Lords Sitting of 9 May 1972

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

C.E.N.T.O.: BRITISH SUPPORT
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assurances have been given to the Iranian officials of CENTO that British support for the military alliance will be maintained.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, all members of CENTO are well aware that Britain is continuing with her contribution to all the military activities of the Alliance.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him this question? Has not the validity of CENTO decreased, first by the earlier departure of Iraq, which was its headquarters, and now by its denunciation by President Bhutto of Pakistan? Is it not now serving as a cause of doubt in the Middle East and in the Indian subcontinent, rather than as one of stability?
LORD CARRINGTON: No, my Lords; I would not agree with the noble Lord. I think CENTO continues to contribute to the security and stability of the area and I believe that its members would agree with that.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, would it not be possible to replace it by bilateral agreements with countries for the defence of their frontiers? Would they not be preferable to the military Alliance? Furthermore, could the noble Lord say whether the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is going to Pakistan to discuss these matters with the President?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, of course it would be possible to do that, but whether it would be desirable is another matter. As to whether my right honourable friend is going to Pakistan, perhaps the noble Lord would put down a Question. I am afraid that, off-hand, I do not know what his movements are.

PICCADILLY CIRCUS REBUILDING SCHEME
2.33 p.m.
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will call in any planning scheme for the rebuilding of Piccadilly Circus prior to any commencement of work.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I would refer the noble Lord to the Answer given in another place last Friday by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, the Minister, for his Answer, may I further ask him whether he realises that in that short Answer he has given both myself and many other people a relief from our nightmare?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that my right honourable friend's Answer has assured the noble Lord sweet dreams.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—and I address my remarks particularly to the noble Earl the Leader of the House—that in my experience it is unprecedented in this House to answer a Question by means of a reference to an Answer given in another place? Is the noble Earl aware, furthermore, that, although this is a well-known procedure in the House of Commons, it is practically unknown in this place, and I hope very much that we shall not adopt it here? With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, it might help the House if he were now

899
to give the Answer that was given in another place, of which we have no official cognisance.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I shall be delighted to do that. It was the convenience of the House that I had in mind, as in fact the Answer given by my right honourable friend has been there for all to read over the weekend and yesterday. But if it is the wish of the House, I will certainly give the full Answer. On Friday, my right honourable friend replied to a similar Question as follows:
"The arrangements made with the Westminster City Council, including the issue of short-dated office development permits which were legally pre-requisite to the planning applications, were designed to put the whole redevelopment scheme on public view at the earliest possible stage. I am most grateful to the city council for making this possible. But the issue is of such public importance and interest that I am consulting the Westminster City Council about referring the applications to me now without going through the ordinary planning procedures, which are bound to take time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; 5/5/72, col. 228.]
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will take note of what I think was a clear reaction from your Lordships on this matter. I acquit the noble Lord of discourtesy to the House, but this is an important point of principle for us.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has invited me to say a word on this matter. He said that this procedure was unprecedented. I should be a little chary about agreeing with that, because precedents are usually to be found for things that happen in your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, there are more normal procedures than the one of which the noble Lord has reminded us, and I am certain that my noble friend has taken due account of that.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl. I shall be very glad to know what precedents he finds for it.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I shall search the scriptures.

DEFENCE EQUIPMENT: TRADE WITH UNITED STATES
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what has been the value in dollars of defence equipment bought from the U.S.A. in the period 1964 to 1971 and how does this compare with the value of defence equipment bought by the U.S.A. from the United Kingdom over the same period.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, in the eight financial years up to and including 1971–72 expenditure from Defence Votes for United States equipment is estimated at some 1,100 million dollars. In addition, repayments still outstanding from Defence Votes to the National Loans Fund for equipment delivered in this period are estimated at some 400 million dollars, including interest. The corresponding figure for exports of military equipment to the United States is some 230 million dollars.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, in view of the very considerable imbalance against the United Kingdom, will my noble friend make these figures available to our diplomatic representatives in the United States, so that the case for buying Harriers and other equipment here, rather than manufacturing them in the United States, is made that much stronger?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I naturally agree with my noble friend that this is what we want to see happen. We have made strong representations to the United States in all these matters that we should have a share in any manufacture of any equipment of that kind. I can also assure my noble friend that I will draw the attention of my noble friend the British Ambassador to these figures.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how far the "Buy American" Act and the 50 per cent. special notional addition to the price of foreign equipment still applies in these matters?
LORD CARRINGTON: It does apply, my Lords. I think I am right in saying that in the case of defence equipment it is something in the region of 50 per cent. The large figures which I quoted to the House of 1,100 million dollars and 400 million dollars still outstanding are mostly in regard to the Phantoms and Hercules aircraft and Polaris submarines.

HOVERCRAFT AND DISPERSAL OF OIL SLICKS
2.39 p.m
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether consideration has been given for the use of hovercraft in the dispersal of oil slicks around the coast; and what conclusions have been reached.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (THE EARL OF LIMERICK): My Lords, consideration has indeed been given to this application of hovercraft, and some preliminary investigations have begun using a Hovermarine HM2 sidewall craft belonging to the Department of Trade and Industry. This type of craft is considered more suitable than the fully amphibious types because its water screws and other immersed parts agitate the water, oil and dispersant. Further research has recently been approved, and experiments will continue in parallel with other trials on the craft. These will investigate the best techniques from the point of view of both efficiency and the effects on the hovercraft.
However, even though the technical feasibility may be proved satisfactorily, the absence of large numbers of easily available hovercraft does somewhat detract from their utility for the purpose, and it remains the general policy to provide widely disposed means for dispersal which can be applied at short notice to any available vessel in the affected area, which might be anywhere on our many thousand miles of coastline.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that
902
reply may I ask him whether any actual trials have been carried out on oil slicks and, if so, what results have come from them? Secondly, how soon will the deliberations be completed? Finally, what numbers of hovercraft does he anticipate?—because he used the expression "a large number".
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, my noble friend has asked three questions, the answers to which are as follows. First, specific trials have indeed been undertaken and have been reasonably successful. Second, my noble friend then asked when will the next trials be taking place, and the answer to that is to fit in with the other commitments of our craft but at present it is planned that it should be some time between the end of July and early October. As to the number of hovercraft that would be required, all I can say is that their range is not great and our coastline is very long.

VIETNAM: PRESIDENT NIXON'S STATEMENT
2.41 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given them Private Notice; namely,
Whether they will make an immediate approach to the Soviet Union, as Co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, urging the re-convening of the Geneva Conference on Vietnam, in view of the grave escalation of the war in Vietnam as a consequence of the statement made yesterday by the President of the United States of America?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, as Geneva Co-Chairman, will summon the Ambassador of the Soviet Union to discuss the situation. However, in face of the Communist escalation of the war and the refusal so far to take part in serious negotiations, counter-measures by the United States of America were inevitable.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful for the reply given by the

903
noble Marquess and I hope that the representations made by the Foreign Secretary will produce a more helpful answer than previous approaches have done. However, would the noble Marquess not agree that if the Soviet Government is to give any real consideration to this matter then clearly time is of great importance? Would it not be wise to consider an approach to the United States Government so that the date of activation of the mines that we believe have been placed around Haiphong could be delayed? That would give us more time in which efforts could be made to approach the Soviet Government, and perhaps for other parties to be involved in seeking the beginning of negotiations. The consequences of what may happen in Haiphong could be very grave, not only in South-East Asia but throughout Europe as well.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for those remarks. I think we all realise the potential dangers in the situation as it is at the moment, and I will certainly undertake to pass on to my right honourable friend what the noble Lord has said with regard to any possible postponement of the blockade, and so on, although of course the noble Lord will realise that I cannot promise him anything in this regard. I know that my right honourable friend hopes to see the Soviet Ambassador at the earliest possible moment and I am sure that he will press him again to reconvene the Conference.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while supporting the advocacy that Soviet Russia should reconvene with us the Geneva Conference, would Her Majesty's Government also approach the Government of the United States of America, whose recent actions are creating a very dangerous situation in the world? Also, is it not the case that while it is often spoken of as an invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnam, the Geneva Conference declared the whole of Vietnam to be one nation and the demarcation line to be only provisional before unification took place?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not think that I should comment on the last part of the noble Lord's
904
question at the present time. What we are most anxious to do is to see peace restored. There are two ways of doing this: one, by reconvening the Geneva Conference, and the other, I suggest, in Paris; and if the North Vietnamese and the Americans in Paris can restart their negotiations I think there will possibly be some hope.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I, knowing the noble Marquess's own background, ask him how we can say to-day, on moral grounds, that the United States of America is justified in escalating the war?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I should have thought that the escalation of the war had been going on for the past few weeks.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether an invasion is not an invasion when it is done massively by Communist Powers over another State?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I intervene, and I apologise to the House, but having looked at this question for the past thirty years I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether he is aware that if we reconvene the Geneva Conference we are not likely to get any Asiatic Powers there whatsoever? Further, is the noble Marquess aware that it is difficult for us now not to be emotional about this matter, because of the origins, which are explained clearly in Anthony Eden's book, Full Circle, which denounces the brinkmanship of Dulles from which this position has sprung? It is a dishonour to the Christian and the white world.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN:
My Lords, I think we are getting into rather deeper water than the original Question, which was to do with urging the Soviet Union to reconvene the Geneva Conference.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, can the noble Marquess tell us whether the House will be kept informed of the outcome of such talks as are to take place between his right honourable friend and the Soviet Ambassador in regard to this important matter?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, my Lords, I can certainly give that assurance to the House.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL
2.48 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, in rising to move the Third Reading of this Bill, since noble Lords opposite are rightly attentive of these matters of procedure I think I should draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that the Bill has got a little higher up on the Order Paper than it is really entitled to be. It should have been printed after and not before the Private Bills, and to that extent it is above its station. But a glance at Standing Order No. 38(2) will show your Lordships that this is in fact in order. That said, my Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, following that cryptic remark I shall look at the Standing Order concerned. The noble Earl is almost in sackcloth and ashes but none the less says that he is innocent, and we accept his word on the matter.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

BATH CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
DEVON RIVER AUTHORITY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

DEPUTY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (TILE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved That the Lord Maybray-King be appointed to the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BRITISH LIBRARY BILL [H.L.]
2.50 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Viscount Eccles.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Independent Television Authority to be renamed Independent Broadcasting Authority]:
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 7, line 1, leave out paragraph 6.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in asking you to consider removing from the Bill the paragraph which disqualifies Members of another place under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957, I have of course consulted the Leader and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the other place, who as a former Secretary of State for Education will be in charge of this measure in the other place. But although our own Leader in the Lords and the Leader in the other place agree that it would be better that this paragraph should not be included, we are not raising this as a narrow Party issue. Obviously room exists for differences of opinion on both sides of the House. But many of us are disquieted by the thought that your Lordships' House should disqualify the elected representatives of the people of this country without very sound reasons indeed.
We are all in favour of the general principles of the Disqualification Act 1957, but of course in listing the organisations which fall under that Act the distinguished Members responsible for it would be the first to agree that mistakes are possible. We are not living in the reign of George III. We are all totally opposed to corruption in any form. We all respect the fact that, whether speaking in another place or in your Lordships' House, if we have interests to declare we declare those interests. Sometimes they are interests in business, or of trade union members who have expenses paid by the union—financial interests. Sometimes, as when the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, spoke on the British Museum he was not speaking because he has a large salary but because he thought it proper to declare that he

907
was Chairman of the Trustees of the British Museum. We are all agreed that we want to be careful in the extreme when we are dealing with Members of another place and that disqualification should take place when that is proper. Nobody is going to argue about the chairmen of nationalised boards and so on. There are white areas and black areas where the issue is quite clear; on the other hand, there are in between grey areas where we have to look at the matter very carefully indeed.
I should like to see the British Library Bill pass both Houses with all flags flying, as a measure agreed to by everyone. It is a most exciting and important measure. But some of us are still deeply disquieted about two elements in it, one of which is this automatic disqualification of Members of another place. Put in the simplest terms, if this is to be done I think we might leave the decision to the other place. Part of my anxiety arises from the fact that I consider that a great national library falls within the same area of public activity as looking after our great museums and galleries, the same area as looking after our national theatre. These are fields where traditionally distinguished men and women have given their services, and some of these distinguished men and women have come from the other place. One of the most effective features in all my experience there, an experience I have shared with many other Members of your Lordships' House, was that some Members of the other place had spent a lifetime in the service of special interests, sometimes having great experience of docks and transport or of health and education, and it seems to me extremely arbitrary that we should say that although a Member of another place may have spent many years in education at any level of education, or in library service, he or she should automatically be disqualified.
May I take a parallel example, not from the world of education, including libraries, but, for instance, the medical service? I have the permission of one of my colleagues in the other place to instance his situation. The Member to whom I refer is Mr. Laurie Pavitt. The Medical Research Council, under the chairmanship of the Duke of Northumberland, wanted so much to have a Member of the other place serving on their com
908
mittee, and so they invited him. He was not able to receive the honorarium something like £750 or £1,000, but they wanted him badly because of his special qualifications. He serves on this corn-mince. This same Member has had a lifetime of experience in working with aural aids. Again, as a member of the Hearing Aid Council he is not allowed to receive the same small fee as other members. I have deliberately selected an example not from the universities or the world of education but from the world of people who are concerned with health. I could give a number of other illustrations where Members, although excluded from accepting an office of profit under the Crown, are nevertheless considered so valuable that they are invited to participate. It does seem to me a little odd that when someone in the other place has this kind of experience he or she cannot serve on the Board on the same terms as everyone else.
I believe that when we last discussed this matter one Member of your Lordships' House said, "Members of the House of Commons are too busy to do anything else". I consider that the other place would be a much poorer place if it were not for the fact that some Members earn their living in the City, some have trade union contacts, some are barristers and some journalists. I am a passionate Parliamentarian. I think one of the most dangerous trends in our country at the present moment is to denigrate the elected representatives of the people of Great Britain. Far too many of the young ones are turning away from Parliament. There is a great deal of industrial unrest. A great many working class people are turning away from it, saying that it does not count. The most effective Members of the other place are those who bring into it their experience in other fields. Surely if there is someone in another place who has had a lifetime interest in education or in libraries it is utterly wrong that that Member should be disbarred.
I am particularly concerned about this world of libraries, because the library has been almost the Holy Grail for working class people throughout the centuries, when they had nothing to help them after a hard day's labour apart from our free libraries, lending libraries, research libraries and the rest. Some people are extremely experienced and well-informed

909
in this field. Possibly Members of another place would be exactly the type to be part-time members of this Board. I do not want to belabour the point, and I have said that I am not at the moment raising the question of remuneration. My views on this are very clear. I do not believe that part-time members ought to be paid salaries; I think they ought to be paid expenses, by way of travel expenses and subsistence allowance. The Hearing Aid Council is a very good example. The members receive a fee of £10 when they meet. However, when we are asking people to serve as part-time members of the Library Board we have to realise that they may have other duties and responsibilities. With the best will in the world they may find that they have to go abroad for a period of months, or maybe longer. How we pay them is another issue, but a related issue.
We have no problem at all if we simply eliminate this paragraph. I think that would be a gracious thing to do and thus leave this matter to be reconsidered by the other place, as it so definitely affects their interests. If the problem is "offices of profit under the Crown", I think it is rather ridiculous that if Members of the other place are so valuable when they are asked to serve they have to do so under terms different from other people. I see no insuperable difficulty. I believe that it is honourable that if Members come along to serve they should not be out of pocket, and that they should have an honorarium is splendid.
I hope that no Member of your Lordships' House will consider that this issue is related to the present argument about whether or not local councillors should be paid. We know perfectly well that there are wage earners who cannot serve on local councils if to do so means that they have to sacrifice their day's wages. That argument is totally irrelevant to this paragraph. Obviously professional workers, if they are librarians, professors, or vice-chancellors, are not going to have their pay docked if they have to come to London for one or two days, a week or a month. This is a real issue for wage earners, but it is totally irrelevant to what we are now discussing.
I think it would be a matter of grace that we should leave this matter to another place where, I assure your Lordships, it will be considered at length. If I may call the Paymaster General's atten
910
tion to this fact, he himself, speaking on March 28, said, perfectly properly:
"Much is going to happen which we cannot now foresee so we think it would be unwise, at the outset, to lay down a hard and fast pattern of the Board's composition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28/3/72, col. 957.]
We have to press the Paymaster General to tell us how often the Board or the advisory committees of the Library would meet. We have stressed that we would rather have a larger than a smaller number of part-time members as there will be so much work and so many different aspects to be considered. We have not pressed any of those matters. There is much about which we are in agreement. But I think that it would be gracious that your Lordships' House should agree to an Amendment which eliminates the disqualification of Members of the other place so that this matter may be fully discussed there, and if some of the considerations which I consider relevant weigh with them then I think we would accept their judgment. I feel it desirable that this Amendment should be accepted and this paragraph eliminated from the Bill.
3.5 p.m.
LORD TREVELYAN: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy for the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge. I do not know whether I understand the situation entirely correctly, but if I do not I have no doubt that the noble Viscount the Paymaster General will correct me. As I see it, paragraph 5 of the Schedule does not require the Secretary of State to pay non-executive members of the Board. It is only permissive. But read with paragraph 6 of the Schedule it creates a strong presumption that all the members should be paid. I believe that we should not throw away too hastily the principle of voluntary service. I certainly see no objection to Members of the other place being members of the Library Board. We have a most useful Member of the other place on the Board of the British Museum. I therefore think that we should not in this question close our options unnecessarily. I would add that this is not an example of the pernicious doctrine of equation of misery arising from the fact that I am myself an unpaid member of a comparable body. In general I support the views of the noble Baroness.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, as your Lordships will have recently noted, I am still a very inexperienced Member of this Chamber, learning my way with difficulty. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, has made out a powerful case for this Amendment, which I am happy to support. I have always wanted to see many of the disqualifications mentioned in the Act of 1957 reconsidered. For instance, the Act disqualifies: a soldier, a policeman, members of the I.T.A., the National Coal Board, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, Directors of Remploy, the officials of Chelsea Hospital, town clerks, county council clerks, and a Schedule of over 100 officers and persons from becoming Members of Parliament. If this Amendment is not accepted we shall add yet another to the list of disqualifications.
I speak from long experience of being disqualified. During the quarter of a century that I was a teacher I was ineligible to hold one of the precious rights of a citizen, that of standing as a candidate for the town council, because I was employed by the town council. That was a disqualification that I shared with all municipal or local government workers.
There was a curious idea that this group of workers, if they had their full civic rights, might somehow be corrupted and use their position as elected members corruptly. I am proud to belong to the cleanest democracy in the world; incorrupt and incorruptible. I would never support anything which in any way led to the possibility of corruption coming into our public life, of which I am so proud. However, I refuse to believe that when the Minister is instructed to select for the Board persons,
"who appear to him to have knowledge and experience of library or university affairs, finance, industry or administration"
he should be compelled to reject automatically any such person with any one or some of those qualifications simply because he happens to be a Member of Parliament. To be a Member of Parliament ought not to be a disqualification for an office, unless it can be clearly shown that in such an office his being a Member of Parliament would lay him open to corruption, or to act corruptly.
912
I hope that the noble Viscount will accept this Amendment.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, may I add a footnote to the speeches which have been made, which I support 100 per cent.? The emphasis so far has been laid, quite properly, on the disadvantage of exclusion. I would rather emphasise the disadvantage of impoverishment. It surely is not beyond the reach of imagination that there may be in the other place people whose services would be more valuable than the alternatives. Automatically to debar availing ourselves of such services seems to me to be an unnecessary sacrifice. I choose my examples indiscriminately from the history of the past. Surely the noble Viscount will agree that a Board of this sort would have been embellished by the presence in its numbers of, let us say, the late Earl Balfour when he was still Mr. Balfour, an ornament of science and learning, the late Lord Morley, when Mr. Morley, one of the most celebrated literary men of the time, or the late Mr. Burns who himself was a great bibliophile. It seems to me that reflecting on possibilities of that sort lends a certain amount of support to the Amendment of the noble Baroness.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend, and I can only repeat shortly what I think I said on the Committee stage when the noble Baroness moved a somewhat similar Amendment. The first duty of Members of the other place is to the other place, and as time goes on those duties become increasingly exacting. I do not think that references to distinguished men such as the noble Lord, Lord Morley, have great relevance now, since in his time Parliament was very much more a part-time occupation than it is to-day. There may be occasional exceptions, but my experience, serving on a number of departmental and inter-departmental committees, is that Members of Parliament nearly always have to give priority to their Parliamentary duties, and it is very difficult for them to be effective, regular attenders at the meetings. This is going to be a very important and specialised job which I think is going to call for continuous attention, and I believe the time has now come when we must recognise

