HC Deb 09 July 1984 vol 63 cc763-78

`(1) The Authority shall appoint:

  1. (a) an advisory committee for Scotland;
  2. (b) an advisory committee for Wales; and
  3. (c) an advisory committee for Northern Ireland.

(2) The person for the time being holding office as the member of the Authority appointed pursuant to paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 1 to make the interests of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, his special care shall be the chairman of the advisory committee appointed under this section for the part of the United Kingdom with which he is specially concerned.

(3) Subject to subsection (2), each advisory committee appointed under this section (in this section referred to as a "national committee")—

  1. (a) shall be so constituted, and
  2. (b)shall consist of persons selected by reference to such qualifications,
as in the opinion of the Authority would be appropriate for reflecting, so far as is reasonably practicable, the range of taste and interests of persons residing in the part of the United Kingdom for which the committee is appointed (in this section referred to, in relation to a national committee, as its area)

(4) Before appointing a person to be a member of a national committee the Authority shall satisfy themselves that he—

  1. (a) will have no financial or other interest in any advertising agency, and
  2. (b) will have no such other financial or other interest in advertising as is in the opinion of the Authority likely to prejudice his independence as a member of that committee;
and the Authority shall also satisfy themselves from time to time that each member of a national committee has not such interest as is described in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection.

(5) The function of a national committee shall be— to give the Authority, with respect to the conduct of their cable programme services for the area of their committee such advice as in the opinion of the committee would be appropriate for reflecting, so far as is reasonably practicable, the range of taste and interests of persons residing in that area.'.—[Mr. Wilson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Gordon Wilson (Dundee, East)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we may take the following amendments: No. 15, in clause 7, page 7, line 4 at end insert—

'(d) the extent to which the applicant or each applicant proposes, in an area where another language as well as English is in common use, to use a suitable proportion of matter in that language.'.

No. 24, in clause 10, page 10, line 20 leave out 'and' and insert— '(d) that any condition of any licence giving effect to matters considered relevant and paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (2) of section 7 above shall be adhered to; and'.

No. 150, in schedule 1, page 41, line 17 at end insert— '(lA) Three out of the members of the Authority other than the Chairman and Deputy Chairman shall be persons who appear to the Secretary of State to be suited to make the interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, respectively, their special care.'.

Mr. Wilson

I wish to draw the attention of the House to a curious omission from the Bill. This must be the first time for at least 35 or 40 years that a Bill purporting to deal with broadcasting in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has made no provision for the representation of the national communities of the United Kingdom.

It is strange that a Government who produced the Broadcasting Act 1981, which made specific provision for the representation of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on the IBA, and who set up a Welsh channel in place of Channel 4, which was made available in other parts of the United Kingdom, have omitted from this Bill any provision for the representation of Scotland. That omission is curious if not insulting.

The Minister of State should be made aware of the feelings of Scots, which, no doubt, are reflected in Wales and Northern Ireland, that their views ought to be represented. The Bill sets out criteria under which licences will be granted for programmes to be made available in different parts of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I appreciate that some rural areas are unlikely to be covered. Indeed, now that capital allowances have been removed, there is some doubt about whether cable companies will set up in business. Nevertheless. there is at stake a principle to which the Minister should address his mind.

The new clause is modelled word for word on section 17 of the Broadcasting Act 1981, and the royal charter of the BBC sets out arrangements by which Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be represented by national broadcasting councils, with the chairmen of those councils being governors of the BBC. I cannot see why the Government have failed to make special provision for Scotland in the Bill.

Clause 7 sets out the matters to be taken into account by the new Cable Authority in deciding whether or to whom to grant a licence. It says that the authority shall "take into account all matters appearing to them to be relevant." That is a catch-all provision. Without prejudice to that provision, the clause sets out individual considerations relating to the provision of a diffusion service in any area. They include the range and diversity of the programmes which the applicant or each applicant proposes to include … the extent to which the applicant or each applicant proposes to include EEC matters and, more interestingly, the extent to which the applicant or each applicant proposes to include programmes of an educational nature, programmes calculated to appeal specially to the taste and outlook of persons living in the area and programmes in which such persons are given an opportunity to participate". If it is the Government's intention that the Cable Authority should have power to grant licences in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, it follows that there should be on that authority people who are competent to make a judgment. I do not take the argument too far, because we all know about tokenism—putting a token Scot on a council or committee. If that person is not chosen correctly, his interest in Scotland may be less than many of us would wish. Nevertheless, tokenism is better than nothing, which is what the Government seem to have in mind in this case.

