Lords Sitting of 23 January 1974

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

METRICATION: DISPLAY OF STANDARD METRE
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when and where they propose to put standard metres in convenient public places.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are not proposing to install standard metres in public places.
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that brief and uninformative Answer, may I ask what has been the result of consultations with industry following the E.E.C. Directives concerning units of measurement and material measures of length? Will the Government look sympathetically at requests from consumer bodies and others to retain Imperial measure for quite valid reasons?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we recognise our commitments to the Community under their various Directives, and our metrication programme is designed to ensure that our obligations are met with time to spare. So far as the Directive on length is concerned, this I understand is a draft Directive and we shall be consulting fully on it. Certainly we shall take into account any representations from my noble friend and others which affect consumers.
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, may I further ask my noble friend whether he agrees that it would be a good idea for
1434
a standard metre to be shown at consumer advisory centres in the high streets of our towns, so that the ordinary person can compare the metre with the yard and see of himself what the new measurement of length is going to be like?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this is an interesting suggestion, and one which I am sure will be considered by the Metrication Board.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can my noble friend say how we know what is a metre until it is metred?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, as I understand it, a metre is a perfectly well-known length which is defined.
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, would my noble friend go further and ask his right honourable friend to instruct local authorities to provide standard metres and exhibit these, bearing in mind that the exhibit does not need to be very large and therefore would not involve the community in great expense?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, these are matters which come within the purview of the weights and measures inspectors. In certain places there are already linear standards exhibited. Whether this is something which should be done nationally, and whether the cost of doing so is merited, is a question that is open to discussion.
LORD ANNALY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the City Corporation have already placed a standard metre at Guildhall?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, would it not be better to continue with yards, which everybody understands already?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, that was certainly not the view of the Government in their policy.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord when he is really going to make us members of the Community by insisting on French being our standard language?

EXPORT OF LIVE ANIMALS
2.39 p.m.
BARONESS STOCKS: 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 in view of widespread opposition to the export of live animals for slaughter they will assure this House that the present embargo will continue.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL FERRERS): My Lords, the issue of new licences for the export of animals for slaughter overseas has been suspended since July 13 last. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food expects to receive during February the report of Lord O'Brien's Committee on the export of live animals for slaughter and he will wish to consider its contents before taking any further action.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether there is any point in the O'Brien Committee continuing to investigate this question at a moment when in fact the export of live animals is suspended?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the export of live animals was suspended as a result of a Motion passed in another place requesting the Government to do just that and to set up a committee to investigate the problems associated with the export of live animals for slaughter. My right honourable friend has done this and I am sure that the noble Baroness realises that he must receive this report before he takes any decision.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that all the information available, which ought to be collected by the O'Brien Report, has been lodged in pigeon-holes at the Ministry of Agriculture for many weeks past?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, no doubt Lord O'Brien's Committee will have dislodged it.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I confirm what the noble Baroness has just said? I know perfectly well that the Minister has received information in overwhelming quantity to prove that he was right to impose the ban. I for one am at a loss to understand why he has not made the ban permanent.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am aware of the very strong feeling that various noble Lords and other people have expressed. It is because of these strong views, and views that were expressed in another place, that my right honourable friend set up this Committee. But I know the noble Lord, Lord Somers, will agree that not only one point of view but different points of view can be held. It is right that my right honourable friend should consider all the points of view which will have been formulated as a result of setting up this Committee.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, have Her Majesty's Government considered that at this moment, with a General Election pending, it would be of great advantage to the present Government to introduce a measure which would be popular not only in their own Party but in all Parties in both Houses?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am not sure that the premise on which the noble Baroness based her question is correct, nor am I quite certain whether the measures which she suggested would necessarily prove either as desirable or as popular as she indicated.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government give an assurance that in view of the colossal increase in the price of food, anything they decide upon will not mean the beef producers losing more money than they are losing at the moment?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am quite certain that whatever my right honourable friend does will accord with some people's views, but not necessarily with everybody's views.