913
that Members of Parliament are not able to give that kind of attention to duties outside their Parliamentary duties.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I have come to your Lordships' House this afternoon uninstructed in the issue which the noble Baroness was going to raise. I should like to make one point which I think is important from the point of view of Members of another place. It is true that with the increasing pressures of business in the other place on their energies a great deal of their time must necessarily be occupied with the business of the House of Commons, but one of the disadvantages which many of us who served in another place felt was the fact that we were disqualified from and unable to take part in many other branches of public life which were of particular interest to us. Those who are destined for high ministerial office naturally wish to give the whole or most of their time to the work of Parliament, but there are many Members with great experience who are not destined for high office and who have a personal contribution to make to many of the matters in which they have experience outside their political life.
I think it would not be to the disadvantage of another place if this disqualification were not applied in this case. I think it would be to the advantage of that House if Members were allowed to take part in the work of this body from the point of view of their membership of the House of Commons. Further, I believe that a Member of Parliament who has a fairly wide view of the various public issues which come before Parliament in the course of his Parliamentary career can make to the work of a highly specialised body of this sort a special contribution which is sometimes not available from others, however expert in the narrower field of the work of libraries. They cannot give the same sort of service in advice and guidance to a body of this importance.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I think we are getting on to rather dangerous ground. We are pretending that we have the right to say what kind of people shall be elected to the other House. That is rather outside the scope of our privileges. I do not want to argue about offices of profit under the Crown. whether it is right that they
914
should be accepted by Members of the other place or whether the present list of proscribed offices is too wide or too narrow. All I want to say is that we are here as a non-elected House attempting to dictate how Member of the elected House shall conduct themselves and whether they shall or shall not be able to accept one kind of post. If this Bill had come from the other place with this clause in it, thereby signifying that the other place had given it its approval, I should be inclined to say that we had every right to discuss it. But this Bill originated in this House and here are we, non-elected people, daring to say to the elected House of Parliament that its Members shall do this or shall not do that. The best thing would be to cross the provision out of the Bill and let the other place put it in if they want it; and we could then accept it with the graciousness which is a characteristic of your Lordships' House.
3.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, this is a very interesting point and I am grateful for the variety of views we have had, both this time and on the Committee stage. On the Committee stage, in addition to advice from the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, we had the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher. He reminded us that he took a prominent part when the House of Commons Disqualification Bill was going through Parliament. I must say that the sentiments which have been expressed to-day are very different from those which were expressed when Parliament agreed, I think without a Party Division—though I may be wrong on this—to the House of Commons Disqualification Act. The fact that the paragraph is in this Bill merely reflects the precedent that has been followed since the Act was passed when public bodies were set up which were of a management type supplying services to the nation, which is the case with the British Library.
I think we want to look at what sort of Board this is. In previous debates we looked, I think, at the two possible models. We could have nut all the executive emphasis into the full-time staff and had as the governing body a body of trustees which would have been, no doubt, a much larger body than that now proposed and which would have been

915
representative of a number of interests. That your Lordships discarded in favour of the proposal in the Bill which is to set up a management Board. I do not wish to weary your Lordships with all the arguments I have made before, but I think the type of institution which we are now creating is one in which it is much better that the policy-making and the responsibility for the execution of that policy should rest on a number of full-time members of a comparatively small Board supported by a comparatively small number of part-time members who will none the less have a very real function to perform.
That being the case, we agreed on previous clauses in the Bill that the Secretary of State should have the power to pay a salary both to the full-time members and to the part-time members. That was no new precedent. That has been done in a large number of cases, some of which are very similar to the kind of institution we are setting up now. I quoted instances on the Committee stage and I will not do so again. But once we have done that and have settled for a management Board where the Secretary of State can pay every member, I think it becomes extremely difficult, in terms of the debates in another place on the House of Commons Disqualification Act, to make an exception of this Board.
Of course it is possible that some men and women who are invited to join as part-time members may say, "I do not wish to be paid." But I do not see that the principle of voluntary service is in any way affected, because when someone wishes—and I hope that there may be many with the appropriate experience—to serve part-time without being paid, all he or she has to do is to say to the Secretary of State, "I wish to do this as a voluntary service." On the other hand, as we have found out in many instances already, there will be men and women who perhaps do not wish to go on in their full-time jobs but wish to do some public service and who will say, "I should like to be a part-time member of this Board. How much work is there?" They will undoubtedly be told that there is a very considerable amount of work for them to do, and they will say, "I am afraid I cannot accept that, with my family responsibilities and so on, unless I
916
have a small salary." That is nothing new; it is what is already done in the case of ten, twenty or thirty boards, and I am bound to say that I think we are right to follow that principle.
If the principle had not been well established, I could quite understand the force of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, that since this Bill has begun in the House of Lords and this is a paragraph affecting Members of another place we ought to leave it to them to put it in. But as the principle is so well established I do not think that that is a valid argument. Furthermore, in almost all of these cases there have to be two Members, one from each side, which makes the position very difficult with so small a Board. I do not think that this is the type of management Board, providing services to the public, where membership of another place is appropriate. Therefore, I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.
3.24 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this has proved to be an extremely interesting debate, and different views have been expressed regardless of the nature of the Parties to which we belong. I must admit that when my noble friend discussed with me the possibility of putting down this Amendment I had a number of doubts very much along the lines of those which the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has expressed. But I am now bound to say that I think there is a case for letting the other place decide on this matter. To some extent, I am led to that view by the noble Viscount's own speech. I give him a great deal of credit in regard to the British Library, more so than I do in regard to museum charges, and therefore I do not start with a pre-justice in this matter. But if I may make my case in general terms, my criticism of the way this Board is formed is that it follows too closely the pattern of a nationalised industry; and it is quite normal for hard-worked civil servants to look for satisfactory precedents. Furthermore, I am not very wedded to the idea of the British Museum Trustee solution, which has in the past sometimes led to some excitement in your Lordships' House. In relation to this particular institution, I feel that we are really looking for something which is halfway

917
between the board of a nationalised industry and the national museums.
The noble Viscount referred to Clause 2 and the composition of the Board. I see his point about a management board. I am sorry that there is no reference to representation of the Royal Society or the British Academy, but I shall not raise that issue now. But having heard the argument to-day, I do not see why we need specifically to exclude Members of another place. I should like to take up the point which my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger, and others of my noble friends, mentioned, of the ability of Members of Parliament to undertake a duty of this sort. I strongly agree with my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge that at this stage in our development—and as the Second Chamber we are entitled to discuss this matter—we do not wish to see Members of Parliament being employed full-time elsewhere. As the noble Lord, Lord Alport, pointed out, one of the problems which increasingly confronts Parliament with modern developments is its loss of contact with the difficulties which Governments and Members have to face. So I think there is a most powerful case for involving Members of Parliament, where possible, in public service.
On the question of offices of profit, I am bound to say that the views of a former Speaker of the House of Commons carry very great weight with me. Our concern to prevent corruption in public life dates from an earlier age and, in certain respects, I believe that we are seriously handicapping ourselves by the way in which the offices of profit constraint is applied. But, in any case, the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, himself gave the answer to this, by saying that there is no obligation on anybody to receive remuneration. Indeed, this bar does not apply to members of advisory councils who are also entitled to receive fees which I should have assumed were technically honoraria of the kind to which my noble friend referred. Therefore, in the context of the Board as I conceive it to be, I should have thought there was a place for the widest possible choice. I was once asked to retire from a hoard because, although there was no pay attached to the job, it suddenly became a disqualified board.
918
Although this is very much a matter for another place, I think it is slightly absurd. In any case, I question whether the noble Viscount has accurately described this body as a small management board. A management board in industry generally refers to a board of full-time executives operating below board level, which usually contains a number of part-time directors. Since there is provision for such part-time members of the Board I am bound to conclude, unless the noble Viscount tells me that they will all be engaged in some sort of executive action on two or three days a week, that depending on their time and energy, their activities will be confined to something like one meeting a month or one meeting a fortnight, which service it is fully within the capacity of Members of another place to give if they wish.
I give full credit to the noble Viscount's energy and to the way in which he has come to his conclusions. But the value of a debate such as this is that it opens up new ideas, and I hope very much that he may see his way to accept my noble friend's Amendment and to let the matter go to another place. It will then be for the Government to consider further what is appropriate in this difficult matter. Personally, I should like to see this question of office of profit raised; and since we know that another place are extremely remiss in looking after their own interests, as we have seen in the way they have suffered under low pay and their opportunity for service, I think there is much to be said—and I have come to this view only on balance—for making this useful Amendment, which still leaves it open to another place to take a further look at the matter.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, I sincerely hope that the Minister will have second thoughts on this Amendment and will be prepared to accept it, because I should be most interested in the debate that would follow in the other place if such an Amendment went into that Chamber for debate and discussion. I followed the point of view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and there is quite a lot behind it. I well remember many years ago travelling with a Member from the other place on a delegation. The salary which was fixed at that time

919
was running at £1,000 a year, and I remember his saying to me, "Joe, £1,000 a year is no use to me; I shall have to take another job". And what was he looking for? He was looking for a job as a director of a particular firm or firms, as the case may be. This sort of thing operates on both sides of the House, so far as the other place is concerned, just as it operates in your Lordships' House. Some people endeavoured to get me to take over a directorship, but I said, "I am an old-age pensioner, and I want nothing to do with it." Therefore, I am an old-age pensioner living just on my retirement pension and superannuation.
But I could not agree with one part of the sentiment expressed by my noble friend Lady Lee in regard to the part-time member. The part-time member of any board, whatever board it may be, can play a very useful part in debate and discussion on the running of the particular organisation. Many of them are there for consultation, and in their consultative capacity are able to give sound advice on the running of a particular industry, or whatever it may be. I am all on the side of the part-time member receiving a form of recognition, but not in the way cited by my noble friend, of a subsistence allowance for coming down to London from, say, the North-East, or from Scotland, or from wherever else it may be, spending two or three days here and then going away back, while other people may be sitting upon that particular board and, because they are full-time members of the executive, may be receiving a fabulous salary. I do not agree with that type of policy. I believe that the part-time member, if he is qualified to sit there and be recognised because of his abilities, ought to receive adequate remuneration for the services that he is rendering in the running of that particular organisation. I sincerely hope that the Minister, as he considers what has already been said by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, will let this matter go to the other place and will let the people along the corridor "have a go" at it, because I should be most interested to read some of
the speeches which would be delivered should such an Amendment go there for debate and discussion.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I was hoping that this modest Amendment could be accepted by the entire House, but as there is obviously some disagreement I am afraid that, as we have not managed to convince the Paymaster General that it would be gracious to leave this paragraph out, in those circumstances I must press the Amendment to a vote.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I feel I must say just one more word, because I think there is some misunderstanding here. The precedent is to put this paragraph in. If your Lordships were to take it out, it would be your Lordships who would be interfering with the precedent which has in recent years been established in another place. I have been told by several noble Lords that we ought to leave this paragraph in so that the other place may have an opportunity to debate it. What a suggestion to the other place! All they have to do in another place, if they care about it, as certain noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite have said they do, is to move to leave it out again there and to have their discussion. There is nothing that we can do to limit the discussion in another place. It sounds, listening to some of your Lordships, as though we were pre-empting the discussion on disqualification of Members of Parliament. We are doing nothing of the kind; and since the precedent is to have this in the Bill—and I am prepared to believe that precedents should sometimes be overruled—let the other place, whose business it is, move to leave this paragraph out and discuss that on their Amendment. I see no reason whatever, in consideration of the duties of another place, why we should move this paragraph out of the Bill.
3.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 105.

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Birk, Bs.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Archibald, L.

Blyton, L.

Colyton, L.

Ardwick, L.

Brockway, L.

Crook, L.

Avebury, L.

Brown, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Diamond, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Segal, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Jacques, L.

Shackleton, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shepherd, L.

Feversham, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Slater, L.

Fiske, L.

McLeavy, L.

Stamp, L.

Fulton, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Gardiner, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Summerskill, Bs.

George-Brown, L.

Platt, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L

Granville-West, L.

Popplewell, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Reay, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Gridlev, L.

Robbins, L.

Walston, L.

Hale, L.

Rusholme, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hall, V.

Sainsbury, L.

White, Bs.

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Williamson, L.

Hoy, L. [Teller.]

Samuel, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Mansfield, E.

Albemarle, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mar, E.

Amherst, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Amulree, L.

Falkland, V.

Milverton, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Atholl, D.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Moyne, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Goschen, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Balogh, L.

Gowrie, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Greenway, L.

Oakshott, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ogmore, L.

Belstead, L

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Guildford, L. Bp.

Perth, E.

Bethell, L.

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

Portsmouth, L. Bp.

Blackford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Bourne, L.

Hankey, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hawke, L.

Redesdale, L.

Brooks of Cumnor, L.

Henley, L.

Reigate, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs

Howard of Glossop, L.

Ridley, V.

Camoys, L.

Ilford, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Carrington, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Rowallan, L.

Clwyd, L.

Killearn, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Coleraine, L.

Kilmany, L.

Sackville, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kindersley, L.

Sandford, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kings Norton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cowley, E.

Latymer, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Craigavon, V.

Limerick, E.

Strang, L.

Cranbrook, E

Long, V.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Crathorne, L.

Lothian, M.

Strathcarron, L

Daventry, V.

Loudoun, C.

Sudeley, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thomas, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Luke. L.

Vernon, L.

Derwent, L.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

Digby, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Willingdon, M.

Drumalbyn, L.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Dulverton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Young, Bs. [Teller.]

Eccles, V.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 2 [Provision by Authority of local sound broadcasting services]:
3.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES VISCOUNT ECCLES moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 7, line 37, leave out from ("collections") to end of line 45 and insert ("but subject to the following sub-paragraphs.
(4) The power of the Board to dispose of an article transferred to them by section 3(1)(a) of this Act shall be exercisable only if—

(a) it is a duplicate of another article in the Board's collections (whether or not so transferred), or

922

(b) it appears to the Board to have been printed not earlier than the year 1850, and a copy of that article made by photography or a process akin to photography is held by the Board, or

(c) in the opinion of the Board it is unfit to be retained in their collections and can be disposed of without detriment to the interests of students;

but the Board may transfer such an article to the trustees of the British Museum (Natural History) where they are satisfied that it would be more appropriately held with the collections of that Museum.
(5) Where any property in the hands of the Board (whether or not transferred to them under section 3(1)(a) of this Act) is subject to any trust or condition—

923

(a) they shall not dispose of or deal with it in any manner inconsistent with the trust or condition; and

(b) it shall be subject to the same trust or condition in the hands of any person acquiring it from the Board.")

The noble Viscount said: Your Lordships will remember that on Committee stage I accepted an Amendment which moved into the Bill words from the British Museum Act 1963, with the idea that the Board of the British Library should have precisely the same powers and obligations in respect of the disposal and the lending of objects as the present Museum Trustees. I find that that Amendment was defective in wording, and I am therefore asking your Lordships to replace it with the words which appear on the Order Paper. These make the necessary Amendments from the British Museum Act 1963 which are consistent with a board which is managing only the Library and not the antiquities as well. Further, my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, with his usual perspicacity, pointed out that there was another section in the 1963 Act, Section 9(1), under which the Trustees of the British Museum had power to transfer objects to the Natural History Museum. He asked us to bring those powers into this Bill so that the new Board would be in exactly the same position as had been the Trustees of the British Museum. That we do in subsection (5) of my Amendment. I hope that this meets the wishes of the House, and I beg to move.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for having with this Amendment met the points I raised. On the other hand, it does not go quite so far as Section 9 of the Act, in so far as the Trustees of the Natural History Museum will have no power (save to lend for research purposes) of transferring anything from their Library to the British Library. The Library in the Natural History Museum was originally intended, and is still intended, to provide the working tools of the scientists who work there. A great many of the books were printed before 1850 and are as important now as the day they were printed. But here I should say I am speaking of my own opinion and not necessarily that of my colleagues. There are a number of books there which would be far more appro
924
priately held in the British Library, where they would be readily accessible to students other than biologists, but I think the Trustees at the Natural History Museum would not have the power to transfer them to the British Library; although they would still have the power to transfer them to the British Museum at Bloomsbury. Perhaps the noble Viscount can consider this point between now and the Third Reading. It could be important. There are books there of great interest to bibliophiles purely as bibliophiles, and also to people interested in the history of science, who would in future find them in the scientific part of the British Library, where they would be much more readily accessible. Perhaps the noble Viscount could consider this matter and slightly extend this Amendment to put the British Library in relation to the Natural History Museum on all fours with the present position of the British Museum at Bloomsbury.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I confess that this is a new point to me. I did not know that the Library of the Natural History Museum contained books which perhaps would be better kept in the British Library. Certainly it is something we ought to look at, and I assure my noble friend that I will look at it between now and Third Reading.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to say a few words from the Opposition Bench in support of the Amendment. I think we are indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, who raised this matter on Second Reading and in Committee. He mentioned particularly the Banks Papers. I hope that this matter will soon be resolved and the question whether or not they should be part of the main collection will be decided. I agree with the noble Earl that the Government Amendment, which we welcome, does not go far enough. Section 9 of the British Museum Act 1963, to which the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, drew attention during the Committee stage, is much more flexible and fluid. It allows transfers not only to the Natural History Museum but also to all the institutions listed in the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954. These include the Victoria and Albert Museum. I should have thought that here there was a case for certain transfers back. The Victoria and Albert Museum has a large holding of Dickens material. It was bequeathed

925
to the Museum and has been looked after admirably. It made the nucleus of a most wonderful Dickens Exhibition a year or two ago. But there well may come a time, a few years hence, when it will be thought that this important holding of one of our greatest authors should be part of the main British Library reference section. That is just one of the problems with which we are faced.
There is also the question of duplicates. The Amendment says that the Board will have the right under sub-paragraph (4)(a) to dispose of any article if it is a duplicate. I hope that they will proceed with considerable caution. There is a fashion growing up of thinking that libraries should dispose of duplicates, and I think it very important to ensure that one does not dispose of items which are not duplicates but only variants. The Newberry Library in Chicago disposed of a great deal of its holding recently. It is, of course, a very fine library, but it is mainly a research library and not a complete reference library like the reference section of the British Library. I am sure that we may all have confidence in the Board not to dispose of anything not thought to be a duplicate.
On the other hand, one has no quarrel with the disposal of material not earlier than 1850. I remember very well the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, telling us during the passage of the British Museum Act that this will refer mainly to material printed after 1850 which is on wood pulp and not rag paper and deteriorates much more quickly, so it is better kept on microfilm. I am rather surprised that the last subsection of the British Museum Act, Section 5(3), has been left out. Under the British Museum Act, for any disposals of that kind the trustees can reclaim the money to acquire other items, and that seems to me a most laudable idea. In the present Bill this would go against the provision in Clause 5(2) requiring any moneys received by the Board in any financial year to be paid into the Consolidated Fund. There may be good reasons why the British Museum Act allowed the Trustees to keep money raised from disposals which do not apply to the Board of the British Library. I shall be interested to hear from the noble Viscount why that is so. Apart from that point, I should like to say that from this side of the House we support the Government Amendment.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, if I may have your Lordships' indulgence, I can perhaps answer the last point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I think it is that when the British Museum Trustees were building up their library they did not have these large acquisition grants every year, now more than £600,000. Therefore nowadays the retention of the money when they sell a few books does not mean very much. What they want all the time is larger sums granted to them for the purchase of books of all kinds that they do not receive by deposit. So probably the reason for that has been overcome by the great increase in their grants for acquisition. I will look at the other point raised by the noble Lord, but on the whole I think there will not be very much chance of a transfer between one institution and another.