The national advisory committees established by section 17 of the Broadcasting Act 1981 were set up to ensure that the interests and tastes of national areas were catered for. When the Cable Authority dishes out licences for Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen or any other area, there should be someone on the authority, by statutory right, who will know from local and national experience whether the applicants are reasonable people. Otherwise, we may end up with the appalling situation that those who take the decisions, without knowledge of the localities, will have a metropolitan bias. Conceivably, they may never even have been to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland and might never wish to go there.

We all know how centralised the existing broadcasting structures have become. We in the SNP find during general elections that it is virtually impossible to get matters relating to Scotland and our party on the United Kingdom broadcasts. That gripe is not covered by the new clause or the amendments, but the programming companies of the IBA, which have a right to produce programmes, leave Scotland in a very weak position. I speak about that with some depth of feeling.

If that happens in a situation in which Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have the right of representation, I shudder to think what might happen if we did not have any representation whatsoever. Can the Minister explain why no clause similar to the provision in the 1981 Act or to the provisions in the BBC's royal charter has been incorporated in the Bill? This constitutes a precedent—a remarkable step away from recognition of the national status of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That national status has been recognised by this House for decades, and by the Privy Council in terms of the royal charter of the BBC. I should be glad if the Minister would include my new clause, if only for the sake of symmetry in broadcasting legislation. I hope that he will approach the matter with an open mind.

8 pm

Amendment No. 15 takes the argument a little further.It takes care of a curious omission from the Bill, which did not exist in the 1981 Act. It would add the words: the extent to which the applicant or each applicant proposes, in an area where another language as well as English is in common use, to use a suitable proportion of matter in that language. The commercial demands of cable broadcasting are such that it is unlikely that areas of Scotland where Gaelic is spoken to a substantial extent will be covered, but it is not impossible that they will be, and the position of Welsh-speaking areas in Wales will probably be stronger.

Clause 7 lists the various factors which the cable authority has to take into account. One factor not mentioned in the clause is the question of programmes in other languages. Twenty per cent. of the population of Wales speaks Welsh. In the Highland region, almost 10 per cent. of the population speaks Gaelic, and the proportion rises to over 16 per cent. in the Lochaber area and 80 per cent. in the Western Isles. Provision must be made for those areas.

In the 1981 Act the Government went out of their way to establish a Welsh channel in lieu of Channel 4, which covers other parts of the United Kingdom. At the very least, a small concession could be made by the Government in relation to Gaelic and Welsh.

The next amendment is No. 24. I was struck, again, by the curious way in which the Bill has been phrased. Clause 7 sets out the matters which have to be taken into account, but there seems to be no provision thereafter—except perhaps of a blunderbuss category—for enforcement of an obligation or duty. In this respect, the 1981 Act was superior. Section 4 made it clear that there was a duty on the IBA to satisfy themselves that, so far as possible, programmes broadcast by the Authority comply with certain requirements. I would be interested to know why no complementary obligation is included in the Bill.

This is not exclusively a Scottish point. It would be reasonable that if the Cable Authority issued a licence, having taken account of certan provisions which the authority itself deemed to be relevant, there should be some power of enforcement. In passing—I know I must not refer to it in detail—I should like to say that another amendment or new clause was tabled on the subject of programming. If the Cable Authority had incorporated in the licence a provision that a certain proportion of the programmes on the channel which had been made available had to be of local production, it would obviously be essential to make sure that the licensee did not wriggle or slide out of the informal undertakings given to the authority prior to the allocation of the licence. I am not sure whether the powers in the Bill are adequate, bearing in mind the difference in drafting between the 1981 Act, which sought to deal with franchises which might be given for broadcasting in a more general way, and the provisions for licences or franchises now to be issued in respect of cable programmes. I hope that the Minister can tell us why the Bill is drafted as it is. I hope that he will take account of the view put forward in my amendment.

My new clause deals with the question of the establishment of national advisory committees. Amendment 150 deals with the appointment to the authority itself of persons representative of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. My arguments on the new clause referred to the ability of individuals representing our countries to be members of the main board, and so I do not have to repeat my arguments on amendment No. 150.

It is worrying that, without any publicity or any advance notification that there was to be a serious change in constitutional procedures dealing with the national minorities within the United Kingdom, the Government have produced a Bill which makes no provision for the countries to which I have referred. It is strange and disturbing that, as countries, we are of so little importance to the metropolitan centre that the Government are prepared to deal with us by omission. Programmes may be issued to us without consultation and without guidance about what might be suitable for the tastes of the areas concerned. This is an important constitutional point, and I hope that the Minister will address himself to it very seriously.

Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North)

Had the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) been present during the Committee stage—[Interruption.]—he would have been aware that we sought throughout our deliberations to protect the freedom of the companies that are likely to be franchised. We want to protect the freedom of those who are to appoint members to the authority to choose the best people for the job, from wherever they may come. To that end, the Committee resisted all attempts from all quarters to see any minority interests given a right of representation on the authority. We are not saying that a Scot, a Welshman, a Cornishman or—dare I say it—someone from Ely or the Isle of Thanet could not be a member of the authority, but we say that he should be there not as of right but because those who appoint to the authority believe that he is the best person to do the job. The hon. Member for Western Isles—

Mr. Wilson

No, for Dundee, East.

Mr. Gale

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)

That illustrates the problem—it just sums it up.

Mr. Gale

Were the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) the hon. Member for Western Isles, he would be ideally suited to being a member of the authority. The issue at stake is that members of the authority should be the right people for the job.

The hon. Member for Dundee, East referred many times to the Broadcasting Act 1981 and showed the misunderstanding that has surrounded the Bill from the beginning. We are dealing not with broadcasting but with narrowcasting. We are dealing not with television but with cable. We are dealing not with entertainment but with a series of interactive services that will cover many facilities and interests. For that reason, if for that reason alone, the Bill is important.

Mr. Wilson

I am grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) which demonstrate his lack of knowledge about Scottish affairs, especially parliamentary constituencies. Does he not realise that the narrow broadcast cable programmes will be transmitted to some Scottish communities although they might be entirely unsuitable? There is nothing in the Bill that would allow the national characteristics of Scotland to be taken care of.

Mr. Gale

We now have narrow broadcasting

. Mr. Wilson

That is the hon. Gentleman's term.

Mr. Gale

No, I said narrowcasting and broadcasting. There is a considerable difference between the two, the difference being that one is received by many people whereas the other is targeted to a specific group of people, provided that they pay. The Committee believed that the authority should be chosen for its ability to offer franchises to the people who are best suited to the communities concerned. That does not necessarily mean having any representative of "Scotland". Of what part of Scotland would that representative be representative? Are we seriously suggesting that a Glaswegian could represent the best interests of the Western Isles? Is a Glaswegian more likely to know more than a Londoner or a Cornishman about what is best suited to the Western Isles? The answer must be no. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]

Mr. Wilson

rose—

Mr. Gale

I have given way once and do not wish to prolong the debate.

Mr. Home Robertson

The hon. Gentleman has given it all away.

Mr. Wilson

rose—

Mr. Gale

The hon. Member for Dundee, East has made his point. We have resisted the application of specific area groups, of groups of artists, of unions and of others who have tried to make a special case for representation on an authority. If we had given in to those requests, the authority would not comprise nine or 15 members, but would have been unrealistically large. That is why we resisted those requests then and that is why we must resist them now.

Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart)

There speaks the south of England that controls the House, controls the culture of our country and controls the nation. The Minister probably understands the sensitivities of the Scottish people better than the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). He must be one of the few hon. Members who have made a sizeable profit out of Scottish nationalism as the author of a book called "Scotch on the Rocks", which was made into a television series.

I support new clause 10 It has nothing to do with the nationalism that is supported by the two parties that have tabled it. Anyone who represents a Scottish seat, a Welsh seat or a Northern Ireland seat must want new clause 10 to be included in the Bill. I hope that that is true of Conservative Members who represent Scottish seats. We will watch their behaviour in the Lobbies with interest.

There is a separate Scottish entity throughout the range of communication services. That includes narrowcasting, as the hon. Member for Thanet, North would have it. There is a quite specific business community in Scotland that raises investment and makes capital in Scotland. That community is not centred on London. We have our own separate financial system, a separate legal system and a separate education system. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said, the Bill refers to educational concerns. Scotland's education system operates under separate legislation.

8.15 pm
Mr. Brinton

I am half Scot and half English. I served in the Royal Scots and feel strongly half Scottish, so I am divided. Will the hon. Gentleman accept it from me that narrowcasting will be decided on by small areas covered by a franchise that will not survive unless it provides adequately the types of service to which the hon. Gentleman has referred?

Mr. Maxton

In other words, this whole thing is to be left to commercial interests. I do not find that satisfactory.

Is there any guarantee that the educational content will be geared to a specific area in Scotland? Such a franchise will not survive on the basis of its education content. It will have to survive on other elements, and we want the noncommercial elements to be protected. We feel that they can best be protected by Scotland having an advisory committee which is made up of Scots, as is the case with the BBC and the IBA. That does not seem unreasonable.

