy of this Bill by the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, and almost all my first scruple was removed. I recognise the force of what was said in the letter quoted from Mr. Emile Littler on behalf of the Theatres National Committee, of which she sent me a copy. I still think that there are real dangers in the kind of economic pressures in the overcrowded state of the theatrical profession which would make it very difficult for some people to resist having to take jobs in Sunday entertainment which on all other grounds they would wish they did not have to take. Clearly in a plural society such as ours the right of those who wish to worship is fully safeguarded in this provision which is made, but I should still like to ask the noble Baroness, when she replies, to give us some further assurance about local freedom to opt out in those areas of the country where the benefits of the Bill will not be so self-evident as they seem to be in other quarters. I should also like to know whether the early hour of 1 p.m. is necessarily the best, and whether all the positive advantages which this Bill envisages could not be met by a somewhat later hour of opening, allowing, as I suppose one must, for the large number of people who would have to be employed considerably before the formal hour of the beginning of the performance. That is the reason why my enthusiasm is somewhat tempered, though I should like nothing better than to find by the time the Bill has passed through all its stages that all my scruples have been satisfied.

My Lords, I should like briefly to support the Second Reading of this Bill. I was always a supporter of the Crathorne Committee's Report which I thought was very moderate, very balanced and very sensible. Your Lordships will remember the debate that we had on the Bill introduced by my noble friend, Lord Willis. I did not take any part in it, but I heard it all from the Woolsack. We had a number of Amendments moved at the Committee stage, and some on the Report stage. None of them succeeded on a completely free vote they were all defeated on their merits. I thought at the time that it was remarkable that this quite substantial Private Member's Bill should leave this House exactly as it arrived.

Tonight we are dealing only with a small part, the theatre. This has always in the past suffered under a disadvantage. The Crathorne Committee said, in paragraph 84 of their Report:

"In principle, we could find no justification for treating theatres and variety entertainment differently from cinemas and music and the figures we quoted in paragraph 50 show that, even if all the theatres opened on Sunday, the increase in Sunday employment would be only a small fraction of 0·6 per cent. of all employed persons."

After dealing with possible objections the Committee came to the conclusion that this was a course which ought to be taken. It is now a long time since the cinemas, or most cinemas, opened on Sundays. The theatre has always been under this very unfair handicap. Of course, you could have 40, 000 people at Brand's Hatch, or watching "Sunday night at the London Palladium "which was about the most popular feature of the week on television. It really was absurd that you could not see the show being performed at the Palladium, if it was at the Palladium, or in the studio, if it was in a studio.

I do not want to take up any time about this. I agree that we must at a later stage consider the position of Equity. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that the Industrial Relations Act has weakened the position of actors and actresses in relation to theatrical managers. However, we shall be able to satisfy ourselves that we can meet that position. The House may remember that in Appendix D of the Crathorne Committee's Report it was shown that when the then 11,000 members of Equity were asked. "Are you opposed to the Sunday opening of theatres under any conditions? ", only 401 members replied, "Yes ". With those few words I commend the Second Reading of the Bill to the House, and hope that, under the guidance of my noble friend Lady Lee, it may do well both in this House and in the other place.

My Lords, I am very glad from these Benches to support the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, and indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, in bringing forward this Bill; and I congratulate the noble Baroness in the way that she did it. Although what I have to say represents purely personal views, I must declare an interest inasmuch as I have always been interested in the theatre. I helped to found the English Stage Company at the Royal Court, and I am now President of the British Drama League, and also of the Chichester Festival Theatre, of which the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, was the first Director. Although on this occasion I am not speaking on their behalf, I have none the less a strong impression that the Bill receives the support of the great majority of the 4, 000 members of the British Drama League. Some of these members represent societies and drama organisations which make a total of probably around 20, 000 people.

Most of the Drama League week-end courses and summer centres already take place on Sundays. In many cases Sunday is the only day of the week in which people are able to involve themselves in such activities. I also have the impression, both from the correspondence I have received and from what I have heard from noble Lords this afternoon, that this Bill has the support of a majority of the British theatrical profession as a whole. In regard to Chichester, if I may speak about what I know, we have regular Sunday night celebrity concerts which are allowed to include such highly theatrical events as Emlyn Williams as Dickens, or Micheal Mac Liammoir as Oscar Wilde, both productions in costume. Sometimes there are even "pop" musical events on these Sunday nights.