SOUND BROADCASTING BILL
3.53 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Denham.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Independent Television Authority to be renamed Independent Broadcasting Authority]:
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) For section 1(1) of the Television Act 1964 (in this Act referred to as "the Principal Act") there shall be substituted the following:—
'(1) There shall be an Authority to be called the Independent Broadcasting Authority (in this Act referred to as "the Authority") which shall consist of the Chairman two deputy Chairmen and such other members not being less than seven as the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications may from time to time determine:
Provided that unless and until the Minister otherwise determines by notice, in writing to the Authority, a copy of which shall be laid before each House of Parliament, the number of the said other members shall be ten.'")
The noble Lord said: We now come to the Committee stage of this Bill which had a rather chequered career in Committee in another place. I think the Government were defeated twice. It is true that, from the Government point of view, the matter was put right when the Whips exercised their control, perhaps more efficiently, during the Report stage. Then, as we know, the Government had some slight difficulty with the Bill on Second Reading in your Lordships' House. I think that my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition was more than charitable to the Government Chief Whip when he expressed sympathy to him. I have never thought that it was the responsibility of the Opposition to provide a quorum in your Lordships' House. Nor do I think it right that noble Lords opposite should deny to noble Lords who may sit not on the Front Bench but on Back Benches or the Cross Benches the opportunity to vote on the Second Reading of a Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Denham, is getting restive, I see, but of course the Government did on that evening deny them opportunity to vote. if there had been a vote, I suspect that the Government might well have lost the Bill, which no doubt would have caused grave constitutional difficulties between the two Houses.
I made my position quite clear on Second Reading. I regard this as a squalid and rather horrid Bill. There is a touch of irony in the situation, in that we have recently been debating the British Library Bill, designed to enrich the nation and to find ways and means by which the assets of this country may be conserved and used. Yet I cannot believe there is any question but that in this Bill we are seeking ways and means of allowing national assets to be used by a small minority of people whose only motivation in acquiring those assets is the profit motive. I declared my position, that I was not going to vote against the Bill but that, if the House wished to proceed with the Bill, on Committee stage I would seek to be constructive. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, whatever he may think of my drafting, which may be imperfect, will recognise that my approach has been to improve the Bill.
We paid tribute on the Second Reading to the I.T.A., the Authority under
928
my noble friend Lord Aylesford. I do not think there is any doubt that many of the worst fears that some of us held in regard to commercial television have not been fulfilled; and I have no doubt that this is due to the leadership of the Authority under a number of chairmen, and also to the members and the way in which they have tackled a fairly onerous and certainly difficult task. The Television Act requires that the Authority should consist of a Chairman, a Deputy Chairman and not less than five other members, but that the Postmaster-General (or, as he now is, the Minister for Posts and Telecommunications) may increase the number. And, so far as the Act is concerned, the initial number was to be eight members. That is not a very large Authority, considering its responsibilities. I do not think there is any question that radio provides a different problem. First of all, we are not going to have some 12 or 15 contractors: we may well have some 60 contractors. Therefore from the point of view of sheer size the task and duties of that Authority are bound to be much greater.
I think we shall all agree, too, that the problems of the Authority in carrying out a general surveillance and understanding of the medium will be much greater in radio than in television. In the case of television, there is a good deal of interchange of programmes, so that even though viewers may not leave London they can see many of the products of other companies; but in radio, of course, the situation will be different. True, there may be some selling of programmes one to another; but I have a suspicion that in the main most of these radio companies will operate quite separately and, except in the case of news, there will not be a great deal of transfer of material. Therefore the task of the members of the Authority to watch over and seek to understand radio programmes will be much greater. I accept, however, that the basic functions of the Authority—the manner in which contracts are considered—will be much as they are in the case of a television company.
There is no doubt that some people would argue that there is a case for having a separate Authority for television and a separate Authority for radio. I believe that some of my noble friends

929
thought that, if there was to be commercial radio and commercial television, there ought to be four authorities: one for B.B.C. sound, one for B.B.C. television and two for commercial. I am not a very ardent supporter of this idea. It seems to me that there is a great deal to be said for the concentration of knowledge and experience within these two fields. So I, for one, would go for the two authorities. Certainly in this new venture, with all the new difficulties that will clearly arise, I should very much welcome the idea that the existing I.T.A., which already has considerable experience and, I believe, the respect not only of those who operate but also of those who view, should be the organisation and should provide the individuals who have the initial responsibility for setting up commercial radio.
The point I am trying to get across to the noble Viscount is that the responsibility, the amount of work involved, the ability to be able to listen and to understand, is going to be much greater if the members of the Authority are to perform their functions properly. The question I had in mind when I looked at the Television Act was whether the constitution as set out in that Act was sufficient. I would again remind the Committee that, according to the Act the present Authority must have a Chairman, Deputy Chairman and such other persons not being less than five. I felt that there was a good case for an increase in the size of the Authority. I do not agree, as may be suggested, that one should double the number as a consequence of the increased responsibility. I thought that an increase of three would be about right so far as the constitution required in the Act is concerned. I therefore suggest in my Amendment that the Authority should consist of a Chairman, two Deputy Chairmen (I will come to that point in a moment) and "such other members not being less than seven", and so on. So the noble Lord, Lord Denham, cannot accuse me of exaggerating the difficulty or of being extravagant in my recommendation.
The Television Act also says that the Minister responsible may increase the number of persons on the Authority, and, as I understand it, the number is now eight. Your Lordships will see that in my Amendment I suggest that the num
930
ber should be increased to ten. In other words, I seek to increase the minimum statutory number required—that is, a Chairman, Deputy Chairman and five others, which is seven—to ten. I have sought to recognise the new responsibilities of this Authority, and to suggest that its composition should be increased in recognition of that responsibility. I hope the Government will see that this is not only a helpful Amendment but also one that is well worth making.
4.9 p.m.
LORD PLATT: Considering the obvious lack of enthusiasm on all sides of the House for the Second Reading of this Bill, when the Government failed to get a quorum and had to adjourn it to be read again and voted on by people who had not heard the arguments either in favour or against, I think the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, which I have pleasure in supporting, is an extremely modest one, and is an Amendment which the Committee might well accept. If I were convinced that the majority of the people whom I know and respect (in parenthesis I may say that this House is perhaps better than an elected House to give its opinion on matters of public taste and argument) really wanted their programmes interrupted by the selling of soap and so on I might be persuaded to keep silent, even if my vote was cast against the Bill. But as I am not convinced that the majority of my friends really hold that view, I have added my name to this Amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, made an important contribution to the debate during Second Reading (which of course many noble Lords did not hear) when he asked whether it was any more obnoxious to have one's broadcasting interrupted by advertisements than for the newspapers to be studded with advertisements—to which one or two answers were given. My answer was that if you take up a newspaper you need not look at the advertisements, whereas if you are listening to a broadcast it is very difficult to keep your ears closed and let your attention go elsewhere while someone is selling his soap. For those and other reasons, I support this Amendment.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): I wonder whether I might

931
take a slightly unusual step? The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in moving his Amendment, said that he was just going to "come on" to the two deputy chairmen. He did not actually do so and he said nothing about them. As I want to do justice to his Amendment, and at the moment I believe we have only half of it, I wonder whether he would like to say something more?
LORD SHEPHERD: I am beginning to hope that there may be some success achieved in this Committee in view of the very helpful question which the noble Viscount has put to me. In fact as soon as I had sat down I remembered the point that I had been meaning to come to, and clearly I did not get there. It seems that in this Authority either the Chairman or the Authority itself may seek to set up a two-committee system—although in the end of course the Authority would be entirely responsible—and this may have the effect of dividing the responsibility in the Authority: one side for television and one for radio. In that case there would be some advantage in having two deputy chairmen who could lead on both these sub-committees. I would not myself insist that there should be two deputy chairmen: I can recognise some difficulty here. But I should like to have some recognition that the Authority is being called upon to perform two rather different tasks and that there might be a case for having two deputy chairmen—one who could lead on one committee and the other who could lead on the other. That was the point that I was seeking to make.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am sure we are all obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation. I was also grateful for the reference to some of the finer points on the Second Reading debate that the noble Lord, Lord Platt, reminded us of. Those of us who were not present will no doubt have been pleased to have their memories of Hansard refreshed by what he said. We should also like once again to pay tribute to the magnanimous efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, which, whatever his views on the Bill may have been, were displayed on that occasion.
May I just get out of the way the inevitable and tedious drafting point
932
which I am perfectly certain the noble Lord does not mean and on which I shall say very little more? I do not think that one can put it in quite in the way he has done, because the effect of the Amendment would be to wind up the existing I.T.A. and start all over again. I think that we want to continue the I.T.A., otherwise all sorts of technical difficulties would arise and this would actually cause mayhem in the world of television as it exists at present. I will say no more of that.
The noble Lord then went on to two substantive points. The number of members of the Authority, as he says, is set out in two parts of the existing Television Act. There is a statutory minimum and then there is a proviso written in concerning the number that the Minister was going to start by appointing. That number has fluctuated a good deal over the years, and in fact the present number of ordinary members, other than the chairman and deputy chairman, is nine. That has been so since June, 1969, when the present Opposition Party were in power. The number has been up to eleven and I think it has never been less than eight, except when there was one vacancy. The point is that my right honourable friend the Minister for Posts and Telecommunications can suit the requirements of the Authority and appoint more if any are required.
As we understand it—and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, is bound by an irrevocable oath of silence while he holds his office: it is certainly unfortunate but not his fault of course—for the way in which this new Authority will he working, it will be adequate to retain the present number of members. Of course the noble Lord may find that he needs more, in which case he has but to ask and the matter can be considered. Under the Television Act 1964 as at present drafted, quite apart from this Bill, the Minister has powers to appoint more members. Therefore, while I do not want to say that the present number is irrevocable or definitely right—it plainly is not—I suggest to the Committee that the existing powers are flexible enough to deal with exigencies as they arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has drawn attention to the extra need for surveillance, supervision and a great deal

933
more detail, not only in terms of programmes but also in terms of locality. I entirely take the point and I would not be surprised if the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, has not thought about this very carefully with his existing Authority while getting ready to undertake his new duties under the Bill. I have no strong feelings on this question, but in view of the fact that we can, if necessary, alter the set-up to suit circumstances I wonder whether it is worth while putting this into the Bill. I rather think not; but if the noble Lord wants to make another speech on it, of course I will listen.
As to the two chairmen, I am not so happy about this suggestion. It would be invidious to suggest what might happen supposing one had two divisions of the I.B.A., one dealing with sound broadcasting and one with television. Everybody on that Authority, I am sure, is far too sensible ever to get into a position where there would be any sort of clash. But it is just conceivable that when one is considering two deputy chairmen and two divisions, as it were, one is not quite taking account of the position of the I.T.A. as it now is, or the I.B.A. as it will be, by comparison with the world of the B.B.C. As I understand it, in the B.B.C. the Board of Governors are not divided although they deal with both television and radio broadcasting. Below them is the complete staff of the Corporation, which inevitably is divided because they deal with entirely different aspects of broadcasting. In the I.B.A. there will only be the former situation, that is, the equivalent of the Board of Governors. One would hope that they would tend to look at the range of broadcasting services as a whole, both television and sound. There may have to be, as there are now on finance, specialist members; but I would again suggest to the Committee that to lay down in the Statute that there must be two deputy chairmen, with the inevitable problem of which one takes the chair if the chairman is not present, and so on, could detract from the flexibility with which I would hope the Authority would be able to run its business.
What impressed me most about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—and I am sure that this is the foundation of a useful Committee stage—was the tribute he paid to the I.T.A. as it
934
now exists and what it has achieved since it was set up. He spoke about its functions and applauded the fact that they were going to be the same for sound broadcasting as they are for television. He also applauded the idea of concentrating their knowledge and experience in one body rather than splitting it up into more than one corporation. I suggest to the Committee that that argument also applies to deputy chairmen. It could be divisive; I am sure that it would never be meant to be so. None of the members or the deputy chairmen would ever intend in any way to cause divisions; but purely organisationally I can foresee the possibility of difficulty here. In view of the fact that the noble Lord trusts the Authority as it now is (and as I hope it will be) I hope he will feel that he need not press the Amendment.
4.20 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: On the two substantive points in this Amendment which have been commented on so far the noble Viscount had a good answer with regard to the number of members of the Authority. Under the present legislation it can be altered and be enlarged; but I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, called the attention of the Committee to the size of the Authority, because it is important that we take seriously the fact that there will be a great cleat more work to do. The present legislation enables the size to be regulated and, if necessary, enlarged. I do not entirely follow the noble Viscount in his argument against two deputy chairmen; but I see some force in not having it laid down that you must have two deputy chairmen and that you must organise the Authority in this particular way. It may be that it is the better way to organise it; it may be that it is not. Under the present legislation, if I read it aright, there is no possibility of having two deputy chairmen should the Authority so wish or should the Postmaster General (as he then was) so wish. I wonder whether the noble Viscount would consider more favourably an Amendment, possibly at a later stage, which wrote in the possibility of the appropriate Minister, if he sees fit, appointing a second deputy chairman, something he cannot do at the moment?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is perfectly right: there are a chairman, a deputy chairman and other members of the Authority, and I think that by Statute there may not be more than one deputy chairman. I have not thought about the possibility of having an optional extra deputy chairman. I suppose that one could also think in terms of leaving out any reference to deputy chairmen if one wished to do so. Rather than my giving an answer off the cuff, possibly the noble Lord would consider it more suitable if I went away and thought about this to see whether one or other or either of these suggestions would meet the approval of those who are much more concerned with this Bill, as the noble Lord will appreciate, than I am. I will think about this matter.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, thought that the noble Viscount had a good answer. The trouble is that the noble Viscount, whether he has a good case or a bad case, always makes it sound good because he is so persuasive. Sitting on this side of the Committee one cannot helping feeling that the advent of the noble Viscount—just one noble Lord—has doubled the ability of persuasion of the entire Front Bench opposite. I wonder whether the noble Viscount would consider the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I accept the difficulties that might arise from adopting my Amendment. But perhaps the noble Viscount would also consider whether subsection (1) of the parent Act should be amended to increase the number of members, in addition to the chairman and deputy chairman, front five to seven, as a recognition of the fact that the new Authority has a greater responsibility and therefore should be of a size capable of carrying out those responsibilities. If the noble Viscount will undertake to give those matters consideration, without in any way giving an undertaking, we will agree to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes; of course I will consider the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Provision by Authority of local sound broadcasting services]:
4.25 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 9, at end insert—
("() It shall be the duty of the Authority in respect of Sound Broadcasting after entering into an initial contract—

(a) to publish a statement within the locality concerned setting out the criteria under which the contract has been awarded, such statement to include the proportion of matter to be broadcast including news and news comment, features which shall have local origin or be of particular local interest, and the number of minutes in any one hour during which advertisements are to be permitted; and

(b) to publish a statement from time to time of what changes in the criteria may have been made.")

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Shepherd. The Minister is almost bound to have written in his brief that this Amendment is defective; but perhaps he can make the points on principle as he has done before. The noble Viscount indicates that what I have suggested is not so. That is all to the good. As I see this Bill, it is in the nature of a prospectus; the Minister is placing before the Committee something which we are being invited to accept in the same way as we might be invited to take up shares in a company. That being so, we have to examine carefully whether the prospectus gives all the things that it purports to do.
The Bill was put forward as a local sound broadcasting Bill although it is not called that. This point was emphasised during the Second Reading, not only by the Minister who opened the debate but also by the noble Lord who wound up the debate and all noble Lords who participated, including one noble Lord who has some experience in another media. That noble Lord is not present to-day but he made the point that people in Britain now have made it clear that they want their voices heard at a local level and want to develop their own way of life. That is quite true. He went on to tell us how we could have local choirs and drama groups on local radio, and he made it sound rather splendid. At present the local radio stations which are operated by the B.B.C. do just that: I am sure many of your Lordships have had the privilege, as I have, of broadcasting on these local broadcasting stations. When

937
one looks at the daily programmes that are presented on, for example, Radio Merseyside or Radio Nottingham, one finds that the content is very local. All kinds of purely local material is introduced.
When we come to this Bill, which deals with sound broadcasting that is going to be handled by a programme contractor, we have an entirely different proposition. The commercial contractor is concerned, as he must be, with obtaining revenue, so he has a very different starting point. He wants to get not only a regular listening audience but, so that the advertisers will be attracted, a large regular listening audience. Sufficient control does not seem to he laid down, either over the programme content or over the amount of advertising. One has a horrific idea that one might be listening to a local sound broadcasting station operated by a programme contractor giving as much as 30 minutes of advertising to 30 minutes of whatever he likes to put over.
I am sure that the noble Viscount will say at once that this will not happen; but there is nothing in the Bill which indicates that it could not happen. Nor is there any clear definition—and this was said on Second Reading—of "local" as opposed to "regional". There is a gloriously vague statement—and this comes up in a later Amendment. But "local" to me means precisely that, and if a radio station operates from London and I am listening in the Borough of Hammersmith, to me "local" means what is happening in Hammersmith. I do not see that as being of great interest to a programme contractor who wants a vast listening audience. We feel that it is essential that the points which we have made in the Amendment should be in-chided in the Act, not merely in a statement of intent.
The Minister said on Second Reading—and he has repeated it to-day—that there must be a measure of flexibility; but when we are dealing with such an important matter as mass communication any changes in criteria for granting contracts must also be under some kind of sanction. That is why we have included the provision that the Authority should publish a statement of the changes of the criteria under which the programme contractor has been accepted. In the White Paper, An Alternative Service of Radio
938
Broadcasting, which was the forerunner of the Bill, we read this:
"The task before the I.B.A. stations will present them with a formidable challenge. They must bring in new listeners. They must compete with Radio 1 and Radio 2, to which the majority of present radio audiences now listen. These programmes will therefore need to maintain wide appeal. They will not within the channel space available to them be able to provide a broadcasting range of different audiences as can the B.B.C. with its four national services and its local network."
So it seems to me that we are absolutely schizophrenic in this Bill. We are telling the stations on the one hand that they must be purely local, but we know from the financial and indeed some of the technical reasons that they will have to make an appeal to a much larger audience. Therefore it seems to us utterly essential that in the Bill itself there should be not only a declaration of the criteria under which the programme contract is granted but a requirement imposed to broadcast local, purely local, news and matters of local interest, and also the number of minutes of advertising should be definitely stated, so that those of us who are going to listen to these stations will at least be getting a fair deal under the prospectus. I beg to move.
4.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS:I made the point at Second Reading (and I am afraid that it is one that probably appeals to me as a lawyer rather more than it appeals to other noble Lords in this Committee) that one must look at the Bill, which the noble Baroness has described as a "prospectus", and read it together with the Television Act 1964. This in the discussion of the Amendment which she has just moved is really most important. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the specific points which the noble Baroness says should be set out in the criteria and which the Amendment mentions. The three points picked out for special attention are news and news comment; features which have local origin or particular local interest; and the number of minutes in any one hour during which advertisements are to be permitted. The noble Baroness Wants something in the Bill about it. The answer is that it is already in the Television Act 1964, and I wonder whether I may show the noble Baroness where. There is one preliminary point to which

939
I would draw your Lordships' attention, and that is to the whole question of merit which the noble Baroness touched on, a little vaguely, but I know it concerns her very much. The noble Baroness must not forget that the first section of the 1964 Act says: "It shall be the duty of the Authority—to secure a wide showing for programmes of merit."
That is one point upon which I place a good deal of emphasis.
We then come to particular points which the noble Baroness refers to in her Amendment. The first point is news. So one looks at Section 3, where it says:
"It shall be the duty of the Authority to satisfy themselves that, so far as possible, the programmes broadcast by the Authority comply with the following requirements, that is to say…that a sufficient amount of time in the programmes is given to news and news features and that all news given in the programmes (in whatever form) is presented with due accuracy and impartiality".
That is a fairly powerful criterion. It is in the Act; it will be read with the Bill. Whereas there is in the Television Act a reference to "watching", there needs to be an Amendment in this Bill to say "and listening", or something of that kind. I think that is a pretty solid criterion to go on and it will apply to all programme contractors.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I wonder whether I might interrupt the Minister. I think the first words of the Amendment are
"to publish a statement within the locality concerned".
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I will come on to that. I wanted to deal with the substance of the criteria first, before we go on to the individual publication and its effect. I should like to get the background of the basic criteria first, if I may.
We then have local origin or particular local interest. As the noble Baroness will know, we have here in Section 3(1)(d) of the existing Act the provision that it shall be the duty of the Authority
"that the programmes broadcast from any station or stations contain a suitable proportion of matter calculated to appeal specially to the tastes and outlook of persons served by the station or stations and "—
a point for the Welsh and I suppose the Gaelic speaking Highlanders, if the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is not listening—
940
"where another language as well as English is in common use among those so served, a suitable proportion of matter in that language."
We have not left it at that in the Bill because we have added a new paragraph (dd) in the Schedule and reinforced the local content of this particular duty. There is also going to be a duty in the case of local sound broadcasting services that the programmes broadcast from different stations for different localities do not consist of identical or similar material to an extent inconsistent with the character of the services as local sound broadcasting services. That comes in Section 3 of the 1964 Act. So we have a double-barrelled duty here to ensure the localness and real appeal to local interest and the sort of thing the noble Baroness was speaking about. I hope she will again recognise that we have gone as far as I think we can to lay down the general principle which I am sure she is after.
Then one wants to turn to the question of advertising time and the possibility that there will be thirty minutes of soap and thirty minutes of pop, or whatever it is that is being suggested. Here one goes to Section 8 of the 1964 Act. If one looks at Section 8(4)(a) one sees that the Authority has power to give directions under this section, either general or specific, qualified or unqualified, and directions may in particular relate to the greatest amount of time to be given to advertisements in any hour or other period. That of course is the criterion that has so far applied to television. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been half an hour of solid advertisements, except in the case of the advertising magazines, which were knocked out a long time ago and there has been nothing to replace them. I cannot see why there should be any difference in the standards applied by the Authority to radio from what they have already proved they can do under those powers for television. There the powers are set out for them and read into the Bill. I think that the background, the underpinning of these criteria, is pretty well covered by the legislation as it already exists.
I should now like to go on to the point which I know is also important to the noble Baroness about publication of criteria for a specific station and, as it were, the prospectus upon which the programme contractor got his programme