The people who have served on the advisory committee have not always been the best but there have been some very good people. One such was one of my constituents —Professor Tom Carberry—who served for a long time as chairman of the Scottish advisory committee. He also served on the IBA and added a specifically Scottish voice, advising the IBA on the best means of ensuring proper licensing of independent broadcasting in Scotland. We need that Scottish voice, so I support new clause 10.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)

I support new clause 10. There is a clear difference between Dundee, East and the Western Isles, but it is not always appreciated here.

Whether we talk of broadcasting or narrowcasting, we are talking about bringing to consumers in Wales, Scotland and elsewhere a service with a cultural dimension and others. The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) referred to the need to choose for the authority the people who are best suited to assess the interests of the community being served. Those communities are diverse. They constitute different interests and values. Clause 7(2) (c) refers to: programmes of an educational nature, programmes calculated to appeal specially to the taste and outlook of persons living in the area and programmes in which such persons are given an opportunity to participate". In Wales, as in Scotland, there is a different educational structure. The hon. Member for Thanet, North may not appreciate that in my constituency 84 per cent. of the population is Welsh-speaking. Two out of every three of my constituents communicate with me through the Welsh language, and about 20 per cent. of the population of Wales is Welsh-speaking. In the Taff Ely area, which is about eight miles from Cardiff, 29 per cent. of the children receive their primary education through the Welsh language. Communities of that sort must have different interests, and whether they are better or worse than those of others does not matter. The search for centralisation and homogeneity is bringing a real threat, especially when accompanied by the provision of a cable service. I want to see a service that can respond to the heterogeneity of the communities of these islands. The real threat that attaches to the development of a cable service is that of Big Brother.

The cable service could be a power for enormous good. It could herald one of the most important changes in communication, whether broadcasting or narrowcasting, that has been seen in the century. It opens a new era, but if it is to be the era of centralism, of a diktat from the centre of what is good—what is good for the Western isles is good for Dundee and what is good for Dundee is necessarily good for Middlesbrough, Cornwall or Cardiff —it cannot be accepted.

Cardiff has a local broadcasting station that is known as CBC. Less than 5 per cent. of the people of Cardiff speak the Welsh language, but that station feels obliged to broadcast a Welsh news programme on the hour. In Swansea an even greater proportion of the broadcasting is in the Welsh language.

There is a diversity of culture within Wales and there is a great difference in cultural values between Wales and England. Culture is not related only to language, for in English-speaking Wales there are cultural values and interests that are different from those elsewhere, and those areas are entitled to have some defence against the dangers of centralism.

There is a reference in the Bill to listed events, which are events of "national interest". "National interest" is defined as interests within England, Scotland, Wales of Northern Ireland. That is fair enough because there are national interests. The degree of interest in the Welsh rugby cup final might be enormous in south Wales but not of tremendous interest in Kent, for example. The interest in the national eisteddfod may not be great in the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) but is enormous in my constituency. There are national interests and the Bill goes some way to take them up. Unfortunately, it does not go all the way to protect the interests that come within its ambit.

A hot subject in Wales is that of a sensitive and responsive structure of broadcasting. The campaign leading up to the eventual establishment of the Welsh fourth television channel was an emotional one, but I accept that much progress has been made in recent years. In sound broadcasting we have a Welsh language service and an English language service. We have a Welsh language television service that is extremely successful and popular in Wales. The provision of these services has largely defused the feeling that was mounting. The Minister is taking a step backwards in not recognising the need to introduce safeguards against similar feelings building up against cable television.

When the Welsh fourth television channel was being set up there was a slight feeling to conflict with the cable companies that provide BBC and IBA broadcasting in the valley. The problems have been avoided largely, but that is an example of the difficulty in which we could find ourselves.

There is an effective broadcasting structure in both Scotland and Wales — for example, there is the Broadcasting Council of Wales, of which Alwyn Roberts is chairman. Alwyn Roberts is also the BBC governor for Wales. We are urging that the same proven formula should be used for the cable service. Let us avoid a problem before we run into it instead of trying to respond when passions are high.

Mr. Home Robertson

The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) concentrated understandably and rightly on the Welsh language when discussing regional and national interests. As far as I know, no one in my constituency speaks Gaelic as his or her first language. However, I am convinced that many of my constituents are concerned about the preservation of the cultural and linguistic heritage of areas of the United Kingdom where there is a need to protect it. One of the ways of achieving that objective is through the broadcasting or narrowcasting medium.

As a Scottish Labour Member, I am always wary of supporting a new clause or any other proposition that is moved by a member of the Scottish Nationalist party, especially its president, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). However, when I heard the contribution of the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) I felt emboldened to participate in the debate. The hon. Gentleman managed to confuse Dundee, East with the Western Isles, which is an illustration of the problem that faces us.

Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington)

They are both north of Watford.