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY CHARGES
LORD TREFGARNE: 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 permit the Civil Aviation Authority to postpone the date by which the Authority must achieve financial self-sufficiency, thus mitigating the heavy cost increases now falling upon United Kingdom airlines by virtue of the Authority's increased charges.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the greater part of the increases in charges levied by the Authority will bear on British and foreign airlines alike. The Government will also expect the C.A.A. to review critically the whole range of its costs now that it has introduced financial management on a commercial basis. In these circumstances my right honourable friend sees no need to propose any variation in the Government's financial guidance to the Authority.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware of certain charges that relate only to British airlines? I am referring in particular to the charges for new airport transport licences that have been increased by several hundred per cent. in the past few months. Is it reasonable that British Airlines should now be called upon to accept these increases?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, so far as the licence fee increases are concerned, I am advised that the increase in the industry's operating cost is well under ½per cent., and the new fees provide for varying charges according to the amount of traffic carried. I would hope that this will enable operators to absorb them without undue hardship.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, in view of the state of our financial affairs and the serious economic position, does the noble Lord not think that he ought to tell his right honourable friend and the
1438
Conservative Party—heaven forbid the probability!—that they ought now to bring out the begging bowl?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we think it is right that the cost of the services which are for the benefit of the airline operators and those that use them should be borne by them, and not by the taxpayer.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, could the noble Lord state how the charges at British airports compare with those at other airports? Would he not agree that, while the increases may be hard on foreign airlines, who do not necessarily have to come to British airports, the British airlines do, and to that extent may be more heavily handicapped?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the major or most important of these charges are in respect of the en route navigation services. These are negotiated by Euro-control which comprises most of the countries of Europe, so that all of the airlines using European air space are in fact paying the same charges.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, it is scarcely fair that British civil aviation, particularly on the interlines, should have not only to bear the increased costs which every operator has to carry, but should now have to carry an extra charge for the administration of a Government agency. Surely it is a little unfair to make this double impost upon civil aviation.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we do not think it is such a heavy impost and it does not seem to us at the present moment that there is any need to change our policy which, as I say, is that the users rather than the taxpayers pay for the service.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, will the noble Lord keep this matter under review in case there is a heavy impost on civil aviation making it even more uneconomic than it is?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, most of the Civil Aviation Authority's charges require either the approval of the Secretary of State or consultation with him. But I certainly take my noble friend's point.

EDUCATION WELFARE OFFICERS: THE RALPHS REPORT
2.48 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: 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 action is being taken towards implementing the recommendations to the Local Government Training Board of the Report on the Role and Training of Education Welfare Officers, as presented under the chairmanship of Dr. F. Lincoln Ralphs, early in 1973.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, the Government hope that all desirable improvements in the training of these officers will be introduced. But decisions on the specific recommendations of the Ralphs Report are a matter for the Local Government Training Board, in consultation with the other parties concerned.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. But is he aware that truancy to-day is a social phenomenon hitherto never seen in Britain; and while one is not asking for the primitive authoritarianism as envisaged with the appointment of the first officer by the 1870 Education Act, will he explain why there seems to be, on the part of the Government, such parsimonious indifference to the work of these people? Finally, are the noble Lord and the Government aware that the work of the local welfare officer now extends into many areas, including health, careers, police, and the courts, and it is therefore a job of high standard and one that has been hitherto under-valued? Will he do something to place a higher value upon it, regardless of how local government reacts?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, of course we are aware of these problems, and we are as concerned as the noble is Lord is with them; and we should be glad to debate them. This is all the more reason why we are particularly grateful to Professor Ralphs for this Report: we now have guidelines on which action can
1440
be taken. But, as I say, action falls in the first instance to the Local Government Training Board.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, while one appreciates the difficulties, and is not committed entirely to every one of the recommendations of the Ralphs Committee, may I ask whether or not the noble Lord would agree that the important point is that the education welfare officers should know what their future is going to be? Is he aware that for the last ten years there has been this uncertainty within the service: first of all, about the department into which they were going to be placed, and secondly, about exactly what their functions were going to be? Would he not make this clear, not only in the interests of those who are in the service now, but in the interests of the service in the future, where people will be recruiting for this work?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the House will see that the Question related to the training of these officers, and my Answer related to that, too. I agree that there is this further question of what their position should be within local government. That arises, not from the Ralphs Report but from the Seebohm Committee Report. I myself believe that, although this is a problem which has to be solved, the time is not ripe for any general guidance from local government at the moment—certainly not before local government reform. Local authorities have more than enough on their plate at the moment. But I recognise, with the noble Baroness, that there is here an issue which needs to be resolved.