It seems to me quite nonsensical, even ludicrous, that people may do almost everything else on a Sunday—look at the television, go to the movies, listen to concerts or readings—yet are not able to visit the living theatre. I am not committing the Chichester Board in any way by speaking this afternoon. They will decide on their merits whether they should close on Sunday or on Monday. They should have freedom of choice, and, I should like to say to the right reverend Prelate, freedom to opt out if they wish to do so.

Like the noble Baroness, and others who have spoken, I am of the firm opinion that since cinemas have the right to open seven days a week, the theatre should be allowed to do so too, or at least should have the right to choose which days it opens. It may be that many theatres would like to close on Mondays as on the Continent. No-one is suggesting that artistes should be expected to perform seven days without a day off. A free day is essential, and on this I agree with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Olivier. Having spent over five years of my working life in Paris—and it was a very hard-working period—I know that the one evening a week when my wife and I felt free to go to the theatre was on a Sunday. I know, too, that in this country overseas visitors would welcome this facility.

The theatre is the servant of the people. If the public want to be entertained at the weekend—as they certainly do on the Continent and in all the countries within the European Community which we are shortly to join—and as from television viewing figures, even in this country, it would seem that they also wish to be entertained on Sundays, I feel that the theatre should be able to accommodate them. With great respect to the Lord's Day Observance Society, there are many worse things that people might be doing on Sunday evenings than going out to the theatre. Chichester is a well known cathedral city. Our own right reverend Prelate is on the council of our theatre trust. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester has not, to my knowledge, objected to any of the activities that I have already mentioned as taking place on Sunday evenings—indeed, I know that he welcomes many of them. And, pace what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol has said, I cannot believe that our own Bishop would object. Nor do I think that his predecessor, the right reverend Dr. George Bell, who was greatly interested in the theatre, would have objected; and I knew him very well indeed. Most of us understand the point about restricting the activities of commercialised sport, but it does not apply to activities that do not interfere with others. My Lords, I gladly support the noble Baroness in introducing this Bill.

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

My Lords, would the noble Viscount allow me to speak on one correction of fact, or would he prefer me to wait until the end of the debate? I have been in con; tact with Equity officials this morning, and they have no objection to this Bill provided that negotiations take place directly between Equity and the managements.

My Lords, I would suggest to your Lordships that this is a matter on which people do not lightly change their opinions, and, as I said a moment ago, two years ago there were at least 200 artists asking Equity to oppose the measure. The noble Baroness also mentioned the support that she has for her Bill from the licensees and theatre managers. I should like to read to your Lordships a letter from one licensee and manager, written to the Evening News on March 6, 1969:

"As the Licensee and Manager of the historical Theatre Royal, Haymarket, I agree with all my heart with John Lambert's views on Sunday opening …

"To everyone who works in the theatre from check-takers and dressers to small part and leading actors Sunday is a blessed day, our one clay off, the only day we can spend in our homes with our children.

"And don't forget that we in the theatre work six days a week. What a splendid thing it would be for our country if everyone did the same. For decades we have worked all day Saturday giving pleasure to other's leisure. Who wants a Continental Sunday anyway?

"I believe it was our English Sunday that gave us the self-control and discipline that served us so well in times of stress. Today, especially, it is these qualities we cannot afford to lose.—Sylva Stuart Watson. Theatre Royal, Haymarket."

My Lords, I hope that I have said enough to show that there is a substantial minority of actors and actresses who are opposed to Sunday working because of the harmful effect on their families. The trouble about being an actor, I understand, is that one is away from home just at the time when one's children return from school; and one does not go to bed very early and may not be up in time to see them off to school the following morning. I would particularly ask at this time, when a happy family life is not easy to achieve, not easy for any of us, that we do not do anything which is going to detract from the family happiness of others. Let us not look to short-term profits but to long-term happiness. I must oppose this Bill and I hope that other noble Lords who share this view will support me.