Mr. Home Robertson

As my hon. Friend suggests, both places are up in the north somewhere. That is the approach of many Conservative Members who represent constituencies in the south.

I have no idea what the promoters of the cable organisations have in mind. Having listened to the debate, I have a horrific picture in my mind of someone somewhere making pornographic films with Gaelic subtitles in the happy illusion that he will make money on the Western Isles. I am not sure about it, but I do not think that he will make much money.

A serious constitutional issue is underlying the debate. It has been taken up by the hon. Member for Dundee, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). There are special problems in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and there is a genuine need to preserve the cultural, locational and other interests of those parts of the United Kingdom. It is vital that that should be done by means of broadcasting or narrowcasting, or by any means of communication. I am alarmed by the appalling degree of commercial centralisation that the Government have inflicted on the nation, and especially by means of the Bill, which will extend the process into broadcasting. It must be resisted.

I shall give what might appear to be a rather trite example of centralisation which we have experienced in the past. For how many years did the BBC speak in the exclusive standard English terms of those such as the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton)? That standard English dialect was rammed into the ears of generations of Scots, Welsh and Irish. That was unfortunate and the BBC has learnt from that mistake. Many variations of dialect have been introduced by those broadcasting through the BBC. I am concerned that the Bill could swallow up and obliterate the little progress that has been made, even in that minor sector. For that reason and for many others, I am happy to support the hon. Member for Dundee, East.

Mr. Corbett

I suspect that the Minister may be tempted to astonish us by saying that he has found our arguments so powerful that he feels able to accept the new clause. However, it is much more likely that he will adopt the approach that he used in Committee and say, "We want to use a loose rein. If the Cable Authority wishes to set up advisory committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, it is perfectly entitled to do so." As has been demonstrated by earlier speakers, that begs an extremely important question.

8.30 pm

We are trying to build some non-commercial safeguards into the composition of the Cable Authority. In short, we are talking about the creation of substantial local monopolies. That is what the Bill is about, and that is the duty that will be laid upon the Cable Authority. There will be no competition. Areas of the country will be carved up and handed over to people who think they can make money out of cable. Those who take the initial plunge will be tempted to go down the same degrading, lousy street as The Sun newspaper, going for the lowest form of rubbish in order to make a quick buck out of their investment. Conservative Members said that they would be perfectly happy to leave the result purely to the operation of commercial interests. Labour Members are not prepared to do so.

The new clause refers to the range of taste and interests of persons residing in the part of the United Kingdom for which the committee is appointed In Committee I tried to make the point that we wanted the membership of the Cable Authority to reflect the realities of life in Britain in 1984. Most of our citizens are now women, so when those interests are being taken into account, as proposed in the new clause, I hope that in those areas where women are in the majority the majority of the members of the committees will be women. If the committees are started on the wrong basis, by consulting the list of the great and the good and putting them on the committees, without taking proper account of the changing role and changing interests of women, the situation will never be put right. I hope that the supporters of the new clause will take that argument into consideration. For those and other reasons, I hope that it will be accepted.

Mr. Clement Freud (Cambridge, North-East)

Just as I was a keen proponent—and remain one—of the local advisory committee, so would I like to endorse new clause 10, which contains virtually the same sentiments as I put forward in Committee.

I should like the House to bear in mind that, having got to Report stage, the best we can hope for from the Government is that the Minister will take into consideration the argument and recommendation for a national committee to include people who will have the interests of minorities—and of minority languages—closely at heart.

I am not sure that paragraph 4(a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of the new clause are essential, in that a member of a national committee will have no … financial or other interests in advertising". What is important is that people shall not, in the opinion of the authority, have views likely to prejudice their independence.

In looking at the Government Benches as though they were an old television set, one sees the hon. Members for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) and for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) —[Interruption.] I understand that I am equally, as it were, on the wrong side of the television set. When my wife said, "Will you be long?" I said, "The debate may not take long but the declaration of interests from the other side may hold it up a bit." [Interruption.]I wanted to name the hon. Member for Watford for a particular reason.

I wonder whether some of the reservations of Conservative Members arise from the fact that it has always been so difficult to sell commercials during broadcasts—or even narrowcasts—in another language. I know that one of the main reasons why the Welsh language channel faltered at the beginning was the reluctance of advertising agencies to recommend to their clients that it was a viable programme in which to interest themselves commercially.

I support the new clause. I support involvement. I suppose that I support empathy on the part of the controlling communicators towards the consumer.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

I should like briefly to give my full support to a sensible new clause which recognises, as it should, the cultural identity, the educational identity and, in the case of Scotland, the legal separateness of the nation of Scotland. It is important that representatives of those different backgrounds and traditions should be separately constituted as an advisory body and not merely selected for membership of the authority.