941
contract. Here I am bound to say that one is on rather delicate ground. I expect that the I.B.A. would want to have from a programme contractor a pretty full account of the kind of service that he proposes, or his group proposes, to provide. The fuller the details they have—and particularly if there are a number of competitors—the more easy it is for them to make up their mind. They do not, so far as I remember, having looked at the advertisements which they put out inviting people to apply for contracts, at the moment specify criteria in those advertisements. I believe it comes at the next stage when the first indication of the type of programme appears in the response from the would-be programme contractor. Discussions then take place and in some cases, certainly in the past, it has not been the whole of that group that has won the contract; two groups have been amalgamated or something of that kind has happened. So, again, there would not necessarily be one single set of criteria upon which the application that succeeded was based; there might be an amalgamation of two. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, and his Authority would consider, as I have said, that they need the fullest information possible.
But if the criteria upon which the contract was awarded are to he published, what is likely to be the effect of this? Will it not first of all be to restrict the frankness with which the would-be programme contractors approach the I.B.A.? Will it not also make it more difficult for the I.B.A. to judge the merits of the rival concerns who are seeking a licence? Above all—and I think this is perhaps the most dangerous thing of all—if you then have public scrutiny and reference hack to these criteria afterwards (and I think they would be fairly flimsy and fairly general criteria, for the reasons that I have explained) are you not all the time going to have both the contractors and the Authority looking over their shoulders and saying, "My goodness! I wonder whether I have infringed subsection (2) of Clause 23 of the application that I made? Perhaps I ought to play safe; perhaps I ought not to experiment; perhaps I should not take a step forward; perhaps I should not do that programme after all." I believe this is going to be restrictive and I do not believe that it
942
will help the Authority in trying to decide who best to give the contract to in the first place.
I do not think any of us knows exactly how this will work, but we have experience—and this of course comes back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, about how I.T.V. has worked —on the actual allocation of programme contracts to applicants. We know that there have been conversations about the way in which a station should be run. This has been in the Press, and everybody knows that there have been dialogues between the applicants and the Authority. We also know that from time to time the Authority has been on the tail of some of the programme contractors about what is in their programmes; what should be and what should not be in them. This is an on-going process, and if you put down those criteria and then you have to change them it takes away all the flexibility; you are stuck with a beastly legal piece of paper. Everybody looks at it, everybody sticks to it, and I believe it would be damaging to the service. Although I understand the doubts which have been expressed by the noble Baroness, I believe we can trust the I.B.A. to get this matter right. I hope that goes some way to satisfy the noble Baroness, although I appreciate very much the problem she has raised.
4.42 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: I do not think that that is really a satisfactory answer, if I may say so to the noble Viscount. Perhaps I may take up his concluding point, the fact that there is not a piece of paper and there is no way in which compulsion can be brought to bear on a programme contractor. As the noble Viscount is aware, there has been considerable discussion about the allocation of contracts for television. One can foresee the same thing happening with sound broadcasting, that applicants will put forward ideas which seem reasonable and desirable to meet the objectives laid down in the Act but then as soon as they have a "legal piece of paper", as the noble Viscount has said, they can tear up whatever has been submitted in the form of undertakings of the kind mentioned in this Amendment.
I do not see how the noble Viscount can justify the kind of criticism that he was making on the effects of publication.

943
He said, for example, that it would restrict the frankness of would-be contractors. Why on earth should it? The noble Viscount did not argue this case; he merely asserted that proposition without any sort of evidence to back it up. I think it might make the programme contractors a little more careful about what they put into these documents, and that would be no bad thing at all, because there would be no guarantee that they were going to meet their obligations subsequently. If they said, for example, that there was to be a proportion of locally written drama and that was put down in black and white for anyone to see, then as soon as it was posible to add up the number of hours of locally written drama during the course of the year it would be for the general public to see that the criteria laid down by the contractor himself were being followed and pressure could be brought to bear to restore the situation. After all, the contractor has said that he is going to do a certain thing in the first place.
The noble Viscount has said that it would make it more difficult for the I.B.A. to judge the rival merits of competitors. To me the very reverse seems to be true, to the extent that the contractors will be more careful in the wording and more precise, even though the document has no legal force. This is going to make it easier rather than more difficult for the I.B.A. As to the reference back afterwards and the arguments that might take place, if the document is clear in the first place there cannot be the kind of doubts on interpretation mentioned by the noble Viscount.
To take the matters specifically mentioned in this Amendment, one has news and news comment. I do not think that that phrase needs further definition or that those words would result in arguments taking place later on as to whether a particular item was in fact news or news comment. Surely critics of the system will not be so difficult as to argue about whether a particular programme falls into this or that category? That is a matter that can be settled between the programme contractor and the Authority. Similarly, in theory there may be differences of interpretation as to what is an item of local origin or of particular local interest. This is not something
944
that one is going to argue about, and I think it is reasonable to assume that such criticism as would be expressed would be responsible and would come from local newspapers and even from the committee which I suppose we shall discuss under a later clause, which is supposed to ensure that matters of local interest are properly dealt with. If the criticism which is to be made subsequently is by responsible committees of that kind, then I believe the noble Viscount's fears are groundless. In any case, why should we take the attitude that we want to conceal everything from the public? Surely the presupposition should always be that we want to give the maximum amount of information so that people can form their opinions for themselves, and not to say to them, "You run away and play. What do you think we set up this I.B.A. for?—so that we can allocate the contracts behind the scenes. You take what you are given and remember that there is a committee which is appointed by the local authority to look after it on your behalf. You shut up; it is none of your business." Is that the kind of attitude we are going to take in setting up local sound broadcasting, or are we going to try to involve the people right from the start in the decisions that will affect them so deeply?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The difficulty with which I am faced in dealing with what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said is twofold. First, I do not understand how this would work. Is he suggesting that at the stage when the I.B.A. advertise for applicants for a local radio station, for instance, on Merseyside or in Nottingham (incidentally, I was very pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, say that she thought those were local. I think that if it could be done in a place the size of Merseyside and satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that it is local it is the most encouraging thing I have heard in the debates in this House on the Bill), the Authority is going to say, "We now advertise for applicants for Radio Merseyside. They shall put out in the course of the week not less than 35 minutes and not more than 45 minutes of sport North of the Mersey and not less than 25 and not more than 35 minutes of sport originating South of the Mersey. There shall be two and a half hours of

945
locally written drama, by which is meant written by somebody residing for the last three years in the county of Lancashire, Cheshire, Denbigh and Flint and the county boroughs of Warrington, Wigan Preston, Bootle, Barrow-in-Furness, Wallasey, Birkenhead and Chester"—and other matters of that calibre; or is he going to leave it to the applicants to put that sort of detail in for themselves? Or is there to be some sort of intermediate stage when the I.B.A. and the applicant between them thresh out that sort of matter?
I assume that the way it will work is that the document containing this sort of information having been produced, the public will then be invited to ask the I.B.A. whether it is satisfied that Mr. Smith (shall we say?), who wrote the drama that was put out on the radio the previous Saturday had in fact lived in Preston for the last two and a half years. I do not believe that this is the way to get constructive public criticism. I believe that under this Bill there will be continuing publicity and criticism in the Press. There has been no lack of publicity and criticism, in the Press and other sources, and in Parliament, about the programmes shown on Independent Television. I just wonder whether the I.B.A. will find it helpful to have the public picking up detailed points of tiny bits of the criteria where there may or may not have been infringement. The I.B.A. will have to adjudicate; it will have to say to the programme contractor, "It is very naughty; the man was only there two and a quarter years; you have broken the criteria; we shall have to have a revision and publish the change." I do not understand what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, wants, and I do not understand how it would work. I believe that there will be sufficient public interest, sufficient public criticism, sufficient channels of public criticism without going through all this rigmarole. That is why I find it so difficult to accept the Amendment.
LORD AVEBURY: May I answer the question of the noble Viscount? I think that any would-be programme contractor who tied himself down to such a rigid framework as the noble Viscount described would be extremely foolish. But that would be a matter for the contractor to decide. He puts up his proposals to the I.B.A., and if he chose to say there
946
should be two and a half hours of drama by a person resident in Preston (I think the noble Viscount said) for a minimum of two and a half years, obviously that would be extremely foolish, and I doubt whether he would get the contract on the basis of saying something like that. But it would be a matter for him to say what he was going to do to meet the criteria laid down in this Amendment; what sort of proportion would be local news and local comment, what sort of proportion would consist of matter of local origin or particular local interest. One could have extended this list.
I am certainly not suggesting to the noble Viscount that one should lay down a rigid framework within which the would-be programme contractors would have to operate. They put forward their suggestions, and the contract would be awarded because the I.B.A. considered that those suggestions were the best among those competing. That having been done, then, in a similar way to what happens under Clause 10(2), as soon as the broadcasts begin to be transmitted the statement put forward by the particular programme contractor is published, and listeners and those representing them on the local committee and the newspapers circulating in the area covered by the transmitter will all be able to make comments in the light of what they know the programme contractor said he was going to do. The procedure is simple, and I cannot understand why the noble Viscount makes such heavy weather of it.
4.54 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Viscount did not need to remind us that he is a lawyer because he adopted the customary practice of the lawyer, "If in difficulties, attack." What he did was to seek to attack the noble Lord who sits on the Liberal Benches in, I thought, a quite unnecessary way; and, if I may say so, we are not going to make the progress I should like to see on this Committee if he adopts this attitude. But since I am not a lawyer I cannot attack the noble Viscount. I expected that the noble Viscount's basic case against this Amendment, if he was not going to accept it, was that it was not necessary because the point is already covered in Clause 10 of the Bill. But in fact he made no reference to Clause 10.

947
One is in some difficulty in discussing Clause 10 now, because we have yet to reach it; but the Committee will see that subsection (1)(c) says:
"…subject to the next following subsection, a copy of so much of that contractor's application for such a contract as related to the character of the local sound broadcasts which he proposed to provide if his application were accepted by the Authority."
Then subsection (2) states that the copy shall not be made available until after the local sound broadcasts have begun to be transmitted. It seems to me that much of the information, the criteria that we are seeking in this Amendment, is likely to be found in this copy of the application, and perhaps a copy of the contract. That meets us some of the way. Perhaps the noble Viscount could confirm that this is the sort of material we may expect to find as a consequence of Clause 10.
Clause 10, however, limits the recipients of the information referred to to those who go to the Authority and make the application; and presumably such people would need to have a particular interest and would also be required to pay a sum of money—how much we do not know. It seems from Clause 10 that if a person is in an interested position he would be able to get this information. What we are seeking in this Amendment is that this information, which we expect to be available to an interested party, should be made available as a matter of course within the locality to the general public. It is quite clear that this will be provided only after the contract has been entered into; so we shall not get the question of. "Who knows what?" I think I must press this point, because there is a matter of considerable importance here. If this is to be local radio, as the White Paper says, it should be deeply entrenched into the locality. If those words mean anything, it must be that the people in the locality should know what are the criteria on which commercial sound broadcasting is being made available to them. If the noble Viscount is willing to look at Clause 10 and say whether he can meet us on the principle that the information there available will be more widely known by a statement published by the Authority in the Press. I will not suggest to my noble friend
948
that she should press this Amendment. But unless he can give an undertaking to consider this, I think we ought to test the opinion of the Committee.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I did not refer to Clause 10 because I knew the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd well, and I knew that he would have read the legislation we are discussing, and I assumed that what he found there was not adequate for his purposes—though I am not quite sure why. Clause 10(1) reads:
"…the Authority shall, on request made by any person and on payment by him of such sum (if any) as the Authority may reasonably require…"—
which I would expect to be copying costs in the usual way of local authority documents—
"provide the information set out there."
The noble Lord, I assume, was not satisfied with that.
LORD SHEPHERD: Correct.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The copy of the contract, I am bound to say, is probably mostly a matter of legal drafting, and a document which will ensure that the Authority has the proper powers that it needs under the legislation to control the programme contractor. Subsection (1)(b) says:
"a statement of the number of applications…".
That is not likely to have the details of what they said so I think that it would depend on Clause 10(1)(c) as to whether or not the information the noble Lord thinks the public should have would be available to the public. I cannot say exactly what will be the precise details under 10(1)(c), but it does refer to "the character of the local sound broadcasts", and I should have thought that the Committee might consider that that would do. The Amendment seeks to go further than that.
I am sorry; I did not mean to attack the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I was trying to clarify his position. I did not understand how the Amendment would work; and I still do not. I suggest that Clause 10(1)(c), plus the general provisions to which I have drawn attention, are adequate safeguards. If the noble Lord wants to test the opinion of the Committee, he must do so. I cannot go any further.
LORD AVEBURY: May I ask a question before the noble Viscount sits down? He said that the publication of such details as are referred to in the Amendment would have various undesirable consequences; that it would restrict the frankness of would-be contractors, and so on. He made three points there. If he is now saying that under Clause 10(1)(c) this information will be made available to the general public, how can he reconcile that with his earlier criticism of the effects of the Amendment?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: As I understood it, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, wanted every nut and every bolt of the proposals that the applicant was putting before the I.B.A. to be set out seriatim and published for everybody to look at, scrutinise and pick holes in, and see whether they were abided by all the time that the sound broadcasting contract lasted. If that is not what the noble Lord wants, then presumably there is enough in Clause 10(1)(c). I do not understand how there can be any difficulty about this matter unless the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, wants a good deal more information than is likely to appear under Clause 10(1)(c). If he does want that information, then I do not believe that one would get all the full thought that the I.B.A. needs to have before they allocate the contracts. I am afraid I do not see the noble Lord's difficulty in this matter.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: In that case, I wonder whether the noble Viscount would tell us what is excluded from Clause 10(1)(c). It says:
"a copy of so much of that contractor's application for such a contract as related to the character of the local sound broadcasts.. "
What is there that is excluded by that, which need not be produced and which belongs to the contractor's application? If we were told a little about that, it might clarify the matter a little further.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My difficulty is that I have only ever seen one application for a contract under the existing Television Act, and I am wholly debarred from saying what was in it. All I can say is that it was a document that was drafted with the most colossal care, and I do not think it was wholly confined to matters which were—well, in this case it perhaps was not particularly
950
local—the local character of the broadcast. There was a good deal more than that in it, and a good deal more that needed to be. The difficulty about the Amendment is that the statement only includes the proportion of various matters that are set out in it. There is no restriction upon what the statement might have to put in in addition to that. I do not know to this moment exactly what it is that noble Lords want to have in. They used the word "include", but it could be a good deal wider than that.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am going to persuade my noble friends and my colleagues not to divide on this Amendment because we are still in the early stages of this Bill. Since we have an undertaking from the noble Viscount to consider some aspects of the first Amendment, clearly we are going to have a Report stage, so we shall be able to come back to it. I hope that when we come to Clause 10 of the Bill the noble Viscount will give us a detailed explanation of what is meant by the words,
"related to the character of the local sound broadcasts…"
My understanding, again as a non-lawyer, is that the character of the programmes to be provided clearly would have to embrace a description of the times for news. the quantity of news, the amount of time permitted for advertisements, and all the sorts of things that we have placed in our Amendment. I should have thought that the character of a programme would embrace this. If that is the case, having got on Committee from the noble Viscount that explanation as to what the character means, then at a later stage we could perhaps amend Clause 10 to see that that information is made more widely known by the initiative of the Authority, and not leave it entirely to individuals to go into the office and seek a piece of paper. I agree with the noble Lord that if this is to be local radio the local people should fully participate in all that is going on within that station.
VISCOUNT COLVIL LE OF CULROSS: I have been warned.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: May I add just one last point which I think is worth making? The noble Viscount really should consider this point about the initiative coming from

951
the Authority, because remember that if this Bill goes through we are setting up a situation in which local newspapers are going to he partners of the contractors, and it is not necessarily going to he in the interest of the local newspapers, one would normally expect, to apply for and publish copies of the application. Therefore there is all the more reason why there should be some initiative from the Authority to sec that these matters are known.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.6 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 9, at end insert—
("() It shall be the duty of the Authority in respect of sound broadcasting to ensure that, in addition to the duties set out in section 1(4) of the Principal Act, such programmes shall include programmes of merit and that a reasonable proportion of broadcasting time each day shall be devoted to matters of interest to those in the locality and, in respect of advertising time available, to local advertisers.")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend, Lord Shepherd. I think here we are on a similar point, to which no doubt the Minister will give me a similar reply. However, there is an additional point here, particularly in relation to local advertisers. I think we must continually emphasise the word "local".
I thought that the Minister, in replying to the previous Amendment, did not give particularly good examples when he quoted "drama written by Mr. Smith in Preston". It would surely be drama which was about Preston, which would be the deciding factor when you are talking about local character.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Again I do not want to interrupt, but I was simply taking up the specific argument. "Locally written drama" were the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and I was simply dealing with that. I take the noble Baroness's point.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My understanding of local material is that it would not necessarily have to be written by somebody who was still living in the immediate vicinity. Some of the occu
952
pants of Chelsea undoubtedly started in Liverpool and still write about Liverpool. I thought we were getting into a slightly ridiculous situation. I still say that there can be no great disadvantage in displaying more about what is happening. One of the features of the present age is surely that we know more about the operation of big companies. I am intrigued to see, when passing certain drapery stores, that at the moment they are appealing to the public to take an interest in the fact that they might be taken over by another large drapery store. This can all be read about in the Financial Times 1/16/2007; one can read exactly and precisely the balance sheets and about who is concerned in the companies. This is all to the good and it is the way that society operates. Therefore it seems that there can be no real disadvantage if the same criteria are exercised in relation to the programme contractors in this very important media.
The Minister has quoted the case of the television companies. I should like to emphasise that there is a difference in this media. Anybody who has had the misfortune to listen to some of the commercial stations will know that there is a vast difference in the way the message is plugged from the way in which the message is put over by advertisers on television. The media are different; therefore we cannot always quote the example of one as compared to the other.
May I refer here to what we are asking for, which is an additional point. The Television Act says:
"It shall be the duty of the Authority—(a) to provide the television broadcasting service as a public service for disseminating information, education and entertainment;".
It is not "local information, local education and local entertainment". This may be taken very generally, as indeed it is. A great deal of the entertainment is certainly "canned" and comes from the other side of the world; a great deal of the educational material is "canned" and comes from the other side of the world. We must emphasise all the time that if this is to be a local broadcasting service it must be local and very much in character with the region, with the international participants taking a second place.
The Act also says that the Authority shall:
"ensure that the programmes broadcast by the Authority in each area maintain a high