My Lords, I should very much like to support this Bill and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, on introducing it. I am going to give your Lordships only a few of my personal views, so I shall not keep you very long. I have a good many friends in the theatrical world and I have spoken to a number of them about this Bill, not only now but in the past. Only a couple of days ago I spoke to a well-known producer, and his view was that, as Mondays are always bad days for the theatre, why should not the ordinary person, who has a holiday on Sunday, be able to go to a theatre on Sunday? Another friend, to whom I spoke quite lately, a well-known actor, told me that he thought the average actor or actress would like Sunday night opening, as Monday nights were always dreary and the theatre was almost empty. I am quite in agreement with the right reverend Prelate in saying that there ought to be an option and that we cannot expect people to work six days a week, but I think that Sunday opening might help a great many people. It seems a universal view among my friends that Sunday opening is something they are very much in favour of.

My next point concerns a personal observance of my own. I have only comparatively late in life lived entirely in London. I am a rather busy person, so I find that I go to the cinema or to a concert on Sunday because they are open, whereas the live theatre, which I love, is not. I am astonished at the queues of people outside every cinema both for the afternoon and for the evening performances, not only in the West End but far afield—in Chelsea, Kensington, Putney and so on, and one has usually to queue or to go to two or three cinemas before one can find a seat. Why should they be allowed to go to a cinema or concert and not to the live theatre?

I read through the Crathorne Report on The Law on Sunday Observance, and I found nothing in the Report against the opening of theatres on Sunday—in fact quite to the contrary. Add to this, as we all know, that T.V. goes on from morning to night and that many families look at it all day and all evening, what is the difference between this and going to the theatre? It is true that some of the T.V. performances are recorded before Sunday, but many programmes are transmitted live, and by not opening the theatre until after 1 o'clock no one is prevented from attending service in their church. Like the right reverend Prelate, I feel that the theatres should not open before 1 o'clock, but I doubt whether they would open at that time because the people concerned might want to have something to eat before the performance started. It seems to me to be quite ridiculous that an Act of 1780 should prevent the public from seeing a stage play or a variety performance on Sundays when they can visit any cinema, drink in a public house, watch television or, should they wish, visit a night club where a show is often prevented. It need not be pornographic to he entertainment. I urge your Lordships to support this Bill.

My Lords, I think the whole House was deeply impressed with the sincerity with which the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, spoke just now. I would like to support him; and I do so, wishing to recall to your Lordships that, not for the first time, the label "progress" has been used to invoke a measure that is in fact essentially retrograde. And merely to denounce an Act because it was passed in 1780 seems to me to be a strange course of logic in a Parliament, some of whose rights date from Magna Charta itself.

No sensible person denies society's need of a regular interval or even day of rest for everybody. That is common ground. Pressure for, and acceptance of, the five-day week indeed demonstrates this. The question is whether this so plausible and so agreeably moved Bill really helps to bring that about. I am always happy when I hear the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, speak because of her and my associations not only with Scotland but with Lanarkshire, and I was particularly struck by the way she spoke in happy memory of Scottish Sundays at home. Surely that in itself was something of a demonstration that the tranquil Sunday, even though it is much maligned by Latins and others in Europe, is something special; and those of us who have had the privilege of being brought up to enjoy it, realise what a pleasure it is.

This Bill is based on the Crathorne Report and I question its logic. To say that because the Sunday Observance Act 1780 was intended for one purpose and, because that purpose no longer obtains in the plural society of to-day, therefore it, or as much as possible of it, should be repealed seems to me to be a non sequitur. For it may well he that this same Act, having served one purpose in one age, can serve another which is urgent in our contemporary society. In paragraph 48 Crathorne recorded that there was a wide spectrum of people who wanted Sunday, as the Report put it, "kept different" and as a day of leisure. The Report quoted the Churches and others not only as being against enforced worship and conformism—of course we are all against that in these days—but in favour of Sunday at least as a day of quiet and leisure and of the family, and in that regard I was particularly struck by the reference to the Sunday dinner made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. There must be many families up and down the country for whom, as he said, the Sunday dinner is almost sacramental in character. The point of the family being together on Sunday is something which indeed the Crathorne Report respected, and the question which I would ask and which, having answered for myself, causes me to oppose this Bill, is whether in fact this Bill is conducive or otherwise to the maintenance of Sunday as a family day of tranquillity.