Mr. Hurd

The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and his assorted allies are, of course, right to remind us that when we are talking about cable we are talking about something that is of equal importance and application to the whole of the United Kingdom and not just to England. I think we knew that, but he has reminded us of it, though I do not think that his proposals fit the case and I should like to explain why.

The analogy which the hon. Gentleman and his supporters have drawn is, of course, with the existing broadcasting arrangements, but cable is not public service broadcasting, for many reasons. One of them is precisely that it has and will have its roots in relatively small local areas. Cable is a local business.

We discussed in Committee the need for advisory committees, and I explained that we do not want to tie the hands of the Cable Authority by insisting upon a particular form of local consultation, underpinned by a particular system of committees. That does not mean that we are against the concept of local advice. Of course there should be local consultation; there will be, and has to be under the Bill.

In his peroration the hon. Member for Dundee, East talked about decisions without consultation. Has he not read clause 5? It goes a long way in describing not only the statutory need for consultation, but the way it should go. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in saying that decisions will be taken without consultation.

I do not think that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) can have read the Bill, because in clause 7(2)(c) one of the criteria of which the authority will have to take account is the degree of local appeal and participation in what is proposed. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) acknowledged, the authority can set up advisory committees if it wants to. Procedurally speaking, it can set about its task in several different ways, but certainly it has to consult locally and take local wishes into account, as well as the opportunities for local consultation. The same point applies to the composition of the authority itself.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) reminded us, the Labour party did a noble job in Committee. The hon. Member for Dundee, East would have been proud of the Labour Members who proposed body after body and estate of the realm after estate of the realm which should, as of right, be represented. We would have been left, not with an authority, but with a senate of the great and good, as defined by the Labour party. I make no apology for saying that we want something quite different—a small, flexible authority of people chosen for their own skills and experiences rather than for what they represent, providing and regulating a process which is essentially local.

The same point applies to language. There are great opportunities in cable, because of its essentially local nature, for including material in languages other than English. Quite rightly, there was reference to Gaelic, which is allied to Welsh, but it is not only in those parts of the kingdom where those languages are spoken that the opportunity arises. It is actually arising in this city at the moment. In Southall a cable operator is providing services in the languages of the ethnic minorities. That is the sort of thing that cable is about. It is a very good thing, too. We do not need to put it in the Bill, as that is the kind of service that cable should be able to provide. The whole concept of cable is decentralising and local, for which clauses 5 and 7 provide. I do not think that we need these mechanical and procedural devices.

Mr. Denis Howell

To listen to the Minister, one would not think that we were discussing the Cable Authority, which will have an obligation to provide a service over the whole country, but that is what the Minister has been saying to us. When the right hon. Gentleman uttered the view that cable was not a public service but a local business, he completely transformed the nature of the argument that has been used about the Bill up to now.

We are supporting the principle of cable television in the belief that we are supporting a new public service that will be available to the people of this country to extend their choices and opportunities. Now the Minister says that that is not to be the motivating factor behind the proposals. I am absolutely astonished at that. The Minister, as well as Conservative Members, who have properly declared their interests in these matters, says that the new cable services will have much less to do with extending choice and service than with the opportunity to get a quick reward from investment.

When the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) told us that someone from Glasgow could not represent the interests of the Western Isles, he meant that people from Glasgow and the Western Isles would be best represented by London-based financiers. That is what he tried to say to us, and I believe that that is the cause of the present problem.

The Minister took time out to say, very properly, that hon. Members were adding to what he called the establishment of a senate, which he said that the Labour party tried to achieve. I entirely agree with that approach and disagree with his rejection of it. Traditional interests should be heard when a new television and broadcasting authority is being established. I shall not weary the House by going over in detail the interests that we have tried to establish, but it seems astonishing to have a new service without representatives from both sides of industry finding some place on it.

The interests of employees and of business and commerce need to be written specifically into the Bill, in the same way as local authorities have an important role to play when the authority is established. They should certainly be represented, not least because of all the planning considerations. Hundreds of miles of pavement will need to be dug up to put in the cables.

There is also the whole range of sport, art and entertainment, which will impinge upon the employee interests of those working in those spheres, as well as the interests of the sporting, artistic and cultural bodies which will provide those services. They have a vested interest to the extent that cable will be providing an alternative service, and that should be represented. Those Opposition Members who tabled new clause 10 are saying, very sensibly, that legitimate interests are involved. They based the new clause on geographical importance as well as the importance of people within certain areas, taking account of their lifestyle, cultural interests and so on. I understand that.