953
general standard in all respects, and in particular in respect of their content and quality, and a proper balance and wide range in their subject matter, having regard both to the programmes as a whole and also to the days of the week on which, and the times of the day at which, the programmes are broadcast."
It is a pretty wide definition. It gives quite a lot of leeway to the Authority, so we should like it tied up, particularly in relation to the advertising. General advertising does not have the same appeal as local advertising if you are dealing with a local situation, as I know from my consumer work. It was useless to tell people to shop around for a product if they lived in Eastbourne, where it was unobtainable, and one was talking about something obtainable in London. Local advertising must be purely local in character, and it will not be unless it is more carefully tied up in the measure with which we are dealing now. I beg to move.
LORD DENHAM: I am glad to say that there is no difference in principle between noble Lords opposite and ourselves over this. I think that in her opening speech the noble Baroness admitted that almost all the points covered by her Amendment were either in the original Act or in the Bill. I have gone through these very fully. I have read the noble Baroness's Amendment and I cannot find a single instance where it will add anything to what is already in the Act. Schedule 1 of the Bill, at page 16, line 14, paragraph 1(4)(c) of the principal Act—which requires the Authority to secure a wide showing of what was then a television programme of merit—is adapted so as to apply to sound broadcasting. It adapts the provision as to television programmes in the original Act to sound broadcasting.
The noble Baroness's second point—
"a reasonable proportion of broadcasting time each day shall he devoted to matters of interest to those in the locality"
is covered by Section 3(1)(d) of the principal Act which stipulates—
"that the programmes broadcast from any station…contain a suitable proportion of matter calculated to appeal specially to the tastes and outlook of persons served by the station…"
That paragraph, of course, applies to sound broadcasting as much as to television, but in relation to broadcasting it is reinforced by the addition in Schedule 1 of the Bill, Section 3, of a new paragraph (dd) which my noble friend has
954
already read out. I think if noble Lords opposite will look at that they will find that the points are already covered.
Finally, as to time being reserved for local advertisers, I would refer to Schedule 2, paragraph 9 of the principal Act as amended by Schedule 2 of the Bill, which requires that if there appears to be enough local demand provision must be made for "a reasonable allocation of time for local advertisements". My Lords, I think that probably goes far enough. I think I can say that all these provisions that are already in the Bill go as far as the noble Baroness's Amendment would go. Your Lordships may say, "Why not spell it out in this place as in this Amendment?" Of course there is the feeling—and your Lordships will have heard time and time again in this House—that if something is repeated twice in a Bill one of two things, and possibly both, can happen. Either because the same thing is repeated twice somebody will try to give a different meaning to it when it appears in different words the second time, or because one thing is repeated twice other things which may be of equal importance but which are not repeated twice, such as the duty of the Authority to provide a particular balance in the programme, are thought to be of slightly less importance.
I am sorry, this is a very complicated matter referring from the Bill and the Schedule to the Bill back to the Act and the Schedule to the Act. If the noble Baroness will look at this she will find that everything she wants is covered very thoroughly by the Act and the Bill as they now stand.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: The Minister said, "by local demand". Who would be the people demanding—consumers, advertisers, shopkeepers? I am never very happy with these phrases. It is rather like those in the Trade Descriptions Act where marking orders are introduced subject to there being a demand. How do you stimulate spontaneous demand?
LORD DENHAM: This is for the Authority to judge, and it has been judging in regard to television. Admittedly, television is regional, rather than local, whereas radio is to be local. I think it is for the Authority to judge.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am grateful to my noble friend for moving this Amendment. I should like to make it clear to the Committee that she is in no way responsible for the drafting of it, which is entirely my own homework—some may say inadequate homework. The noble Lord, Lord Denham, has recognised that this is a rather complicated matter, and it was only after I had put the Amendment down that I spotted that some of the points that I had in mind had already been covered. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his very clear explanation. If the clarity of his explanation and the explanation of the noble Viscount had been more evident in another place by Ministers responsible for the bill, we should probably not have put these Amendments on the Order Paper.
In support of my noble friend may I say that I am a little worried as to whether the phrase, "if there is local demand" is entirely adequate. We are going to have local radio in London, and this will be a fairly large station. It will need to earn a fairly sizeable income, but it will still be providing a local service. It will need to recover quite considerable sums from advertising. It may well be that what we call the national advertisers will find this a useful medium, and the national advertisers may well be willing to pay fairly large sums of money—sums well beyond the capability of local advertisers. I wonder whether this phrase which puts responsibility on the Authority means that it is merely a question of payment and that in fact a local advertiser will be denied an opportunity merely because he is unable to pay the rates that national advertisers are willing to pay for advertisements on sound radio.
This may occur either in London or in some of the other greater conurbations. One can understand that the sound radio companies will seek first that advertising which is easy to acquire, perhaps through the various agencies. But it may be that such advertisers will be willing to pay much higher rates for the time permitted on sound radio, to the exclusion of local advertisers. So that if this is to be local radio, we must ensure that local advertisers are not excluded solely because of the rates charged for advertising on a medium which has been set up to provide them with a service.
LORD DENHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for going, a little further into this matter. May I say to the noble Baroness that the people who will create the demand locally are the people who pay—the advertisers themselves. Of course we shall look very carefully at what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, and I am sure that the Authority itself will look at that, too. The rates of advertising at any one time will of course be set by the programme contractors, who will be under the general auspices of the Authority. It will be up to the Authority to decide, according to the demand, whether it should specify how much time should be available for local advertisers. It is very difficult to define exactly a "local advertiser." I know that on regional television programmes one sees quite a lot of advertising by the larger local shops, and I am sure that that will be quite possible on radio. But it will be up to the Authority to decide whether to set aside a specific amount of time for local advertising; and if it does so it may be necessary to ensure that the rates are such that local advertisers can fill the time available. I think I have gone as far as I can at the moment, and I hope that the noble Baroness will not press this Amendment.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: The noble Lord has made such an appeal to my tender heart that I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD: This is a probing Amendment. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Denham, with his expert advice, can tell us what is meant by the words "in normal circumstances". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 13, leave out ("in normal circumstances")—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD DENHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining that this is a probing Amendment. In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, these words serve a useful purpose. Radio waves vary in their behaviour from time to time according to a number of different factors, some of which vary with the locality. So that there can arise freak conditions in which, because of

957
atmospheric changes, the reception is either diminished by interference from distant stations, or increased by particularly good propagation conditions. If the definition depended upon adequate reception being ensured in all circumstances, normal or not, the transmissions in normal conditions would often be excessive; that is to say, the area which they cover would be much larger than the exigencies of local radio would justify. I hope that what I have said covers the noble Lord's point, and that he will therefore be able to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. As I said, this is a probing Amendment and my purpose in putting it down was to help me when I move my next Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.25 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 14, leave out ("throughout a particular locality") and insert ("to natural communities")
The noble Lord said: On Second Reading, noble Lords on all sides of the House, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, were genuinely concerned about whether as a consequence of this Bill, we should get regional sound radio as opposed to local sound radio. Some of the fears may be a consequence of the White Paper, where we have to go to paragraph 6 before the first reference is made to local commercial radio. Then there were the numerous speeches of the previous Minister in another place, when he was asked to define what he meant by "local radio". He hedged and evaded on every occasion, as did the noble Lord, Lord Denham, when he wound up on Second Reading. The fears of those who believe in local sound radio, as opposed to regional sound radio, were further strengthened by the announcement of the first five stations which all represent major conurbations. It is significant that the White Paper states:
"…the IBA will be encouraged to experiment in the early stages with the establishment of relatively small stations in order to determine the minimum size of community capable of sustaining a worthwhile local radio station."
958
Certainly none of the five stations already announced falls within that description. It could be said that we are in fact moving to a form of regional sound radio.
On Second Reading, I said that it had come to my knowledge from fairly responsible sources that, in the case of London, it was intended that the stations should have such power of transmission that the service would be picked up in Dover, Guildford, Harlow and Chelmsford; and that the Birmingham station would be picked up in Coventry and Wolverhampton. The noble Lord, Lord Denham, said, "This is perhaps going too far" and thought that I was exaggerating the position. But when I asked him how far was I exaggerating it, he was not prepared to say. If the noble Lord chooses to accuse me—one who very rarely exaggerates—of exaggeration, then I think he ought to tell us what the Government have in mind as the transmission limits of, say, the London stations. Will they cover the G.L.C. area in normal circumstances, or will they go beyond? I should like the noble Lord to give a specific reply on this matter. If he can set our minds at rest and can say that this will be purely local radio, then we shall be very much happier.
I have suggested in my Amendment that the word "locality" should be omitted. I have looked it up in the dictionary, and we are not given any clear definition of "locality". In fact, as used in the Bill it could mean pretty well anything. I have therefore used the phrase used by the previous Minister in another place, and have said that these services should be directed towards what we could call "natural communities". I think one would now call the G.L.C. area a natural community; and I think one could think of other such areas. If there was a station in Norfolk covering an area perhaps down to the coast, one would think of that as basically a natural community. Therefore I suggest to the noble Lord that perhaps this would be a tighter definition for the benefit of the Authority than the rather loose phrase of "a particular locality". I hope the noble Lord will understand that we are trying to be helpful here. We have avoided all the other suggested definitions involving size and distance, which I

959
personally believe to be impractical. If we are to have local radio I think it would be better if it were beamed towards and deliberately provided for communities as opposed to localities, and I hope the Government will agree with this view. I beg to move.
LORD ORR-EWING: I should like to support this Amendment. It seems to me that if you just leave "adequate reception", you have the right instinct. I have a feeling that if you say that you must have perfect reception throughout a particular locality, you will find that the power of the station needs to be very much greater than it would be in normal circumstances, which could lead to interference with Continental stations and other undesirable consequences. Also, does this mean throughout a particular locality both during the day, on M.F., and night, on V.H.F.? If so, again you would have to have reinforcements, or even satellite stations, to make sure that there is blanket coverage.
I have never accepted the concept, which Government Ministers of all persuasions seem to accept, that you have to have perfect blanket coverage of B.B.C.I throughout the country' before you bring in B.B.C.2; that you have to have perfect coverage of I.T.A.1 before you can contemplate I.T.A.2; and, similarly, that you must have, in this instance, perfect local coverage in normal circumstances throughout a particular locality. If that sort of concept had ruled our legislation while gas was being replaced by electricity, we should never have had electricity in our homes: the theory would have been that you must have a gas main throughout the country before you dare supply an alternative form of power in the form of electricity. It seems to me a ridiculous concept, and I think that in this particular phraseology it would be a happier arrangement if the Amendment were accepted. I see no difficulty about it; and it would allow the I.B.A., in due course, to keep the power of the stations down and not to provide the blanket coverage which could mean, as the noble Lord said in moving this Amendment, coverage from a London station in places as remote as Dover, which by no stretch of our imagination could possibly be called local broadcasting.
LORD AIREDALE: I should like to support this Amendment, too. It seems to me that in this connection the phrase "a particular locality" is rather woolly, because whenever you set up a broadcasting station you at once create a particular locality; that is to say, the locality which is served by that broadcasting station, wherever it may be. But if the idea of local sound broadcasting is to serve natural communities, then surely the expression "natural communities" at this place in the Bill is much preferable to the woolly expression "a particular locality".
LORD AVEBURY: One certainly cannot quarrel with the theory that one should serve natural communities, as in the Amendment, but I do see one difficulty in that the natural communities as one might like to define them are not necessarily of a regular shape. For instance, Greater London has been mentioned. If one thinks of the mass of Greater London, it is a good deal longer from East to West than it is from North to South. Therefore, if in normal circumstances (to use the phraseology we were discussing on the previous Amendment) your transmitter is of sufficient power to cover these two extremes in the East and West, then obviously it is going to be also reaching people beyond the edges of Greater London in the North, such as Watford, or in the South, perhaps going down as far as Sevenoaks. I cannot see any way around that, or, unless the natural community happens to be of a perfectly circular shape, which may be unusual, what you can in fact do about this. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, should be satisfied by what was said on the previous Amendment about "in normal circumstances", and that we are net going to have stations which will transmit from London as far as Dover. As the noble Lord, Lord Denham, said, this could happen. The particular meteorological conditions, I suppose, could be such that the reception might suddenly be good for a few minutes, or perhaps for half an hour; but, normally, if one has a station confined to Greater London, it would not go very much beyond the boundaries except to take in the kind of point I was making about the shape.
While on this subject, I should question whether Greater London is in fact a

961
natural community. I do not think that the interests are entirely identical between people who live in my part of the world, in Orpington, say, and those who live North of the river. For example, we do not have an Underground system extending down to the South as yet. Ultimately, we shall have the Fleet Line, and so on, but it will not come out anywhere like so far as the place where I happen to live. Obviously, news of the Underground system might be of extreme importance to people who live in Hampstead, with the prospects of a "Go-slow", for example, but a natural community, if one is thinking in terms of transport, is comprised of people who are served by that Underground system. The difficulty here is that one has different natural communities for different purposes. The people who commute from far beyond the edges of Greater London are interested in the operation of the railways. The red buses, on the other hand, are confined, I think, entirely within the limits of Greater London. Therefore, although one would like to see this concept of the natural community written into the Bill, it may be rather difficult to say how it is going to be applied for particular purposes. If the noble Lord will say that he will think about this, and perhaps put in a definition of what a natural community is, I think that would be useful and we could discuss it at a later stage. But I am not quite sure that to insert the phrase as it stands, without realising what we are talking about, would be of great value.
LORD DENHAM: I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion. There are a number of difficulties here. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and other noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friend—have worries about this Bill. I do not think many of their worries are justified, and I am not quite clear, whether those worries are justified or not, to what extent this change of wording will have the effect they require. I think the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was worried first of all about the fact that the first five of the stations announced were conurbations. I think he thought that, therefore, the next ones announced might be of the same size or bigger. I imagine that the thinking behind my right honourable friend and the Authority in this was that this is an
962
experiment that has got to get off the ground; and, obviously, when you are starting you want to go to a place where there is the greatest chance of success. Various factors about the way the first stations have run and the difficulties that have come up are going to be helpful in working out how the next one should be organised. Therefore, it is rather more sensible if you start with the larger groups, where there is possibly a greater chance of success and of the thing running smoothly, and to go on from there. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, need have any worries that the others are going to be so much bigger. I know that the noble Lord is particularly worried about the Greater London area. He said that my right honourable friend was evasive and that I was evasive. Neither of us intended to be so. The answer is that we could not tell the noble Lord or his right honourable friends because the decision had not been taken—and has not yet been taken.
The basic intention behind the London station is to cover the Greater London area—though I think that I am probably going too far in saying that. The difficulty is that first you have to get the sites and then work out the coverage from there. It is going to be impossible to say, for instance, whether Croydon will be included in the London area. All that I did say—and I am afraid it did not go very far—was that Dover was an exaggeration. But I cannot go further that that. As soon as the decision is taken it will be quite possible for noble Lords to question this.
The difficulty here is really one of wording. I cannot see that a change of wording will make much differenece. As I read it, the noble Lord's preferred words refer to human beings whereas the wording in the Bill refers to geographical location. Obviously, one wants to cover the right sort of local area. But, as Lord Avebury said, you must reconcile this with the fact that there are technical difficulties; for a radio wave in one direction will go a certain distance and in another direction, because there are some hazards, will not go so far. You are not going to get a nice geometrical pattern on the ground and be able to say that this is the area. Unless you are very, very lucky in choosing your area you are bound to go beyond or to fall short of a

963
theoretically nice line drawn on the map. I do not think that the wording is going to make a lot of difference. I think that the noble Lord and his friends are worried overmuch about this. The definite intention is for local radio and not regional radio.
LORD AIREDALE: Is the Minister suggesting that every local radio station is going to be served by one transmitter only?—because, obviously, in the case of an irregularly shaped community (such as the one about which my noble friend Lord Avebury spoke) you cannot hope to serve it with one transmitter. The answer is to have a second, subsidiary, perhaps lower-powered transmitter which will cover parts of the natural community not served by the main transmitter. It is hopeless to pre-suppose that it will be possible to serve every natural community by one transmitter, irrespective of the shape of the ground covered by that community.
LORD DENHAM: Of course, this is the case. Equally, however many transmitters you have, you are not going to be able to get an absolutely perfect line drawn on the map. In some places the natural community may be bisected by a river which goes in a wavy line. You cannot expect to make sure that your transmission goes up to the banks of that river and not beyond it. These are things that must be reconciled by the Authority and by my right honourable friend.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: The Minister said that we could question the matter of station locations, and so on. How do we do that? Will not such inquiries evoke the usual reply, that this is the responsibility of the I.B.A.? Is this not the only opportunity we shall have to question these matters?
LORD DENHAM: In so far as the matter is one for the I.B.A., the noble Baroness will probably get the answer that she is accustomed to getting in this House. My right honourable friend is answerable to Parliament in so far as the matter is within his responsibility.
LORD SHEPHERD: I find the reply of the noble Lord rather unsatisfactory. There is no doubt at all that there is considerable concern among those who are interested in commercial sound broadcasting—interested in it and per
964
haps through it—that the Government are moving towards regional sound broadcasting. Despite what the noble Lord has said, I do not think he has removed the genuine fear that exists. He could remove that fear if he were to accept my Amendment. This would mean that the Authority in deciding the area in which a broadcast was to be made or could be made would select a natural community, a community of recognisable people, rather than an abstract and undefined "locality". If the noble Lord will look at his own White Paper he will see in paragraph 8:
"The station should as far as possible serve recognisable communities."
That was the intention when the White Paper was published. It seems to me that there has been a shift in the attitude of the Government, perhaps a recognition that these communities may not be large enough to sustain commercial sound radio. They therefore rest on this ill-defined word "locality" which would make it possible, in order to provide a financially viable station, to go beyond the "locality" as most of us understand the word and into a form of regional sound radio. I should myself like to test the views of the Committee on this important matter, and unless the noble Lord is willing to concede this point I shall invite the Committee to divide.
LORD ORR-EWING: I wonder whether we could have a compromise. Like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I have a feeling that the first part makes absolute sense and that "throughout a particular locality" is asking too much because you cannot ensure that this is so if you are in the shadow area. There will be communities who are outside the range of a V.H.F. station. It is the fourth power law over the horizon, for those noble Lords who are mathematically-minded. This fades quickly and the only way to get by is to put up the power and fill in the shadow. Radio waves bend round and over obstacles; and with enough power you can fill the shadows. As it stands there will be a tendency to put up the power in order to fill in the shadow and I think this is undesirable. Like Lord Avebury, I am not completely happy about the substitution of the words "to natural communities" because I think that we go along well with the idea of a London station of itself. There are

965
20 or 30 natural communities in the Greater London area, so I do not think that the proposed substitution is very sensible in that context. I hope that my noble friend might just take out the first part and then look at this problem before we come to Third Reading, to see whether it is acceptable; whether it would assure those of us who have some anxiety about regionalisation rather than the local stations and still sustain the Government's argument.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I think there is a real difference of emphasis between noble Lords on different sides of the Committee and the Government Front Bench. It is a difference of emphasis which I see running through the whole Bill. I noted that on a previous Amendment the noble Viscount, when replying to my noble friend Lord Avebury, said that it would not be helpful to the I.B.A. if members of the public locally behaved in a particular way. I refrained then from saying that what we want is that the I.B.A. should be helpful to local members of the public and local communities. Although it may not secure a tremendous practical difference, this Amendment is important for the emphasis that it lays: that we are trying to produce broadcasting for local communities, and not trying to carve up areas as may best suit the contractors or the convenience of the I.B.A. I think there is an important psychological point here and I hope that the Amendment will be conceded.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I have very great sympathy with the intention behind my noble friend's Amendment but I tremble at the idea of writing into an Act of Parliament the words "natural communities" and leaving that to be interpreted, as it must be, by the legal profession. For that reason I should find it very difficult to support my noble friend's Amendment in its present form, though I have every sympathy with the intention.
BARONESS STOCKS: I support the intention of the Amendment and if it is pressed to a Division, I shall vote for it. We shall be defeated because the Party which allowed itself to be caught napping on Second Reading is
966
not going to be caught napping to-day. I believe that those who are financially responsible for the Bill, and who have been behind it for a very long time, fully intend, as soon as possible, to produce regional commercial broadcasting; and that their ultimate aim is a national commercial radio system in competition with the B.B.C.
LORD DENHAM: I will certainly look at everything that has been said this afternoon and in particular the suggestion of my noble friend. But, for the reasons I have given—and in this the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, was very helpful—I do not think the new words suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will be practicable or achieve what he wants to do. I cannot, therefore, give any undertaking that Her Majesty's Government may be able to accede to the Amendment.
LORD AVEBURY: It has just occurred to me that it would help to relieve some of the anxieties about how the phrases are to be interpreted—and we could go on arguing all night over regional broadcasting or a national commercial system—if the noble Lord would agree to consider before the next stage whether there should be a limited service here; that those localities which have been referred to should in no case be larger than the units of local government to be defined under the Local Government Bill. This would at least mean that you could not get a station covering a bigger unit than Greater London or one of the new counties. Though that may not go so far as some would like in keeping down the size of localities to a local level it would at least help to secure that we did not have, for example, stations in London reaching as far as Dover.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I hope that the Government will not accept that suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Within the recollection of all of us we have had many reorganisations of local government since the war. We are destined to have far more, and if we adopted that suggestion we should be chopping and changing the areas of the stations about every six months. I hope the Government will say, "No" to that.
5.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
6.4 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 21, after ("locality") insert ("provided that the signal level at the boundaries of the locality are restricted to the internationally recognised limits of transmission")
The noble Lord said: On the previous Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Orr
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 89.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gardiner, L.

Platt, L.

Archibald, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Popplewell, L.

Ardwick, L.

Granville-West, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Auckland, L.

Hall, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Avebury, L.

Hale, L.

St. Davids, V.

Balogh, L.

Henderson, L.

Samuel, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Henley, L.

Segal, L.

Beswick, L.

Heycock, L.

Shackleton, L.

Birk, Bs.

Hoy, L.

Shepherd, L.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

Slater, L.

Boothby, L.

Janner, L.

Snow, L.

Brockway, L.

Kennet, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Brown, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Burntwood, L.

Maelor, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Champion, L.

Mais, L.

Swaythling, L.

Collison, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Norwich, V.

White, Bs.

Diamond, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Foot, L.

NOT CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Falkland, V.

Lyell, L.

Abinger, L.

Ferrers, E.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Albemarle, E.

Fisher, L.

Mancroft, L.

Alport, L.

Forres, L.

Mansfield, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Gainford, L.

Milverton, L.

Barnby, L.

Goschen, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gowrie, E. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Greenway, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Grenfell, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Bledisloe. V.

Gridley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Oakshott, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hailes, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

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

Rankeillour, L.

Caccia, L.

Reigate, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Ridley, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hawke. L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Colwyn, L.

Hood, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Colyton, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sandys, L.

Cowley, E.

Inglewood, L.

Selkirk, E.

Craigavon, V.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sempill, Ly.

Cranbrook, E.

Killearn, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Daventry, V.

Kilmany, L.

Strang, L.

de Clifford, L.