Who really, if they are honest, would deny that Britain is rapidly becoming a nation of neurotics, thanks to a host of unwanted tensions? There is the breakdown of family life and loyalties; there is the spread of violence; there is the invasion of privacy, by noise, by smell, by the telephone—there are all sorts of other environmental distractions. And that brings me to the point posed so well, if I may say so with respect, by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. He said that Christians must ask whether such a thing as is envisaged here is good for society. That is the question that I have asked because I believe that to base all claims on an indiscriminate and unlimited freedom of the individual is not really possible. That freedom is only possible if it is nurtured and protected; otherwise its exercise degenerates from truly free will to the impossibility of doing anything else than of making one self-destructive choice after another.

My Lords, I believe that this Bill offers an extra distraction from quiet; and because, as a nation, we need to return to the conscious practice of tranquillity, which at its most rewarding and most productive level is indeed the practice of worship, I believe that the seemingly civilised, liberal and innocuous proposals of this Bill are indeed damaging and retrograde. It is too easy and too logical a step from the live theatre (with which of course we all have a deep emotional sympathy) to the big sporting events, league football, boxing and wrestling. And while I do not suggest that the supporters of the Bill at this moment of time would wish to see those invasions of Sunday, who knows whether this Bill, once given a Second Reading and once passed through all its stages in both Houses, might not be taken as a pretext for further incursions into our tranquillity? This harmless looking Bill is by no means the end of the story.

Because, therefore, it offends the principle of Sunday tranquillity; because thereby it distracts from family life and enjoyment; because I wish to see our people re-discover—as more and more "trendy" young folk are now learning to do—the pleasures of worship instead of the worship of pleasure, I call on noble Lords to think hard and to search their consciences well and truly before they support the Second Reading.

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot go along with my noble friend Lord Lauderdale in his opinion of this Bill. I had not originally intended to speak on the Second Reading, and I apologise for my intervention now. But I felt that I should be lacking in my responsibility as a Member of your Lordships' House if I did not give the noble Baroness's Bill a great welcome, since prior to joining your Lordships' House as a regular attender I worked in the world of theatre and ballet for 36 years. The years I have referred to were very happy ones for me, especially those that included the last ten years of the life of the late Sir Charles Cochran, when I had the honour to be his partner. During that time together we presented several big musical shows, as well as straight plays. If Sir Charles were alive to-day, I can tell your Lordships that he would have given this Bill his 100 per cent. support.

During his lifetime we had frequent discussions on Sunday opening in the theatre. I can also tell your Lordships that the late Sir Alan Herbert, the late Ivor Novello, and the late Andre Chariot, that brilliant impresario, with all of whom I worked in close association, would also have given the noble Baroness's Bill a great welcome—in fact would have given it unqualified support. I speak now in memory of the departed members—very great members—of the world of the theatre with whom in the past I have had the honour to be so closely associated. The noble Baroness told your Lordships that a Member of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, welcomes this Bill. This I know to be so. But the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, is not the only star who would welcome this Bill. Your Lordships would find the same, I am sure, if you referred to Sir John Clements. Sir Ralph Richardson, Mr. John Mills, and many other stars of first magnitude.

My noble friend Lady Ruthven of Freeland mentioned pretty fully the point about possible Monday openings. Monday has always proved to be a dead duck "so far as the theatre is concerned, unless you had, to use theatre parlance, a "smash hit "on your hands. So I suspect that a number of theatres might choose to close on Monday night, and in this way there will be no overworking of artistes or theatre staff. Anyhow, I am given to understand that Actors' Equity are not against Sunday openings and that any future negotiations between them and managements concerned will be conducted in a friendly way. The noble Baroness, Lady Lee, told your Lordships of the support this Bill has from the West End Theatre Managers' Association, an important body of the theatre, of which I was a member for many years, and I can confirm this.

With regard to the religious aspect of this Bill, I would say that it does not harm things at all. We can still go to church, and people need not work unless they wish to. I am in agreement with what my noble friend Lord Windlesham said, but I would go further and say that Sunday theatre opening would be of benefit both to members of the public and to the acting profession. Before I resume my seat I should like to say that I hope all noble Lords will give the noble Baroness's Bill their wholehearted support. In closing I would use just ten words of the late beloved Sir Alan Herbert, from a song in "Tough at the Top ", which was set to music so delightfully by Vivian Ellis and was presented at the Adelphi Theatre by the late Sir Charles Cochran and myself. The words are:

"This is not the end

This is but a beginning ".