It is astonishing that the Minister has tried to reject the views of the regional or national advisory councils in the same way as he rejected in Committee the legitimate interests of people whom I have already mentioned. For those reasons, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the clause if it is pressed to a Division.

8.45 pm
Mr. Wilson

The new clause and the amendment will certainly be pressed to a Division. I was shocked by the casual way in which the Minister was prepared to overcome constitutional precedent and ignored the interests of the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish. The debate has overturned quite a few stones and exposed several kinds of obscene insect life beneath the Cable and Broadcasting Bill.

Even more interesting is the way in which the Home Office is beginning to take up the same stance as the Department of Trade and Industry in relation to Locate in Scotland and industrial grants. In other words, the United Kingdom Departments will be able to dictate to the minority nations of the United Kingdom what might happen. It is all very well for the Minister to smirk like that, but who will appoint the members of the authority? The Minister will be responsible for appointing them, together with his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. How much say will we have in that?

We have heard in the debate about the important aspect of language. Indeed, the Minister added to that, saying that cable was intended to take programmes into local communities. If so, why does the Bill not deal with the language issue in the same way as the Broadcasting Act 1981?

The Minister takes the view that he would like a flexible authority which will not be bound to do anything other than under the vague criteria laid down in the Bill. His argument, if one follows it to its logical conclusion, is that there should not be a Cable Authority. It should not be fettered by statutory restrictions, yet the Government have decided that that is not appropriate. The Bill lays down substantial proposals for the formation of the Cable Authority and its membership, and deals with the powers and the criteria under which the licences should be given.

The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) raised the question that the authority should be composed of the best people — I believe that the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) made that point initially—and that they should have suitable skills. I wonder what would be the reaction in England if the Government brought forward a Bill under which the Cable Authority was composed of Frenchmen, Germans or Russians, who were entitled to decide which programmes were to be relayed into England. There would be an absolute outcry, yet that is exactly what the Government are proposing to do in the Bill by omitting all reference to a statutory provision for Scotland.

The Minister did not make even token reference to the regionalism of Scotland, never mind the national status of the country. He just dismissed it completely as if we were of no account. He may trust the Cable Authority to take appropriate decisions, but I could not understand his argument. There are 45 million people living in England, and the Minister is not prepared to give any representation to the minority nations of Scotland with 5 million people, to Wales with 3 million people, or to Northern Ireland with 2 million people.

The Minister will understand, based on those figures, that we do not trust him, his Department or the proposed Cable Authority to look after our interests. There is no way in which our interests will be taken care of. This is nothing more than metropolitan imperialism. Judgments will be made by people who are appointed by an English Department and they will be imposed on the peoples of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland without even a sounding box with members and an advisory committee.

The Minister referred to narrowcasting, but said that it was not important. He said that the Government want to make the service flexible and see how it adapts. I do not believe them for one moment. The Government, who propose to abolish the Greater London council, will find it no obstacle, next time they consider the royal charter for the BBC and when the Broadcasting Act is reviewed in 10 years' time, to omit Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland representation. They will be able to say that there is a precedent, that the matter was discussed in the House of Commons and that the House came to a decision. When I press the new clause to a Division there be a Government majority, but it will not represent and reflect the votes of hon. Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Therefore, we have a dangerous precedent. The Minister said that this was not a public service, yet the Bill creates a public service body, a public authority which will be given the statutory task of overseeing cable television. I am not impressed by clause 5, to which the Minister referred, and certainly not by the lack of statutory provision for local control. The judgments will be made by the Cable Authority once the Bill has passed into law. There will be no obligation on the organisation to take account of Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish interests. For that reason, and the others that I mentioned, I shall press the new clause to a Division. It involves an important matter of principle.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time —

The House divided: Ayes 102, Noes 204.