Kindersley, L

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Denham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Sudeley, L.

Derwent. L.

Leicester, E.

Swansea, L.

Digby, L.

Limerick, E.

Thomas, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Long, V.

Vivian, L.

Eccles, V.

Lothian, M.

Windlesham, L.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Young, Bs.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Ewing, raised the question of a radio contractor, in order to be able to cover a blind spot in a particular locality, raising the power of transmission and consequently putting out a transmission that went well beyond the area of the locality. This would cause hardship to persons outside the locality, because there would be interference. It is recognised in Europe, where there is a problem on the medium wave length band, that no transmission from a station should be above a particular level

969
at boundaries of the area in which the service is to be provided. This Amendment seeks to provide that the signal level at the boundaries of the locality are restricted to the internationally recognised limits of transmission.
In the appendix to the White Paper there is a definition of what should be the power transmission. This Amendment again is seeking to be helpful and to ensure that stations do not broadcast beyond their localities except at the prescribed level, and therefore do not interfere with other stations that may also be operating in the locality and, for that matter, in Europe. I beg to move.
LORD DENHAM: I think I can probably help the noble Lord on this matter. There are two separate levels of transmission that are talked about internationally. First of all, there is the agreement between countries, so to speak, that a particular station shall not transmit above a certain amount, so as not to interfere with another country. I am advised that none of the local stations will come anywhere near that level, so there would not be much point in putting the provision into the Bill. What I think is causing a little confusion is that in the White Paper there are the other levels recommended by the International Radio Consultative Committee. These are not in order to stop one station from interfering with another: they are the recommended standards that should apply within the area served by a particular radio station. Those given at the back of the White Paper would not help as being limits, as they are just standards of reception at the outer band of an area that is being served by a particular local station. I do not think this Amendment would achieve very much, because if the noble Lord is talking about the international agreements, those levels are going to be way outside the strength of the local broadcasts.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Denham, quite understood what I said. I referred to the figures in the White Paper only to illustrate that certain standards are recognised internationally, and a station must not exceed a certain level at the perimeter of a locality. That is the advice that I have received. What I am seeking here is that where the Authority has agreed to the particular locality to
970
which transmissions may be made, provision should be made that a contractor cannot transmit above an agreed level, so that he will not be able to transmit outside that locality as a deliberate act of policy. This is a technical matter. I have had the advice given to me, but I will look at it myself. However, I hope the noble Lord will understand that the point I am making is to establish that the station will not broadcast above a certain power at the perimeter of the locality. If we have this provision, I think it will be found that we shall avoid some of the problems of interference between various stations.
LORD DENHAM: I am glad that the noble Lord is going to have another look at his advice: I will of course do the same. My advice is (or at least I think it is) that the international figures, the maximum standards beyond which one should not go, are way above anything that is going to be used in local radio, and therefore would not apply. The figures at the back of the White Paper are not maximum standards but the minimum ones for adequate reception, and so they would not be suitable for use as maximum figures. I will look at this matter again, and probably after we have both reconsulted our advisers we shall be able to come to an agreement.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Local advisory committees for local sound broadcasts.]:
6.11 p.m.
LORD ARDWICK LORD ARDWICK moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 11, at end insert ("constituting a fair balance of the sexes and of age groups.")
The noble Lord said: In the Second Reading debate I spoke with unwonted vehemence about the local advisory committees and suggested that for once these should be composed of at least 50 per cent. of women, and perhaps even a majority of women, and that they should also contain representatives of younger people. This is partly a matter of principle and I think it should apply to all advisory committees except those which demand special and rare qualifications; but we know that it does not apply and

971
that the general rule is to have a preponderance of men. In this case there is not only a general principle involved but also, I think, a special argument. At night the audience disappears into television. The most important hours for commercial radio are in the daytime, and although large numbers—several million—of housewives go out to work, the fact remains that there are far more women at home in the daytime than men. Indeed, all programme contractors will tell you that they are looking for a preponderantly "housewife" audience, plus an audience of young people late at night. The insomniac young are a peculiar breed to-day: they cannot concentrate on an essay or a calculation or even a love letter unless they are at the same time distracted by pop music. So the audience will be both feminine and preponderantly young, and I think the advisory committees ought to reflect this in their composition.
I may be asked what I regard as a fair balance. I have avoided in my Amendment the vehemence that I showed in my general argument. I think it is in fact a very reasonable and innocuous Amendment. I think that a fair balance might be worked out in this way: if you had a committee of nine people and three were of one sex and six of another, that would not be a fair balance. But if you had four of one sex and five of the other it would not matter which sex predominated. I think that would constitute roughly a fair balance, and unless we write something of this kind into the Bill many local advisory committees will be appointed which follow the usual course of English life—they will be preponderantly male and preponderantly elderly. I beg to move.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: When I saw this Amendment on the Marshalled List I had it in mind to ask my noble friend if he would give a definition of "a fair balance of the sexes". In moving the Amendment I think he has given two definitions, not exactly the same. He started by saying there should be at least 50 per cent. of women, and perhaps more, and he ended by saying that 6 to 3 would not be a fair balance. I think we can correctly settle this matter once and for all, if I
972
may venture so to put it. The proportion of females to males in the United Kingdom is of the order of 14 to 13. Therefore to have a fair balance—meaning fair in proportion to population—there should be a slight preponderance of women on all the advisory committees. I hope that my noble friend will confirm that this is his intention.
6.16 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: I certainly support this Amendment in principle, but I would point out to the noble Baroness that we should look not at the proportions in the United Kingdom but at the proportions in the localities served by the stations, and I hope that we shall not quibble about the last decimal point of a woman in a particular area. We could leave it to the common sense of these who were appointed to advisory committees to do what is right and proper in their local areas. I think that there would be disadvantages which we must look at in the later part of the clause, if we are to achieve what the noble Lord wants. Local authorities are responsible for appointing one-third of the members of a committee, and it would be rather a curious situation if it were left to the I.B.A. to redress the balance where most of the members appointed by the councils were men. Therefore only a very small proportion of those appointed by the local authorities can be men. if a 50 per cent. balance is to be achieved.
If there is to be a rule of this kind in subsection (2) it would have to apply also to members who were appointed by the local authorities and not be an overall requirement laid on the I.B.A. We may be in difficulties because, as we know, local authorities have their own way of making their appointments to bodies such as these. Usually they do it as a kind of political patronage towards a person who has retired from the council or who has been an alderman for some time—and they will be looking for jobs for the aldermen when they are eliminated under the Local Government Bill. I see this kind of thing in my own Borough of Bromley. They always appoint their political friends to the boards of school governors, hospital management committees and so on. You never get a person who is not a Tory appointed to any of these

973
bodies in the London Borough of Bromley, and I am afraid the same will be true when we come to the local advisory committees. I am not saying that this is the point of the Amendment: I am just drawing your Lordships' attention to the fact that appointments of this kind are made by local authorities in a highly idiosyncratic way. They do not take into account the needs of the local community or of achieving a fair balance. I am certainly supporting the noble Lord, but I think that he should go further and say that not only should this requirement be written into subsection (2) but that also at a later stage it would be desirable to amend subsection (3) so as to lay the same duty on the local authorities who have the right of nominating one-third of those who serve.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: The noble Lord, in moving this Amendment, mentioned age groups. I should like to know if he would tell us how these should be concentrated.
LORD LEATHERLAND: The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has seen fit to criticise the way in which local authorities select people for appointments such as these. He gave us an instance of the area in which he lives—presumably a rather uncivilised area. When I was leader of the Essex County Council I did this in a much better way.
LORD AVEBURY: It is not an uncivilised area, but it is an uncivilised council.
LORD LEATHERLAND: The council is a microcosm of the people in the area. I used to say, "We have 60 Labour members and 40 Tory members so we will make our appointments in exactly that proportion." I would say to the leader of the opposition, "You have so many nominations to make" and he would proceed to make them. Furthermore, we adopted the same procedure with respect to the appointments of our aldermen. We appointed them on a proportional basis, which is something that should appeal to the Liberal Party.
Now I come to what was said by my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger. She suggested that there are 13 or 14—
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: Nearly 14 women and 13 men.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Nearly 14 women? I wonder which bit is missing! Fourteen women to 13 men. I have heard sex discussed from many angles but never from the angle of mathematics. I do not wholly agree with my noble friend Lord Ardwick, although there was a time when I dared not disagree with him. In moving this admirable Amendment he stressed that he wanted to see something approaching an even balance between men and women. I would not go quite so far as that. There has to be a mixture of the sexes, if I may put it, rather clumsily, like that. It may so happen that the best selection of people in one area may show a majority of women, whereas the best selection of people in another area may show a majority of men. I am wholeheartedly in favour of the precise words used in the Amendment; namely, that these Committees should constitute
'"a fair balance of the sexes and of age groups."
I suppose that means that if we have three women on a committee we would have one mini-skirted teenager, one respectable married woman in the 'thirties and a dowager or grandmother. We have to judge these as people, not as classes. The kind of people who might be selected in one area might differ considerably from those in another area.
I think my noble friend has in mind the point that we do not want people from the statutory lists that are observed in Whitehall appointed to these posts. We know what they are: professors, lecturers in this, that and the other, retired civil servants—and I apologise to any of those who may be here. We get too many such people put on to committees to the exclusion of the ordinary "bloke". The ordinary "bloke" and the ordinary woman have a good deal of common sense about them, particularly when it comes down to saying what radio programmes they would like to hear. Although casting aside my noble friend's suggestion of a mathematical equality between the two sexes, I wholeheartedly agree with the suggestion that there should be
"a fair balance of the sexes and of age groups "
and I hope that the Government will see their way to accepting this Amendment.
6.23 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: I shall not at this stage join in the argument between the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, over the merits of local authority lists. If necessary, perhaps we could discuss this matter at a later stage in the passage of the Bill. I sympathise with the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, with regard to his Amendment. I think that everybody will agree with his motive.
However, I believe that the noble Lord's Amendment stems from a misunderstanding of the nature of the local advisory committees as the Government see them: it is the Government's intention that the membership of each committee shall reflect the tastes and interests of the area as a whole; the members will not participate as representatives of particular religious, political, social, ethnic or even age groups, though the points of view of such groups will, in the nature of things, be reflected in the tastes and interests of the area as a whole.
I think it is a mistake to say that if you are going to have a particular interest—using the word in its larger sense—reflected on a committee you must have on the committee a person who is part of that interest. The intention is to have a broadly based committee that is going to reflect all interests. It is rather interesting to have a look at the membership of some of the other committees—regional rather than local committees—of the sort that the Independent Television Authority has already. For instance, there are the regional lists. There is the Northern Ireland Committee, which has a fairly widely based list of eight people, five men and three women. The Scottish Committee has five men and three women. Probably most people would be satisfied with that. How one can work out the exact proportions that the noble Baroness would like out of a committee of eight I am not quite sure.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I am not asking for an exact mathematical proportion—I gave that as the ideally correct solution. I wonder if the noble Lord can tell us whether there are any of these committees in which there is a predominance of women.
LORD DENHAM: Yes, I can tell your Lordships; the answer is, "No, there are
976
not." The committees are formed to be broadly based. For instance, there is the General Advisory Council of the I.T.A. I will tell your Lordships its membership, though I will not refer to any names. It includes three journalists, two architects, two professors, two company directors, two Members of another place, a former Governor-General, a town clerk, a pharmacist, a trade union official, a schoolmaster, six housewives, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, figures on the list; and there is also a consultant psychiatrist.
I believe that the local committees will best serve their purpose if the I.B.A. is allowed a flexible approach so that it can be free to determine for itself what size and composition of local committee will best reflect the tastes and interests of the area served. Surely this is the type of point that is best left to the I.B.A. We do not want to dot every "i" and cross every "t". As the right honourable Member of another place, who is the Deputy Leader of the Party of the noble Lord opposite, said when he was in the place occupied by my right honourable friend:
"' My conception of a public body like this is that once we have got them together we must either back them or sack them and not continually muck them about."
This is the type of situation in which they must be given a free rein.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: Perhaps I may make one final and rather more serious intervention. This is a question of representing people's tastes and interests in broadcasting. I should have thought it was predominantly a matter on which people are much better qualified to speak for themselves than to allow other—the noble Lord used the term. "broadly based people" to speak for them.
LORD SHEPHERD: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Denham, will undertake to look at this matter. I agree with my noble friend that these committees are to represent the tastes of the people within the locality. On the list which the noble Lord, Lord Denham, read out, the only ordinary "blokes" (to use the phrase of my noble friend Lord Leatherland) on the committee were six housewives. The noble Lord, in his Second Reading speech, stressed that this local service was going to be attractive to the housewife, to the person who uses

977
his car or who drives a lorry, or who may be at work; it would not be these higher stratum characters from the professions. They probably have very little to go on to know what the tastes of the ordinary fellow are likely to be. Would the noble Lord look at the Amendment again to see whether a definition can be found which will make it quite clear that these committees are to be broadly based to represent not just those people who we think may be able to guide us in the right channel but the tastes of the local community? If he will do that, I am quite certain my noble friend will do what is right and not press his Amendment to a Division.
LORD DENHAM: I will certainly have a look at it again; and I assure the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Ardwick, that there is no difference in principle between us on this point. We both want to achieve exactly the right kind of balance on these local committees. The only point we are worried about is that if we go too far into detail it will not allow the flexibility that is desirable. We feel that if we go into small details such as this we shall not achieve the end but shall possibly make it even more difficult to get a local committee of the right sort. The noble Lord asks me to look at the matter again. and I will certainly do so, in view of all that has been said in the debate; but of course I cannot commit myself.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I would press this point on noble Lords. I have suffered from being invited on to bodies and then told that I was the typical housewife. A number of these bodies were somewhat disconcerted when I was elevated to the Peerage because they pointed out that I could no longer be a typical housewife—presumably because a Baroness is not a typical housewife. We were all with my noble friend Lord Ardwick until he quoted that rather stupid definition of six housewives. The point is that if you are really looking at people as people you do not allocate places for housewives; you allocate places for people and you look at their tastes and their personalities.
LORD DENHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. That is just the point I had in mind. If you go too closely into this definition you are liable
978
to get, as the noble Baroness implies, six housewives and six something else. This is why we want to leave a certain amount of freedom to the Authority to choose a really broadly based list of people. This is the worry behind our thoughts and why I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, or the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, any sort of promise that we will do more than look at the noble Lord's suggestion.
LORD SLATER: Since the Minister made reference to the late Postmaster General who happened to be in office when I was in the other place, may I say that we had a most difficult task in formulating the committees for local broadcasting? I realise the seriousness of this position, and I am more or less backing up the recommendation that has been presented by my noble friend Lord Ardwick. However, I should like to ask the noble Lord what conversations or talks have taken place on this issue between the I.T.A. and the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. If there have not been such talks, surely there ought to be talks to see whether the Authority and the Minister can come up with an answer on the point raised by my noble friend. The Minister might then be in the position to come to the House and present a proposal which would be more or less acceptable to all sides. I believe that, if it is at all possible, all sections of the community ought to be represented in some way or another on bodies such as this which will carry a great responsibility in regard to sound broadcasting.
LORD DENHAM: I will of course look at the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Slater, but I imagine that my right honourable friend is already in close touch with the I.B.A. about this matter.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: Before my noble friend replies, I should like to check on something the Minister said. He said there was nothing in principle between him and the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, and that he and the Government were in favour of achieving this balance. Does this mean that the noble Minister is on record as saying that he is in favour of achieving a fair balance of age groups? I think that this will be much more difficult than securing a fair balance of sexes.

979
If the Minister is on record as saying this, it is a very important advance.
LORD DENHAM: I am sorry that I gave the wrong impression to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, about this. When I referred to achieving a fair balance I was talking about what this Committee will achieve, and not about an absolutely firmly laid down balance of its constituent members.
LORD ARDWICK: I was somewhat mystified in any case. However, I did not think that the noble Lord's argument took his case very far. If that was the best he could do, with committees consisting of five men and three women, assuming that he took the best example to hand—
LORD DENHAM: I wonder whether the noble Lord would give way. We have found a slightly better committee. It is the Representatives of the Programme Company Advisory Committee and it consists of three women and one man.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: That is a good committee.
LORD ARDWICK: That may rejoice a few hearts, but it is a pretty rare thing to find. I think there must have been some accident. I was even more appalled at this recital of the regional committee (was it?) for which a number of professions were enumerated: architects, journalists, pharmacists, and housewives.
LORD DENHAM: And the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
LORD ARDWICK: And the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. But are we to assume from this that all the architects, journalists and pharmacists were men? Surely, if you are going into professions of that kind, I should have thought that some kind of parity between the sexes inside the professions would be a very reasonable thing to have. It looks as if an all-male committee has been chosen and then it has been said "Good heavens! We haven't any women on it. Go out and get six housewives!" That is the kind of thing that happens.
I was rebuked by my noble friend for having two standards of fairness. She thought first of all that I was asking for 50 per cent., or more than 50 per cent., and then perhaps for less than 50 per cent.
980
This was not so at all. What I was doing was contrasting the vehemence of my rhetoric where I was asking for 50 per cent., or even more, women and the modesty of my drafted proposal to-day, in which I am not suggesting any arithmetical figures at all, but am proposing simply a fair balance between the sexes and between the age groups, which the Authority could interpret in the broadest possible way. Nobody is going to tie them down to arithmetical calculations on a clause of this kind.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, spoke about the problem that some of the members of these committees are to be chosen by local authorities. As I read it, the selection is made by the radio and television Authority on the nomination of the local authorities, and all the Authority will have to do will be to warn the local authorities that in making their nominations they should have regard to this principle of the fair balance of the age groups and the sexes. However, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.39 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I raise one matter and put it perhaps to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, since he is a lawyer? May I direct his attention to subsection (4) on page 3? It says:
"Before appointing a person to be a member of a local committee the Authority shall satisfy themselves that he"—
and there follow the provisions about financial interest, and then the words I particularly want to refer to:
"and the Authority shall also satisfy themselves from time to time that each member of a local committee has no such interest as is described in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this subsection ".
My question is: How do the Authority ascertain this? It might be acceptable if they merely sent out a questionnaire and said: Have you any interests to declare? But these words might well mean that the Authority, in order to satisfy themselves, should carry out some form of investigation of the background and circumstances of a person on a committee—in other words, snooping into the lives of persons who are willing to give some public service. I think I know

981
what the Government are after here, but it could be construed that the Authority have a responsibility and that in order to carry it out they would undertake inquiries that would be regarded as not in the best interests of the relationship of an authority with those who give voluntary public service.
6.41 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: Perhaps I might put my question to the noble Viscount before he replies, then he can answer both at the same time. If I may revert to the subject that I was touching on in the course of the last Amendment, with reference to the behaviour of local authorities when they have to nominate people to committees such as these, and the noble Lord, Lord Denham, said that we would consider it at a later stage. However I must raise it now because I think that unless one is contemplating the tabling of an Amendment it is appropriate to discuss it on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill?
The situation is that one-third of the members of each local committee are going to be nominated by the local authority. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, seemed to think that the I.B.A. could exercise some control over the type of persons they nominate, merely by saying to them: "We would expect you to put forward a reasonable balance as between the sexes and as between the ages." If the I.B.A. in fact have such a power it would be open to them to suggest to the local authorities that a reasonable balance of opinion as between the various political Parties should also be reflected in their nominations. I do not see any powers of this kind conferred on the I.B.A. under the Bill, and if they were to do that it seems to me that it would have to be on an entirely informal basis. The pressures that are brought to bear on local authorities in the case of similar appointments to the boards of school governors, for example, or the hospital management committees are not effective. It is as simple as that.
Perhaps I may quote the case of my own local authority, the London Borough of Bromley. We have an overwhelming Tory majority and they appoint their own friends to these committees. I do not see how a local committee can be
982
constituted so as to ensure that we reflect the range of tastes and interests of persons residing in that area. One-third of them are all drawn from a majority Party and when that Party only has a bare majority of votes in the area served by the station, we shall have the same type of blatant "carve up" as we have with aldermen in different parts of the country.
I do not think this Bill should be allowed to remain in its present form without our making sure that we shall not get a repetition of the kind of thing that I have described. The noble Viscount may ask why I have not put down an Amendment. I think it is extremely difficult to draft an Amendment in a form which would avoid the gerrymandering which is known to take place. I hope the noble Viscount will say that he appreciates the problem and that he will consider whether it can be dealt with at Report stage. I should then feel much happier.
LORD LEATHER LAND: I have a feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is probably magnifying the difficulties that might arise in cases of political discrimination, such as he has mentioned in the case of the London Borough of Bromley. Let us look at the position. Bromley is a Tory council. He says that Bromley might nominate three Tories—three Tory men, let us say—to the advisory committee. It still remains the prerogative of the advisory committee to say whether it will appoint those three, or whether it will appoint one or two out of those three. This committee will consist of more than three people, so the advisory committee might say. "We have had three Tory men nominated by Bromley, and as our area is the area of Greater London let us have six Labour housewives from Poplar". Surely the position is not so serious as the noble Lord seems to suggest. If the broadcasting area were simply the area of Bromley it would be difficult; but we know that the broadcasting area is the area of Greater London, so there would be an opportunity to restore the balance when the names ultimately came before the advisory committee.
LORD AVEBURY: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, it may be possible to do as he suggests in the case of London,