With those ten words, my Lords, I welcome and strongly support the Second Reading of this Bill.

My Lords, as a Welshman, I came here this afternoon to speak against the Bill. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol told us that London is not England. I am sure he will agree with me when I say that England is not Wales, and that we have a very peculiar view of this question of Sunday. However, having listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, I found her speech so fair, so logical, that rather than speak against the Bill I am on my feet now to urge the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, not to divide the House to-night, but to see to it during the later stages of the Bill that the safeguards which were sought by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol are secured after which I am sure we shall find it a perfect Bill.

My Lords, I very much regret that I have not been able to be present throughout the whole of the debate on this Bill this was due to attendance in a Committee of the House. My only reason for intervening is to say to the House that we as a Party take up no attitude on this Bill officially from this Bench I am not advising those who happen to sit behind me to vote either for or against the Bill. There is a completely free vote so far as this Bill is concerned and so far as this Party is concerned. I am rather surprised to hear the speech of my noble friend Lord Maelor. I thought I should have to get up and disagree with him about the Welsh attitude, while agreeing with him that he knows perhaps more about North Wales and mid-Wales than I do. But I am rather shocked to hear the attitude he has taken up. Nevertheless, I am bound to say that I agree with that attitude as being a very sensible one. After all, this is a Bill that was passed in the last Parliament—very much the same sort of Bill indeed. It is, in my opinion, an improvement on the one that went through this House in the last Session and ran into difficulty in the other place. I believe that what has happened to the Bill now, taking out that part regarded as objectionable by many Members of the other place, will help the Bill on its way, I hope through both Houses. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has said. He cannot promise us any time for the Bill in the other place; nevertheless lie looked upon it with some benevolent neutrality. That is a well-known timeworn phrase, and we understand and respect it. So far as I am concerned—and this is my personal view—I am strongly of the opinion that this House ought to give the Bill a Second Reading, and I sincerely hope that it will get a Second Reading tonight.

My Lords, I have only one regret as this debate terminates, and that is that the noble Viscount, the Paymaster General, was not able to be with us earlier on, and we all know the reason why. We are very glad that he is well enough to come back to a more controversial part of your Lordships' proceedings later in the evening. But he was gracious enough to inform me before this debate took place that this was not a Party matter—and of course that is clear from both sides of the House. We began this debate with a great deal of goodwill from both Front Bench and Back Bench speakers. That goodwill has been very evident throughout the course of the debate. I was grateful indeed to the right reverend Prelate for putting down a number of points that he wanted considered. He was quite right to worry about safeguards regarding the seven-day week. This point was again brought forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and we know that Equity was weakened by the Industrial Relations Act. However, I can assure the right reverend Prelate and other Members of the House that it is not a case of waiting for an exchange of signatures between management and Equity after this Bill is passed; the exchange has already taken place. There is a firm understanding that no one will be expected to work seven days.

No one in the House is going to suggest, or has suggested in this debate, that religion is something for one day of the week and not for the other days. The faith we live by—and our faiths are very diverse in this House—must surely be something that is with us on seven days of the week. Therefore we come to the point about whether there is some kind of violation of the special quality of the Sabbath. I think not, at a time when, as has been said by so many in this debate, cinemas, television, and concerts are open. We surely cannot turn back the hands of the clock:

The old order changeth, yielding place to new."

My fellow countryman, the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, talked about the tranquillity of a Scottish Sabbath. I said that I had loved my Sundays. They were for me not just holy days hut happy days, but they were not tranquil. Most Sunday evenings I was present at vast, excited public meetings. Very often they were addressed by right reverend Prelates and ministers. One of them was a Member of another place for many years, the reverend Campbell Stephen. There was no conflict in the loyalty of many of our leading churchmen, who could be in a pulpit one Sunday evening and on a Socialist platform another, preaching what they believed was an essential part of the Gospel: that we must be concerned about oppression and the problems of the poor, and fight for greater social justice. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, would not disagree with me there. Though we have a special feeling in Scotland for the Sabbath, that Sabbath can be spent in very different ways.