Division No. 396] [8.51 pm
AYES
Alton, David Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) Howells, Geraint
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Barron, Kevin Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Beckett, Mrs Margaret Johnston, Russell
Benn, Tony Kennedy, Charles
Bermingham, Gerald Kirkwood, Archy
Bidwell, Sydney Lamond, James
Blair, Anthony Leighton, Ronald
Boyes, Roland Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Bray, Dr Jeremy Litherland, Robert
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E) McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Caborn, Richard Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) Maclennan, Robert
Campbell-Savours, Dale McTaggart, Robert
Canavan, Dennis Madden, Max
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) Maxton, John
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) Michie, William
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) Mitchell, Austin ('t Grimsby)
Cohen, Harry Nellist, David
Cook, Frank (Stockton North) O'Brien, William
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) Park, George
Corbett, Robin Patchett, Terry
Cowans, Harry Pavitt, Laurie
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) Pike, Peter
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) Prescott, John
Deakins, Eric Redmond, M.
Dixon, Donald Richardson, Ms Jo
Dormand, Jack Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Eadie, Alex Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Eastham, Ken Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Edwards, Bob (Wh"mpt'n SE) Skinner, Dennis
Evans, John (St. Helens N) Smith, C.(lsl'ton S & F"bury)
Ewing, Harry Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
Fatchett, Derek Soley, Clive
Fields, T. (L' pool Broad Gn) Steel, Rt Hon David
Fisher, Mark Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Forrester, John Strang, Gavin
Foster, Derek Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Freud, Clement Thorne, Stan (Preston)
George, Bruce Tinn, James
Golding, John Wainwright, R.
Gould, Bryan Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Gourlay, Harry Wareing, Robert
Hamilton, James (M'well N) Winnick, David
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Young, David (Bolton SE)
Haynes, Frank
Heffer, Eric S. Tellers for the Ayes:
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) Mr. Gordon Wilson and Mr. Dafydd Wigley.
Home Robertson, John
NOES
Alexander, Richard Bellingham, Henry
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H. Body, Richard
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Boscawen, Hon Robert
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n) Lester, Jim
Brinton, Tim Lightbown, David
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon Lilley, Peter
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A. Lord, Michael
Budgen, Nick Luce, Richard
Burt, Alistair Lyell, Nicholas
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) McCurley, Mrs Anna
Cash, William Macfarlane, Neil
Chapman, Sydney MacGregor, John
Chope, Christopher MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Cockeram, Eric Maclean, David John
Colvin, Michael McQuarrie, Albert
Coombs, Simon Major, John
Cope, John Malins, Humfrey
Cranborne, Viscount Malone, Gerald
Dykes, Hugh Maples, John
Eggar, Tim Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Emery, Sir Peter Mather, Carol
Farr, Sir John Maude, Hon Francis
Favell, Anthony Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Fenner, Mrs Peggy Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Fletcher, Alexander Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Fookes, Miss Janet Merchant, Piers
Forth, Eric Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Fox, Marcus Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Franks, Cecil Moate, Roger
Freeman, Roger Montgomery, Fergus
Gale, Roger Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde) Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Garel-Jones, Tristan Moynihan, Hon C.
Goodlad, Alastair Mudd, David
Gorst, John Murphy, Christopher
Gow, Ian Neale, Gerrard
Gregory, Conal Needham, Richard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) Nelson, Anthony
Ground, Patrick Neubert, Michael
Grylls, Michael Nicholls, Patrick
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) Norris, Steven
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) Onslow, Cranley
Hanley, Jeremy Oppenheim, Philip
Hannam,John Ottaway, Richard
Harris, David Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Haselhurst, Alan Parris, Matthew
Hawkins, C. (High Peak) Pawsey, James
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk) Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Hawksley, Warren Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Hayes, J. Pollock, Alexander
Hayward, Robert Powell, William (Corby)
Heathcoat-Amory, David Powley, John
Heddle, John Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Henderson, Barry Proctor, K. Harvey
Hickmet, Richard Raffan, Keith
Hicks, Robert Rhodes James, Robert
Hind, Kenneth Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling) Rifkind, Malcolm
Holt, Richard Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Hooson, Tom Roe, Mrs Marion
Howarth, Alan (Stratf"d-on-A) Ryder, Richard
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) Sackville, Hon Thomas
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) Sayeed, Jonathan
Hubbard-Miles, Peter Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Hunter, Andrew Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Jones, Robert (W Herts) Soames, Hon Nicholas
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Spencer, Derek
Kershaw, Sir Anthony Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Key, Robert Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
King, Roger (B'ham N'field) Stanbrook, Ivor
King, Rt Hon Tom Stanley, John
Knight, Gregory (Derby N) Steen, Anthony
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston) Stern, Michael
Knowles, Michael Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Knox, David Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Latham, Michael Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Lawler, Geoffrey Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) Stradling Thomas, J.
Sumberg, David Ward, John
Taylor, John (Solihull) Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) Warren, Kenneth
Temple-Morris, Peter Watson, John
Terlezki, Stefan Watts, John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V) Wheeler, John
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) Whitfield, John
Thorne, Neil (llford S) Whitney, Raymond
Thornton, Malcolm Wiggin, Jerry
Thurnham, Peter Winterton, Mrs Ann
Townend, John (Bridlington) Wolfson, Mark
Tracey, Richard Wood, Timothy
Trotter, Neville Woodcock, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian Yeo, Tim
Viggers, Peter Young, Sir George (Acton)
Waddington, David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John Tellers for the Noes:
Walden, George Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Tim Sainsbury.
Wall, Sir Patrick
Waller, Gary

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to