983
where there are 32 boroughs plus the Greater London Council. but if we take a city such as Birmingham, which is covered by a single authority, we could not arrive at a balance by having more Labour members from one authority and more Tories from another because there is only the one authority from which to make the appointment.
LORD LEATHERLAND: The case of Birmingham is very much in the public eye just now. The Tories were all swept out by an indignant populace and a Labour majority was put in. But let me take a more simple case. Let me take a place which was also in the news for a similar reason a few months ago. It is a town with which I am conversant—Macclesfield. Let us assume that the Macclesfield Council is under Conservative rule. It still is, but with a much reduced majority since last Thursday. Let us suggest that it puts forward to the advisory committee three hoary old Tory aldermen. The committee has many other members to appoint, in addition to the three who have been put forward by the council, so it goes out and gets somebody from the Wesleyan chapel, somebody from the parish church, somebody from the Labour Party, somebody from the Round Table and somebody from the Rotary Club. As I have said, the difficulty does exist but I think the noble Lord has magnified its proportions.
Perhaps I may now proceed to the point that I wanted to raise. We see in the first subsection of Clause 3 that local advisory committees are to be appointed, but we also see at the top of the next page that:
"each such committee shall be appointed for an area consisting either of one such locality"—
that is to say, a locality for which local sound broadcasting is provided by the Authority—
"or of two or more such localities."
From time to time my noble friend Lord Shepherd and others have suggested that they have a suspicion that what we shall get under this Bill, ultimately if not immediately, is something like regional broadcasting. If the Bill specifically lays down that one of these advisory committees can be set up either for one such locality or for two or more such locali
984
ties merged together, that looks as though regional broadcasting may not come accidentally at some future date but is specifically provided for according to the terms of this Bill. I should like the noble Viscount to give us an assurance on this point; otherwise I feel that this is a bad blemish, and is a reflection of how local sound broadcasting might develop into regional sound broadcasting.
LORD SLATER: May I ask a simple question'? Who will be responsible for appointing the chairmen of these advisory committees?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: First, I should declare an interest. When I ran a magazine called the New Gladiator for a little company which consisted of three of us, I put in an application for a licence for sound broadcasting (if ever local broadcasting should come), and I am sure that if I had received it we should have had a decent bit of local broadcasting. The question I want to ask is, first, for how long are these committees to be appointed? Are they there in perpetuity, and what possibilities are there of removing these committees when they are appointed? Second, it is quite obvious—never mind imagining—that people might be appointed who could never be moved. Let us take a case against my own Party. If Labour is in control of a local authority in perpetuity, then the Conservatives or the Liberals may not like it. We should in this matter try to get some kind of fair formula. I believe that subsection (3) of Clause 3 and the length of time should be reconsidered, both as a matter of fairness and of trying to improve what, after all, is going to be a very important part of British public life in the future. I could make a long speech, but it would be unfair to do so. I hope that the Minister will see what I am driving at. I would like to know for how long these committees are to be set up, and if a formula could be found where there would not be perpetuity of occupation of these committees.
6.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This clause has produced a number of little points; I will try to deal with them in order and see what I can do, without much notice, by way of answering them. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked

985
about Clause 3(4) on the general subject of snooping. There is a fairly respectable precedent for this provision in that it appears in Section 9 of the Television Act 1964. Precisely the same disqualifications are there present, and so is the same method of assuring the I.T.A. from time to time that in between the appointment and the time the assurance is sought the prohibited interests have not been acquired. I cannot imagine that in any circumstances the I.B.A., having chosen people—particularly after the discussion we have had of the sort of people they should be—as being suitable to sit on these advisory committees, would then go in an underhand way behind people's backs in order to discover whether they have gone in for some advertising interest they should not have. In my own personal experience there have been times when it has been necessary for me to be asked by somebody whether I owned shares in a company for the purposes of some transaction. What usually happens is that somebody writes me a letter and says, "Do you own any shares in this company?", and it may happen more than once. One sits down and writes back and says "No" or "Yes", as the case may be. I think the noble Lord can take comfort from the fact that this method has worked perfectly well now under the Television Act for something like 15 years. On the question of the local authorities, the first thing that I think I ought to tell the Committee is that the provision in the Bill in subsection (3) does not require the person nominated by the local authority to be a member of that local authority.
LORD SHEPHERD: I have not suggested that.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE or CULROSS: No, but I want to be certain that the Committee is aware of it. So we are not stuck with the situation where, to take a mythical county borough with a local broadcasting station, with 100 per cent. Conservative or Labour or Liberal or Independent membership of the council, one is inevitably stuck with members of the local authority who must be ex hypothesi be of one political persuasion. Whom the local authorities nominate is, therefore, at large. The Government thought it right to bring in local authorities as active contributors towards the choice of people to sit on these commit
986
tees. Somebody may say something about Bromley and another noble Lord may say something about the admirable practices in the county of Essex; I am sure there are infinite varieties of all sorts between the practices of the local authorities. But on the whole what happens in local government is that the tendency in appointing to committees is to appoint members of the local authority to serve—for instance, on a river authority or joint sewerage board or something of that sort. I should be surprised if there were many occasions under Statute where the local authority had complete discretion to appoint anybody.
LORD AVEBURY: School governors.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE or CULROSS: The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, may be right about that; it is not a subject I have myself had to deal with. But I should have thought that here we had as wide a discretion as it was possible to give local authorities. If they do behave in a foolish way and appoint people the I.B.A. considers to be rather homogeneous in their views, this may be a pity. I suspect that there will be channels of communication open between the I.B.A. and the local authorities in the area, and it may be that a little gentle persuasion could be exerted there, as I promise your Lordships it is exerted by the I.T.A. elsewhere, rather nearer at home and possibly on slightly more difficult ground. One thing I should be prepared to guess is that an Amendment to try to ensure what the Committee has been suggesting should come about is totally undraftable. At least I would be very interested to see the efforts of any noble Lord, and I will try myself, but I think it would be very difficult indeed. I hope noble Lords will think that this is a flexible arrangement and not likely to be exploited in an unfair way by the local authorities.
I come to the second of Lord Leatherland's points. It is perfectly true that subsection (1) provides that an advisory committee could be appointed for more than one broadcasting area. I do not want to suggest that noble Lords are looking for regionalism everywhere, but I assure the Committee that this is not a pointer in that direction. If there are two towns very close together—I think that in another place we had the example

987
of Sheffield and Rotherham—and supposing that there is a separate local broadcasting station in each of those towns, the I.B.A. might find it difficult, in order to get the sort of cross-section of the local community that the Committee has been talking about, to draw from Sheffield and Rotherham respectively (I take those purely as an example) a suitably selective committee from both. There might be considerable interlocking of interest among local inhabitants. The I.B.A. might think that on this occasion it would be better to have a joint committee. All that is being given is power for them to consider the matter. I do not think this is a sinister or underhand method of bringing in regional broadcasting, because if there is a committee which covers the two areas we still have two areas of broadcasting and two broadcasting stations, even if there is only one committee. Therefore, unless noble Lords think this is so objectionable that it ought to be taken out, it is another point where I hope that the I.B.A. will be trusted.
The noble Lord, Lord Slater, asked about the chairman of the committee. I looked at the Television Act to see what happened about the other advisory committees. I suspect that the chairman is appointed by the I.T.A. at present, and in future will be appointed by the I.B.A. If I am wrong about that I will let the noble Lord know. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, asked how long people serve and how they get removed. I suppose it is unfair for me to ask the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, how long he has been on the General Advisory Council. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to help us on this point, because, to be perfectly truthful, he probably knows more about it than I do.
LORD AVEBURY: The answer is that one is invited to serve on the Advisory Council for three years. I do not know whether that is in the Act or simply an informal arrangement which has evolved.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS:
The noble Lord has confirmed what I thought. There is not anything in the Act. That is exactly the sort of arrangement that I should have expected. One has to bear in mind that this Act runs out in 1976 anyway, so that for the pur
988
poses of this Bill it can only be for three years, because nothing can happen before 1973. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has told us what happens under the existing legislation, and I hope Lord Davies will accept that the same will apply under this Bill. I hope I have answered all the questions on Clause stand part.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 7 agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS:
I wonder whether this would be a suitable moment, being half a minute short of the witching hour, for me to suggest that the House resume.
LORD SHEPHERD: I would certainly agree, but I do so with a certain degree of disappointment. We were making very good progress until we got on to sex and various local authority matters and Tory committees, and now we seem to have come to a grinding halt. The sentiment I had in proceeding quickly was really of catching the Chief Whip with no Business on Thursday. That might have been rather amusing. But I certainly accept the suggestion of the noble Viscount that this is a suitable moment to adjourn.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I am sure that he would not have suggested that I should do anything but answer with full thoroughness the questions that were asked of me. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

HOUSING FINANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
DEFECTIVE PREMISES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS (POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGES) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL ADVISORY SERVICE BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

FURNITURE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
7.2 p.m.
LORD BROWN LORD BROWN rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their decision that the Furniture Development Council shall cease to exercise its function on December 31, 1973, and be dissolved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before commenting on this Question, may I declare a past interest, because from 1949 until 1963 I was an independent member of the Furniture Development Council. The position is a complex one. The Furniture Development Council was established in 1948 under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947, and it established a research and information committee. In 1961 this became the Furniture Industry Research Association, popularly referred to as "FIRA". Most of the functions of the Council were passed over to FIRA. In fact the main function of the Furniture Development Council—which, if I may, I shall refer to in the rest of my comments as the "F.D.C."—now is to collect their statutory levy on the furniture industry, which they are entitled to do under the Act. The income of F.D.C. and FIRA collectively to-day is £326,000 annually. That was the income last year. Of that amount the levy amounts to 34 per cent. They also receive a grant from the Department of Trade and Industry, which is the normal grant given to research associations, and that amounts to 18 per cent. The striking feature is that they earn 48 per cent, of their total revenue in the services provided largely to suppliers of material and other things to the furniture industry. There are 1,532 companies paying levy under the Act, but 200 of these pay less than £5 per year, and a very substantial number pay fairly trivial sums. I draw attention at this early stage in what I have to say to the fact that the whole of the levy is collected by two women in the employ of the Furniture Development Council. They have the job computerised.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley decided at the fifth quinquennial review, which had to decide whether the Furniture Development Council continued under the Act, to terminate it at the end of 1973. There had been a number of previous quinquennial reviews. I am aware of the detail of these because I happened on at least two occasions to be a member of the triumvirate from the F.D.C. which argued the case for continuance before the Government of the day. On each occasion when I went there we had to report that a majority by number of the furniture manufacturers who had to pay this levy were against a continuance. But a wise Government, in the form, I remember, on at least one occasion of the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, decided that this body was performing its functions so excellently that despite the results of the referenda that had been conducted it should continue. In fact I think I am safe in saying that on every occasion when the quinquennial review has come up there has been a majority of manufacturers against continuance, and yet this body has gone on and grown in strength from year to year. It has continuously received the support of the trade unions concerned, the National Association of Retailers, and other bodies.
I think one is safe in saying, without knowing precisely, that the majority of the larger firms in the furniture industry show a high appreciation of the F.D.C. and FIRA, and wish it to continue. At any rate, this was so in the days when I was a member of the Council. Because of the unfortunate situation where it is believed that the voting in the B.F.M. is based on one vote per firm, which takes no account of the size of the firm—and I say that this is believed to be the position, because the matter is so complex that it is difficult to discover what the real position is—this adverse vote has come up in the past and has been rejected by the Government of the day, but was accepted by Mr. Nicholas Ridley.
I should like to quote from the Cabinet Maker and Retail Furnisher on this subject. This is from their edition of 1971. They say:
"Now, however, he"—
referring to the Minister at the time—
"says the industry's views should he put through the chairman of the F.D.C., Sir Roger

991
Falk, who has agreed to see this through. This is going to place a heavy responsibility on the chairman and his council members. Neither the chairman nor the seven manufacturers, seven trade unionists, three independents and the lone retailer are themselves in a position. or empowered, to give a representative view. Even though the council and the board of FIRA consist mainly of furniture people, they would lay themselves open to accusations of bias because, merely by holding office, they must be research-minded. So how does anyone obtain a representative view? A straight referendum does not seem to be the answer. A counting heads operation takes no account of the size of the bodies which the heads control, and whether one measures height, weight or girth there will be ail kinds of anomalies. To obtain the views of various organisations is to become enmeshed in trade politics and jealousies. What might appear a majority opinion may in practice be the view of a small but active lobby—something not confined to the furniture industry! There is the added problem that an individual who says now he will support a voluntary system may be less keen to sign the cheque when the time comes, especially when he does not know the amount in advance, and also whether there is going to be a down-turn in trade."
FIRA, a body which depends to a very large extent on this statutory and compulsory levy, is in danger. This is an institute which is not exampled in any other country in the world. Germany, Italy, and the U.S.A. have nothing equivalent to it; Czechoslovakia, Denmark and Sweden have small national institutes, but they are not of the importance of FIRA. In other words, FIRA is unique and it is the envy of the furniture industry in every other country in the world. May I quote Doctor Ullmann who has a substantial furniture business in Holland. He writes to the trade press, saying:
"In your country you have a most efficient instrument for aiding the furniture industry… Why give up such an asset at a moment which may be critical for some members of the industry and at a time when you can use it to defend your position on the home market and to strengthen your efforts for export? While in the weaker countries within the E.E.C. (France and Holland) Government and industry are planning to set up instruments to support the industry, you are planning to demolish the existing organisations."
What about the work FIRA does? It tests virtually all materials which the furniture industry uses, in the interests of the furniture industry and the general public—chipboard, fibre board, various plastics, upholstery, lacquers, joints—and it ensures that these are up to standard and suitable for furniture. In the course
992
of its many years of work it has caused many materials and lacquers to be withdrawn from the market because they are not up to standard. This is a voluntary service given to suppliers. It has cut out the manufacture of matchstick furniture in this country such as used to be prevalent before the war. People who, when they got married, invested their savings in furniture for their homes were buying rotten furniture which broke down and collapsed in a short period of years. Today, when one goes into a shop to buy furniture one is probably buying furniture which has been put through dynamic performance tests in the FIRA laboratories before being put on the market. They have given a service to manufacturers which assures them that the panels they use will not warp; they have taught the furniture industry how to make better joints and what are the best glues to use. They have looked after the interests of 200 suppliers in ensuring that supplies are up to standard.
The suppliers are paying FIRA about £150,000 per year for these services, not under statutory levy but by voluntary payment. FIRA deals with 6,000 technical queries each year. It is involved on 40 committees of the British Standards Institution. It is also involved in the International Standards Organisation to ensure that decisions are not taken in the International Organisation which are against the interests of the British furniture manufacturers. It carries out consultancy activities in marketing, economic surveys, costing, industrial engineering, stock control, wage systems and so on—the list is too long for me to quote it all. It produces all the basic trade statistics for the furniture industry. It conducts study tours overseas so that British furniture manufacturers can see what others are doing and can explore export markets. It employs 78 people in an extremely good building which the F.D.C. financed at Stevenage. Of those 78 members of staff, 30 per cent. are university graduates. That is a brief recital of the importance of this Institute.
If we move, as is envisaged by Her Majesty's Government, to a situation where the Furniture Development Council is being abolished, then the only basis of support from the industry itself would either be voluntary, with all the dangers that voluntary payments give rise to, or,

993
as has been envisaged by Mr. Ridley and indeed by the noble Lord opposite in a letter to me, the introduction of what is known as a Section 9 Order which would re-introduce a compulsory levy on the industry, if the industry wanted it and if Parliament agreed to pass the Order. I would put it to your Lordships that as things stand at the present moment—and the compulsory levy exists and is supported by all except a large number of small firms in the furniture industry—the statutory levy is efficiently collected by two women in the furniture industry.
If the intention of the Government is to abolish the Furniture Development Council, with the intention of using the 1947 Act to introduce a Section 9 statutory levy, then I would say, with great respect, that this is an utterly stupid thing to do. Noble Lords will agree that all this would mean is abolishing an effective instrument for collecting the levy, and the Government would then have to put an order through the House and the levy would have to he collected by the Ministry of Trade and Industry—probably less efficiently than the experienced people on the Furniture Development Council who are doing it now. The purpose of the abolition, if the statutory levy is to be continued, completely eludes me. There is no logic in it. One must therefore assume that the purpose of bringing the Furniture Development Council to an end at the end of 1973 is not with the intention of substituting for the current statutory levy an alternative statutory levy, but with the object of opening up the way for abolishing the statutory levy altogether. This is the clear writing on the wall which the trade Press and most members of the industry assume the Governments intention to be. This places the future of FIRA at risk
The Government may reply that there is no reason why a voluntary levy should not take the place of a statutory levy. My Lords, like many other Members of your Lordships' House, I have been in industry for a very long time, and one knows the history of important bodies which had to rely on voluntary payments. As soon as there is a down-turn in trade some of the bigger people feel, "We are paying this voluntary levy and many smaller firms are not paying the levy. We cannot in our dire straits go on pay
994
ing a large voluntary levy to support services which are enjoyed by everybody." This is the pattern which inevitably emerges.
Members of the staff of FIRA are not available straight from university. They have to be taken in as engineers, chemists and so on, and trained to the needs of the furniture industry; they have to learn this job in FIRA. They are valuable and need to be kept there. One knows in advance the effect on members of the staff of a body like FIRA of banishing the statutory levy. Jobs are immediately at risk, and the more adventurous—and perhaps the best—members of the staff consider leaving. This has happened with similar bodies over and over again in history. Her Majesty's Government know this perfectly well.
The dissolution of this council is in my view a highly retrograde step, because of its effects not only on the future of the industry, and on the exports and the quality of goods, but also on society itself. The Furniture Development Council and the parent body, FIRA, have made a profound contribution to the improvement of the quality of furniture in this country over the years of their existence. There is no doubt about that. My Lords, surely Her Majesty's Government have already paid due obeisance to their idol of vanishing institutions. They have abolished the I.R.C., which could have helped with Rolls-Royce and U.C.S. They have abolished the Prices and Incomes Board, which could have helped them in this wage inflationary period through which we are passing. They abolished investment grants and have had to bring them back in a different guise; and they are going to abolish the regional employment premium, which is needed to provide help in areas of high unemployment. They have abolished the Land Commission which would have been a great help at this stage. Is it really necessary to go on and abolish yet another institution? The Furniture Development Council is much smaller than the ones I have mentioned, but it has a record of service to the industry and to the community which is second to none for its size.
The action which has been taken menaces it, and I suggest that if the Government proceed to settle the issue of