The right reverend Prelate was concerned about local option. This is the Second Reading of a Bill; if your Lordships should, in your wisdom, care to give it an unopposed Second Reading, then there will be the Committee and other stages when all kinds of important points that have been raised in this debate can be looked into. For instance, the times,

"between the hours of three in the morning and one in the afternoon "

are not to be taken too literally. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, said in his letter that he thought it ought to be normal matinée time, 2.30 p.m., or whatever it is, which should be the time for the show to open if it is to be a normal performance. That is something we can look at. We all like our Sunday dinners. Talking about Sunday dinners, one bears in mind that our hospitals, our transport and a great deal of the life of a modern industrial community simply must be carried on on a Sunday, and we all accept that. Although no doubt it is a difficult problem if you are a railwayman, a coal miner or a hospital attendant and do not want to work on Sunday yet must do these things, you have to reconcile it with your own individual conscience. While we must have a tender, sensitive regard in a democratic community for the views of minorities, ultimately it must he the general consensus of opinion which becomes the law of the land.

I have listened with the greatest respect and understanding to the contribution made by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby. He feels deeply on this issue, but I ask him—and, as I say, "the old order changeth, yielding place to new "—as so many forms of entertainment (in my view many less worthy forms of entertainment) are now available on a Sunday, is there really a case for saying that the greatest and most distinguished actors in the profession should not be allowed to produce great plays? I know there would be other things, but I would ask him to consider the whole picture. Is his respect for Sunday really going to be belittled, or endangered, when we are living in an age of greater leisure, by people insisting at the weekends, Saturday and Sunday alike, that they want a diversity of ways in which to spend their leisure? But these are minor problems which should all be looked at when we come to Committee stage.

I was also reminded—I think it was by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley—of the "fly-by-night" managements who have to be watched. I entirely agree, and that is again something we can look at. I think the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, made a very fair point. He is an ornament and support of the Chichester Theatre, and at the same time of the Cathedral. He said that in that lovely city there was really no conflict of interest between the work of the cathedral and the contribution which that splendid theatre is making to the life of the place.

I do not want to detain your Lordships longer. It is quite true that the Crathorne Report concerned itself with sport as well as the theatre. I am rather relieved that we are not dealing with sport this afternoon, because it is quite true that many people are afraid of congestion and noise on Sunday. That would be a difficult issue, but it is irrelevant to our discussion. We are discussing simply whether or not there should be one law for cinemas, television, concerts and pub concerts, and another law for some of our most distinguished practitioners in the British theatre. I am not speaking for them all I quoted only from the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, because he is a Member of your Lordships' House and regretted his inability to be here this afternoon, but I could, like the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, give a long list. Practically all the leading actors and actresses with whom I have been in contact favour this Bill, although most of them view it in the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, views it: they do not think it is going to be any treat for themselves if they have to work on a Sunday, but they do feel that it is necessary in the interest of a first-class theatre and in particular of the younger members of the profession, for whom there will be greater opportunities and employment. The fact is that times change and we change with the times. I cannot feel that those of us who do care for having one day of the week different from the other days will be diminishing the value of the Sabbath if we say that this is not a day of compulsory gloom and a day of compulsory religion, but is a day which can be a day of happiness, of free choice, and a day when, if we cannot have the tranquility that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, talked about, we can at least have the tranquility of a happy conscience.

My Lords. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a

My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 22, at end insert—

"(3) The power to make orders under subsection (2) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and any instrument containing such an order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

My Lords, I must first express the sympathy of this side of the House with the noble Viscount the Minister. We are sorry to hear he has not been well, but we very much appreciate the trouble he has taken to come here to-day so that the Report stage can be dealt with. We are grateful to the noble Viscount for moving this Amendment, which, as he says, goes very much further than what he indicated in Committee, when he said, I think, that the Government would be prepared to lay such a measure before Parliament only if it dealt with Acts of a local nature. However, we are very grateful to the Government for meeting the points that were then made. I think that this Amendment, though perhaps better drafted, is virtually the same as Amendment No. 2 which I moved in Committee, and which the noble Viscount said he would look at; and I am very glad that he has moved this Amendment in the way in which he has. I hope this is an augury. The Committee stage ended with the Government accepting one of my Amendments, and they have now started the Report stage by accepting the spirit of another one. I hope this is a good augury for the future.

moved Amendment No. 2:

My Lords, it is not in my mind to go over the arguments that were produced in Committee. The arguments about the new Amendment, as opposed to the one whose place it takes, have already been ably put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I should like merely to say that we on these Benches still feel strongly that the Government should give way. We are not challenging them any longer, much as we disagree, on the principle of admission charges; what we are doing is asking that there should be some Parliamentary control.

There is one pertinent point which arose out of the Committee stage which should be raised now. One of the reasons why two trustees or past trustees of galleries and museums spoke against our Amendment at that time was that they wanted to retain the freedom of manoeuvre and negotiation between the trustees and the Government. Some of us on this side thought, "What freedom of movement?" After the complete giving way on this issue, what freedom of manoeuvre could they think was left to them? But an interesting clue to their thinking came when I re-read in the OFFICIAL REPORT the speech of the noble Lord. Lord Robbins. I refer to column 601 of December 6, 1971, where he said:

"Some people may ask: 'Why did you not resign? ' To that I would reply that I think the thought must have flitted through the minds of many members of those bodies, and it certainly flitted through my mind; but there was also vividly in our minds the fact that, in our judgment at any rate, some matters even more important than the matter of charges were at stake: and it is a well known and irrefutable proposition that you can commit hara-kari only once."

I do not question this attitude on the part of Lord Robbins. My question is not to him; it is to the Minister. May I ask what matters the Government have been raising with museums and galleries which raise issues much more important than these—so that trustees who might otherwise have thought of resigning do not do so because they wish to retain the option to commit hara-kari over something that they regard as more important? I think that this is a very pertinent question, because either there are these matters which are more important (in which case I suggest that we should know all about them, though this is possibly not the appropriate time or place) or there are not such matters—in which case I think we are entitled to say to people who ask that the freedom of negotiations be kept between the trustees and the Government: "After this Bill, what freedom of negotiation do you think you have left?" That is the one point that I wish to raise in strongly supporting this Amendment.

I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for the moderate way in which he introduced this new clause. I can understand his hope that the changes he has made will result in making this Amendment somewhat less objectionable than the one put on Committee stage; but I am afraid it is still a matter, we think, of very great importance that we should not have this reference to Parliament. I think it would introduce an unusual and, in many quarters that matter in the museum world, an unwanted and serious complication in the system of charging. It could certainly lead to delays that would endanger the Government's plan for financing museums. It is precisely those plans which are of more importance than the charges and therefore of more importance to a great many people in museums.

I must come to them in more detail in order to answer the reasonable question from the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. Perhaps. therefore, I may explain what the Government policy aims at in introducing these charges. We need this revenue as an appropriation in aid towards the cost of making good the large backlog in museum buildings, equipment and staff. The collection of the charges is therefore part of our long-term plan that is to say, the system itself has to be simple and it has to be sure and it must not be open to political debate at repeated intervals on any change of detail. This is part of the method by which we shall try to get the sums of money we need. I have made a calculation that over a period—and, of course, the shorter the better—at least £40 million is needed for the expansion of the national museums and galleries alone. I would assure the House that if these plans are not realised future Governments will find the museums unable satisfactorily to cope with the crowds that are coming. Programmes of this kind cannot be financed in isolation from the rest of the Government's capital commitments. The introduction of charges allows us to show those who are interested in other areas of Government expenditure that we are being fair—fair as between one art and another, and fair between the Arts and the social services. If these charges are to be a dependable element in the plan of museum finance, once Parliament has accepted them in principle—as it has done in both Houses —the details are best worked out within the normal relations of the museums and the Department concerned.

There is nothing new in putting that to your Lordships. The practice of charging as a means of obtaining an appropriation-in-aid is very common at Government-maintained buildings. In no case are these charges referred to Parliament. At the Tower of London the basic charge is 10p from October to March, and 20p from April to September. The revenue in 1970 was £490, 000 net, almost half the modest total that we want to get from the 18 national museums. The Labour Government, when they were in office, raised those charges. They did the same at Hampton Court where the scale is the same. The Labour Government charged children and pensioners at both these places 5p for each category, and I may tell your Lordships that that was the precedent we followed when we worked out our own scale. There are a great number of other palaces, historic buildings and ancient monuments where charges are made. There has never been an outcry against these charges, and no-one has ever argued that the scale should be laid before Parliament. The reason is obvious enough. The scales of charges are bound up with the size of the grant. They may often require minor amendments, and it is good management practice—I put this point to your Lordships—that the strategy be decided by Parliament and that the small matters of day-to-day management, changes and so on, are settled by the Government Department concerned and the people who run these institutions.