995
the Furniture Development Council, and with it FIRA, by the process of listening to the counting of heads conducted by the British furniture manufacturers, then, as I said in this House last week, they are resorting to the use of the referendum technique. We in this House know that that is not the right way; it is shrugging off a responsibility of Government which they should shoulder. If the furniture industry is to be subject to this process of counting of heads, then its institutions will disappear, as other institutions have disappeared in the past in similar circumstances. I sincerely put it to the Minister that second thoughts should prevail in this matter, and I am quite sure that in saying that I speak for a large and important section of the furniture industry.
7.21 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has said, what is at issue here is the future of FIRA, the Furniture Industry Research Association. What strikes one as extraordinary is that the Government should, first of all, decide to abolish the Furniture Development Council, which has been funding FIRA, before finding out what can be done in the way of voluntary funding of FIRA. A questionnaire has now been issued and it may well appear, on paper at any rate, that the difference can be made up and that a similar amount of money can be provided on a voluntary basis. But why on earth have the Government said that they will abolish the Council before finding out whether FIRA can be funded on a voluntary basis? We do not know what the answer will be and, though we may get from this questionnaire an assurance that for three years a certain amount of money will be provided, my experience of industry when trade is not so prosperous is that very soon people look to the economies which they can make. So I should like an assurance from the Government that if at any time in the immediate future the voluntary funds fail to provide the income which FIRA is getting at the moment—and preferably more—they will then invoke Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act which provides for a compulsory levy.
Not all industries have a development council; it is rather exceptional to have
996
one. I presume that it was started in the furniture industry because it is a fragmented industry. It has a large number of small firms and, without being unkind, I may say that a good many of them are still living in the past and have not come to terms with modern methods. Therefore, it is all the more important that there should be a research association which is as alive as FIRA is to helping the industry in the many ways it has done. It is particularly important at the moment when we are thinking of competing in the Common Market. Unfortunately, though FIRA has done a great deal in finding different methods of measuring performance and a lot is being done to standardise such methods internationally, the furniture industry as a whole has decided that it is not in its interests to pay the small contribution necessary to the B.S.I. to continue this work on an international basis. That may give your Lordships some idea of how inward-looking are certain sections of the industry.
From my personal experience, I can confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has said about the immense good which FIRA has done. It is certainly one of the liveliest of the research associations. The best study of the use of computers in small firms which I have ever read was produced by FIRA. It has done absolutely pioneering work on methods of measuring performance, and now has proposals for the strength and stability of certain types of furniture. I think one can say that in the furniture industry there is a special case for continuing to fund a research association adequately. I must say that the Government's decision to run down research associations is one of the gravest mistakes that has ever been made. Here is an opportunity to get modern techniques into many of our firms which are still far from being competitive in this modern age. The mere £4 million which the Government paid out for this is chicken-feed compared with the money which they waste in their own larger research establishments with far less effect. Furthermore, this is happening at a time when we think it is important to he competitive in Europe and other foreign markets. Even if their policy is not wholly reversible. I appeal to the Government at least to show that they still feel that something can be done for the furniture industry.
7.27 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I want to support as strongly as I can the wholly persuasive case put forward by my noble friend Lord Brown and by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. In fact, I want to ask the Government what has changed since they, as the Government of the country during the 13 years from 1951 to 1964, continued with this Development Council, when FIRA was established and flourished? Your Lordships have not heard to-day, and I have not heard—I have no direct knowledge, but I have a good deal of contact with this Development Council and with FIRA—of any complaint about the usefulness of its work. Indeed, so far as I know the Government do not allege that FIRS is without use as a development association. The only question is: In which form will the work be continued? Its use has been well-established and relates to something as basic as holes in furniture and what goes into them.
We all know what an enormous improvement has taken place in the design as well as in the structure and strength of materials. I cannot think of anything else which is more felt by the ordinary man and woman and the family than the furniture in the home. Nobody will suggest that research in this industry is overdone, so I repeat that the only question before the Government is: What is the best way of financing this research which has had valuable results and should continue, as it continued throughout the period of the Conservative Government from 1951 to 1964, and which, so far as my recollection goes, was subject to ups and down within that period? I am told that there has always been a story of less than 100 per cent. support within the industry for this Council, and for the research element in it. There has always been less than 100 per cent. support. It is not unusual at all, and it did not happen for the first time in recent years.
LORD BROWN: Less than 50 per cent.
LORD DIAMOND: It did not happen in recent years that, for the first time, a large number of the smaller firms were anxious not to continue it. It is a very familiar situation in industry generally, and it is a familiar situation in this particular industry, which the previous Conservative Government knew about
998
and nevertheless decided, on the advice of its then chairman and of the Departmental Ministers concerned, to continue. So where you have a good thing and where you have, as a matter of policy, continued it, it is very difficult to understand why the Government should be thinking of prejudicing its continuation. I would go much further and say that it is not merely going to prejudice its continuation: this step by the Government would make it almost certain that it would not continue, because one knows that in industry there are any number of small firms who in the nature of things, if I may be forgiven for saying so, are not managed by very far-sighted people, who have to consider their annual profit and loss accounts and whose point of view is a short-term point of view, and they will be concerned to save expenses wherever they can save them. Yet here is something which redounds to the long-term benefit of the industry and to the long-term improvement of our homes.
I should like to suggest to the Government that, unless the Development Council is continued, we will undoubtedly see FIRA coming to an end. Pressures from the small firms will build up; and voluntary organisations always have difficulty in collecting money for such unidentifiable things as research associations. You can always see the benefit of research looked at over the past, but it is very difficult to demonstrate it as the research is being carried on. Therefore I should have thought that without doubt if the Government continue in this attitude a most valuable research organisation will be brought to an end. So I endorse what my noble friend Lord Brown said about this being a very retrograde step, and I invite the Government to think again. I invite the Government to recollect the history. So far as I am aware, it is the only Development Council stemming from the 1947 Act, which I recollect because it was the first one of which I had the privilege to be the chairman in Standing Committee a very long time ago. I have that kind of paternal affection for it, but I have no closer connection than that. I have been concerned for a very long time with an industry which is not very different from the furniture industry, and I therefore know, from those sources, how useful FIRA has been and the organisation generally. The

999
argument is very clear. There has been a very solid reason for keeping this organisation going, notwithstanding the continual rumbling that has gone on. We invite the Government to show the necessary leadership and to show their beliet in research and in this sensible method of maintaining research.
7.34 p.m.
THE EARL OP SHANNON: My Lords, I shall be making only a very small contribution to this short debate on Lord Brown's Unstarred Question. In doing so, I must make my usual declaration of interest in so far as anything to do with research associations is concerned. We are very much indebted to Lord Brown for raising this matter by way of an Unstarred Question; and, like others who have spoken, I am appalled at the shortsightedness of this decision if it in fact means cancelling or terminating the levy. This comes at a time when, as I know only too well from the position I occupy, our research associations are arousing great interest abroad. I get a large number of inquiries from abroad asking how they work. People want to know more about them, and it is for the very simple reason that they envy them, as your Lordships have been told. Yet here we are starting to put some of our major institutions at risk. My Lords, we are here worrying about a comparatively small amount of money—and this when, on the Continent, many similar institutions are in fact being funded very heavily, not by levies on industry within the country but out of levies on imported goods in those categories. A classic example of this is the French levy on leather. Leather goods are very heavily dutied into France—and what happens to the money? It goes straight to the French equivalent of the Leather Research Association. My Lords, it is going to be a very traumatic time for British industry when we enter the Common Market. It is going to be a time when British industry will need all the help it can get, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has already brought to our notice. This decision may he in line with "True Blue" philosophy, that industry must pay for what it wants, and if it does not want to pay for it then it does not need it. That is very nice, neat, tidy, political
1000
thought; but economically it is very shaky. The state of this particular industry is very well brought out by the fact that whereas the average research association has around 500 members—that is a simple calculation: the total number of members divided by the number of research associations—FIRA has 1,400 members. That shows how fragmented this industry is—more than any other—and we have heard how small some of the members are. Therefore it becomes all the more important to the philosophy that goes behind such a decision as this that, as I remarked to your Lordships during the research debate on February 28 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Col. 884]:
"…the customer should be in a position
to understand and define his needs ".
My Lords, if we have such a small, fragmented industry, surely these small companies are going to be in no position to know exactly what the customers need.
These small companies happily use all sorts of standards—standards that were created by FIRA. They often do this completely unknowingly, and if they do they say. "The standards are there: why can we not use them?" They are going to make use of things in the future for which probably they will not be prepared to pay their fair share. We are talking about taking away 30 per cent. of FIRA'S income. I am not so pessimistic as to think that just because 30 per cent. of FIRA's income is going to be taken away. that means the end of FIRA. I do not think it does at all. But it does mean that if 30 per cent. of its income is removed, something is going to happen at FIRA. These small companies may go on happily for a bit, but when they want FIRA's services again FIRA may not be there; it may not be there in the form in which they have it now and in the form that they require it. And, probably, almost worst of all, we shall have lost to foreign predominance in this field. We have heard that this is one industry at least in which we hold a lead. For goodness sake, let us try to hang on to it! Short-sighted decisions such as these, I believe, can have very detrimental, far-reaching effects.
The noble Lord, Lord Brown, gave details of the record of FIRA, and I think that this in itself is a sufficient tribute to FIRA for the Government to reconsider

1001
this decision very seriously. But I would ask that their own publication, New Technology. London edition, No. 57, April, 1972, be required reading for Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry. On the front page is an excellent article, written by Mrs. Shuttleworth of the Research Division of the Department of Trade and Industry. I think that if the Ministers would read that (and it mentions FIRA) they would seriously reconsider this decision.
We all appreciate that research associations, by the very nature of co-operative research, cannot necessarily be wholly attractive to industry, especially when times get a little hard and some companies are inward-looking. As an example, suppose that FIRA were to produce a better and cheaper chair. All the member companies would receive details of this. They would all start making this new, better and cheaper chair. But they would say, "As we are all doing it, none of us is individually going to get any benefit vis-à-vis the others. The benefit will accrue to the customer." Granted. But the whole of that section of British industry will be so very much more competitive internationally, even if not among themselves. This is a very important point and one that is often not appreciated by industry when it comes to paying something towards a research association. Like the noble Lords, Lord Brown and Lord Diamond, I strongly urge the Government to reconsider what I consider to be a highly retrograde decision.
7.42 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, for attempting to rise before him? I did not see him jump to his feet and I wondered whether he was here. There is very little to add to the support given by everyone who has spoken to my friend Lord Brown's Unstarred Question. All the arguments lead me to the same question: Why are the Government doing this? The Furniture Development Council is now nearly 25 years old; it has had a high reputation and is of very great benefit to the furniture industry. Undoubtedly it is also of great benefit to the consumer, although the co-operative scientific research in which it engages works for the whole domestic furniture
1002
industry. Why are the Government seeking to change the rules after 1973? The cost of the Research Council, as has been said to-day, is a tiny levy on the industry, and the result of changing the statutory levy for a voluntary one will mean that those who do not pay will get the same benefits as those who do. This makes no sense or justice to me.
This brings us to the philosophy and psychology of Tory politics. It seems that consumer protection organisations have to be voluntary, pay-for-it-themselves organisations. This goes for the F.D.C., and it has gone for the Consumer Council. What is the virtue of a voluntary levy? One result of introducing it is that it opens the door to the use of shoddy materials and bad workmanship. In this case women especially suffer from the danger of falling standards, for women spend so much of their lives within the precincts of their home, in their kitchen, in their living rooms, in their bedrooms. The home is a great source of pride and satisfaction. The important thing in a home is that the furniture should be good-looking and lasting. So I ask again: why are the Government acting in a way that will cause the disappearance of the Furniture Development Council? is it a belief in the homely maxim, "Take care of the pence and the pounds will take care of themselves"? They save £240,000 a year on the abolition of the Consumer Council and about £150,000, I believe, by the dissolution of the Furniture Research Development Council. Set this beside the profligate cost of Concorde, which is likely to end as profitably as "the biggest aspidistra in the world"! I believe that on this issue the Government are very misguided. I hope that they will listen to everything that has been said to-day by people who know very much more about it than I do. I hope that the Government will change their minds about this and will continue with the statutory levy and so with the research body.
7.46 p.m.
Loan GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, at this late hour I hesitate to intervene in this debate. I must declare an interest. I have been associated with the industry for most of my life and I am at the present time a director of a

1003
group of furniture manufacturing companies. I think that the House is grateful to my noble friend Lord Brown for having introduced this subject and, if I may say so, he made out a very powerful case which I think the Government are going to find extremely difficult to answer.
There are probably three views held at the present time in the furniture industry. There are those who perhaps want FIRA to lapse; there are those who want to see a statutory levy; and there are those who say that it should be voluntary. As my noble friend Lord Brown has said, there is a questionnaire going round the industry at the present time to try to gather their views. My own considered opinion about this, having seen this industry with its ups and downs over a number of years, is that the Government will make a great mistake if they do not go on with the support they have recently given to the industry. I suppose that the furniture industry has always been extremely difficult to organise and to rationalise. As Lord Brown has said, it is a conglomeration of small firms and a number of larger ones. It has never been led by consensus; it has never depended on consensus for any advance it has made in the field of design. It has depended vitally on the leadership of one or two leading firms who had money to spend. We have had great advances in the furniture industry since the Kite standard was established many years ago—advances certainly in design, in quality control and in research and we owe a great deal to men like Sir Gordon Russell and the Design Centre, the Colleges of Art, the technical colleges and their seminars for the progress which has been made.
A few weeks ago I visited the Cologne International Furniture Fair which is the largest of its kind in the world. When we go into the Common Market this industry will have to face some of the toughest competition in the whole of its history from the Germans, the Italians and the Scandinavians. The competition is here now. So when the advantages of the Common Market enable the Germans, the Italians and the Danes to import into this country without restriction, the furniture industry in the home market will face one of the toughest fights it has ever had. Last year France
1004
increased her export of furniture by 160 per cent.; we increased ours by 42 per cent. This is the industry which once led the world—Chippendale. Adams, Hepplewhite, Sheraton—and still leads on reproduction or traditional furniture. But the only real design in furniture in modern times is by Scandinavia in the use of teak. We have a lot to do if we are to compete.
My Lords, a great deal will depend on observing what the Germans and the Italians are doing. As my noble friend, Lord Brown said, it will depend on efficiency in the industry and on its technology. I think that Stevenage, FIRA and the Furniture Development Council are doing a very good job. It will be a tragedy if Stevenage lost those graduates and research workers over which they have taken time and trouble. I hope the Government will listen seriously and reconsider the question of the grant which has been made in the past.
7.52 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, this debate, following upon the Unstarred Question by the noble Lord, Lord Brown, really concerns the decision to abolish the Furniture Development Council. The noble Lord has asked that we should reconsider that decision. We are not debating whether or not FIRA should continue—that is not the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, has linked the two and has gone so far as to say that if we were to stop the compulsory levy the continuance of the Furniture Industry Research Association would be placed at risk. But this is not the question that we are considering. The noble Lord made quite clear that if the industry were of that opinion it would be possible to make a Section 9 Order under the Act which would make it possible to continue the compulsory levy. This is not the issue we are considering at the moment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, seemed to think that the two bodies were identical, the Furniture Development Council and the research body. But this is not so. The issue we are considering to-night is purely the question of the Furniture Development Council. Perhaps I may be allowed to give a little of the background. The Council was set up on January 1, 1949, under the Industrial

1005
Organisation and Development Act which was passed in 1947 to deal with the special problems facing industries of many kinds at that time. It is now the only council that remains, apart from one set up in 1966 to deal with apples and pears in a very different situation. Originally, the Council was given 18 specific functions to be exercised, as the Act says, in such a way as to increase efficiency and productivity in the industry within its scope, to improve the service that the industry renders to the community and to enable the industry to render that service more economically.
My Lords, it is not in question that the Council has done a great deal of valuable work of benefit to the furniture industry, notably in the early days as regards standards, and scientific and technological research. But, little by little, it has ceased to exercise those functions as other organisations have taken them over—for example on export promotion—and as the functions ceased to be appropriate; for example, encouraging people to enter the industry. In particular, the Council was instrumental in 1961, with the support of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research of that time and the British Furniture Manufacturers' Federated Associations in setting up the Furniture Industries Research Association to take over the research and information work which the Council had been doing up to that time.
Virtually the only function that the Council now exercises is that of collecting the levy. The Council collects the levy and pays over to the FIRA almost the entire proceeds, amounting to a little over £100,000 a year, retaining only enough to pay its administrative expenses. The Act lays down that there should be a continual review—this is in Section 8(3)—and that it is the duty of the Minister (there may be different Ministers for different industries, and in this case it is the Department of Trade and industry) to consult the interests concerned. This is not a question of counting heads; this is a question of consultation—a very different matter. This is what the Department did and I am assured that it found there was very little support for the continuance of the Council. This is quite separate from FIRA—
LORD BROWN: MY Lords, may I ask—
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brown, will allow me to develop my argument. On FIRA and the method of financing it there has been a division of opinion. It is to deal with that division of opinion that the Chairman, in association with British Furniture Manufacturers and FIRA, and in consultation with the Department, has sent out a circular, a questionnaire, to all members to find out what they thought should be done, whether FIRA should be financed by a compulsory levy or by a voluntary levy. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
LORD BROWN: My Lords. I want to suggest to the noble Lord that he has been misinformed. He said that it is not a question of counting heads. May I read a short sentence from the letter written by Mr. Nicholas Ridley to the Furniture Industry Research Association. He says:
"I hope that the industry can express to me through the Chairman of the Furniture Development Council a clear majority view as to whether after 31st December, 1973, effective research"—
et cetera. et cetera. "A clear majority view." That is the counting of heads.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that may be interpreted in different ways. The noble Lord is himself an accountant and no doubt he knows what happens, for example. with debenture holders. The majority view does not necessarily mean the majority of debenture holders. But I do not want to rely on any kind of abstruse accounting argument over this. The fact of the matter is that the questionnaire sent out gives detailed information and. I may add, this debate will add greatly to the importance that the manufacturers will attach to the continuance of FIRA. I think it may serve a very useful purpose and to some extent determine the way in which the members decide to express their opinion.
The circular is a pretty large document and it is intended to enable the members of the industry to see what issues are involved and then to decide whether they are in favour of a voluntary membership subscription—the amount is stated—and, if so, whether they are prepared to contract for a period to make

1007
this voluntary subscription, or whether they would prefer a statutory compulsory levy. That is the position as it is now. I repeat that if there is a preponderance of opinion in favour of a voluntary system, then the Minister will want to be satisfied that an effective system can be worked out if grant is to continue to be paid. If, on the other hand, the weight of opinion is in favour of a compulsory levy, the industry will be able to apply for a Section 9 Order; and Mr. Ridley was careful to leave enough time for the industry to make up its mind and for the financial arrangements to be worked out—because, of course, an Order requires to be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament and it requires an Affirmative Resolution.
I should make it clear, so that there is no misunderstanding about this, that a decision to impose a levy does not automatically follow upon an application; but the Minister would certainly consider an application sympathetically. And he would consider it in the light of the questionnaires. From this questionnaire, which is signed—it is not just a tick and sent off anonymously—indicating the firm from which it emanates it will be possible to afford due weight to the various opinions expressed.
I do not for one instant dispute that the Council has served the domestic furniture industry well in the past. The noble Lord. Lord Diamond, said that he wondered what had changed. The fact of the matter is that at the last quinquennium but one there was a majority of opinion in favour of the continuance of the Council. At this last quinquennial review there was very little support indeed for the continuance of the Council. That is one thing that has changed. The other thing that has changed over the years has been the fact that here we have a Council set up under an Act with a wide variety of functions and the only function that remains is the collection of levy, and that object can be achieved in other ways. I really do not think that it would be appropriate to keep in existence against the wishes of the majority of the industry—against the weight of opinion in the industry if you like—a Council which was set up to exercise this wide range of functions, merely to collect a compulsory levy which
1008
could be collected by other means should it be decided that a compulsory levy was still necessary.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I have listened carefully to what he has said, and he is not dealing with the essence of the matter at all. The decision of the Government may be expressed as merely bringing to an end an association which no longer carries out the 19 possible functions which the Act originally provided. The decision of the Government brings to an end the Research Council unless something is done. Is the noble Lord telling us that the Government undertake that, even if there is not a strong majority of the members—which would not be surprising—they will bring in a compulsory levy? If not, the act of the Government in bringing the Association to an end is determining the life of the Research Council.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I thought that I had covered that point. It does not follow that they will be determining the life of the Research Association, because it will be possible to deal with this by voluntary measures if the industry so desires. I have indicated the type of question that has been put. I must put this to noble Lords, because I feel that, whatever we may think of this at the present time, it is the final consideration at the moment. The noble Lord is asking the Government to reconsider their decision. Supposing I were to say to-night, "Yes, the Government will reconsider their decision". What on earth is the industry going to think of that? Here they have just been asked to express their opinions, not on whether they want FIRA to be brought to an end, but whether they want it to continue to be financed by voluntary or by compulsory means. And supposing we were to say "We are sorry. We should not have sent out that questionnaire. The Government will reconsider the matter, and it does not matter what you may think." Is that a tenable thing for us to do at the present time? I must say to noble Lords that in the present circumstances surely the right course is to wait and see what the result of the initiative taken by the Chairman of the F.D.C. is before we take any further action.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a question and perhaps I may have the temerity to answer it. He said: "What would the industry think if we now said that we would reconsider the matter, when a questionnaire is in their hands?" Fair enough. The effect of my question is this: in the event of there being a majority against the renewal of the Furniture Development Council or some other means of introducing a statutory levy, will the Government, when they have received the questionnaire, overlook a majority against, in the light of the fluctuating view for and against in the past? We are not children in this House. The Minister knows very well that what we are after is an assurance that some form of statutory levy will continue in the furniture industry. We do not want to embarrass the Government by having them to go to the industry at this stage and say that they have changed horses. We want the Government to say that they will await these questionnaires, and see what happens when the answers to them come in. But we want the Government to resolve in their minds, in the light of what has been said about this Council in the House to-night, that they will not take too much notice of a mere numerical majority against.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord has shown how difficult it is to keep to the point in this matter. It may have been a slip of the tongue, but the industry is not being asked in this questionnaire about the continuance of the Development Council: that is a matter that the Government have already decided. It is being asked about the method of financing the Research Association. All I can say now is that it is only right—we are bound in any case to consult before there can be a Section 9 Order—that we should await the outcome of this questionnaire, find out what people think in the industry—that is what "consultation" means—and then try to think out the best way of ensuring (and that is what we want to do) that the Research Association will continue in existence. Because everybody appreciates the valuable work that they are doing and have been doing and the importance of their continuing in existence.