In the case of the national museums and galleries, reference to Parliament would I think be very inappropriate. I do not put much on the fact—but it is a fact—that the charges we propose are lower than those in other Government-maintained buildings which have not been referred. More important is that these charges are part of a very ambitious scheme of finance for the museums; and if, first, the original list, and then every time a change was made, once a year every year, it had to be laid before Parliament, the scope for uncertainty and delay is quite obvious.

During the Committee stage, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has reminded us, we heard two noble Lords oppose reference to Parliament, and I should like to quote what they said. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, said:

" … if it is a question of dividing the House on this extension of Parliamentary control I shall feel compelled to abstain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6/12/71, col. 602.]

The noble Lord said that out of his long and distinguished experience at the National Gallery. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook said (col. 605):

… speaking as a Trustee—and perhaps it is significant that only two of us who have spoken this afternoon are in that position and I think we are both in agreement-I should prefer our relationships to remain direct with the Minister, without the control by Parliament in between those three-yearly periods which these Amendments involve."

The noble Earl was of course referring to the statutory duty on museums to report to Parliament every three years, when, of course, if the Trustees want to come out in the open about any matter of this kind, they can; and they certainly do. Very rough things have been said in those reports, and I hope that, where necessary, they will continue to be said.

I do not wish to delay the Committee much longer on this, but, in short, I think it comes to the fact that the principle of charging is a political question. It is certainly something on which Parliament must vote. Parliament has voted in both Houses in favour of the principle. On the other hand, the details are not, we think, proper material for repeated Parliamentary scrutiny; first, because it is not done in other similar cases, and now because the result would be bad for the relations between the Government and the museums. That is one basic objection. The other basic objection is that the uncertainty about the yield of the charges, if they were, even at only annual intervals, brought back into the political arena, would compromise our financial plans. Therefore I would ask those of your Lordships who do think about the future of the museums to realise that there are these enormous difficulties ahead of us —matters on which a good many bodies of trustees are particularly exercised at this time. I would ask you to accept that we make a trial of the charging system as it is now proposed and then, after three years—I will speak to that on a later Amendment—we shall have a review; and we can then see whether the estimates that we on the Government side have made turn out to be right or wrong. But I do not think that this is a case where our normal practice should be broken and where charges in detail should be brought back to Parliament.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for his support and also to the noble Viscount, the Minister, for deploying his argument. But nothing the noble Viscount has said convinces me that this Amendment should not find a place in the Bill, if your Lordships so decide. The noble Viscount talked about delay, but the proposal is only that the statement shall lie on the Table for 40 days and be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. I cannot believe that the whole of his charging scheme would be put in jeopardy because of this. As I see it, assuming that the other place passes the Bill without too much delay, the Act will come into operation on April 1. The statement will then lie on the table for 40 days, and during the course of the year, if the Government find that they need to alter the charges in any way and agree this, either reluctantly or not, with the Trustees, at the end of that year it will come back to Parliament and before those changes are made it lies on the table for another 40 days. I cannot see that this is going to make for undue delay.

I also cannot understand the noble Viscount's objection to laying on the Table a statement of this kind. It has been done before. As I mentioned in Committee, in relation to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Bill, at the wish of the Trustees it was decided that if we wished to send a painting abroad, Parliament should be asked. If the Government told the Trustees, "We want to send the Leonardo somewhere because we are trying to do a particular trade deal, "and the Trustees replied, "We do not like it; the picture is far too valuable and far too fragile," and if the Government then said, "We cannot help that, we have to balance our payments, and the picture has to go ", they would then have to come to Parliament and Parliament would have to approve the proposed action. There is nothing wrong with that. It is not detracting from the Trustees' responsibility in any way.

To-day, in Amendment No. 1, the Government have offered to put an Order before Parliament when they wish to revoke any trust, and I am very glad that they have done so. Therefore the Government ate prepared to do it when it comes to pictures, and in the case of wills of dead people; but they are not prepared to do it when it affects living people and gallery-goers. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the arguments deployed by the Minister. This is a basic principle. He said that Parliament has approved this whole charging system. Parliament has approved the White Paper. The White Paper is not legislation. Furthermore, the White Paper is already out of date.