FARMING COMMUNITIES FOR THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED
2.51 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL LORD GRENFELL rose to draw attention to a village farming community concept as a method of achieving fuller life for the mentally handicapped within the community; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I first of all congratulate my noble friend Lord Aberdare on his appointment, although I imagine that he will be sorry to lay down his work in the Ministry of Health. For many years we have worked together in this field.Upon reorganisation in

1441
March I shall be relinquishing my chairmanship of a hospital management committee. So maybe we have both worked ourselves out of a job. I am delighted that he will be answering for Her Majesty's Government in this debate to-day.
For some years past I have been advocating consideration by the Government of home farms and villages as the best solution for many of the mentally handicapped who are unable to live a normal life without supervision, but who, on the other hand, can lead a happy and fulfilled life in the community with this supervision. There are two really important factors in deciding the future of a mentally handicapped person. The first is the family, and to my mind this is more important than the person concerned. Anyone who has had close dealings with the mentally handicapped will understand the deep disturbance in the minds of parents as to what will happen to their child in the event of their own early death through accident or later by natural causes. Many parents will have other children who will grow up to have children of their own and will be unable to deal with a mentally handicapped brother or sister as well. It is with this situation in mind that I feel that any scheme should entail a guarantee so far as it is possible, after a probation period, that the home will be for life, so that parents can have the peace of mind which is so essential in this situation.
The second factor is the happiness and fulfilment in the life of the mentally handicapped in our country. This is to be the main theme of this debate. During the Summer Recess my wife and I visited four villages for the mentally handicapped in order to assess the advantages of the village life in comparison with other forms of hostel accommodation. We visited two villages under the auspices of the Home Farm Trust, whose manager is Mr. Davies: the Old Quarries at Avening and Frocester Manor, both of which are near Stroud, in Gloucestershire. They have another near Sheffield which we hope to visit at a later date. The two homes are based at manor houses with ample grounds. In one there is the hope of buying more land so that cattle can be grazed. There are facilities for keeping pigs, and also large gardens, supervised by a head gardener and worked by the
1442
villagers, ensuring that the village is, to all intents and purposes, self-supporting in vegetables and fruit. Pigs are locally slaughtered; a deep-freeze ensures home supplies, and any surplus is sold at market prices.
So far as mixing with the public is concerned, the villagers are soon integrated into the local community and accepted on these terms. Some are sidesmen in the local church, and two of them occasionally read the lessons. Others do gardening for old-age pensioners, and there are those who help at the filling station and the local hotel. Apart from this, baskets, chairs and trays are produced if the villagers take to these forms of employment; and the girls make rugs and embroidery. In short, full employment is assured in the pursuits which the villagers wish to follow. Where possible, the parents play an active part and their participation and co-operation is greatly encouraged.
If I may, I will now move on to our next visit, which was to Blackerton Village, near Brampton in Devon, run by Mr. Peter Forbes, under the auspices of Cottage and Rural Enterprises Limited, known under the initials of CARE, and under the presidency of my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock, who unfortunately cannot be here to-day. The number of villagers there is at present 30, but it is hoped to increase this number to 80 as building progresses. The criteria are that the number must conform with, first, the ability of any area to absorb naturally a given number of additional people, and, secondly, the necessity to maintain a family environment totally removed from an institutional atmosphere.
At Blackerton each villager has his own room in cottages which are being built and a great deal of the work is done by the villagers themselves. The whole object is to make the village as self-supporting as possible. All forms of agriculture and farming are used to bring this about and surpluses, as in the first village, are kept in deep freeze, while the remainder is sold at market prices. Should the villagers so wish, they can work on industrial projects, including rag dolls which are in constant demand in the commercial world. In order not to detain your Lordships for too long, and so that I may make a summary at the end of my remarks, I will now move on.

1443
In passing I should like to say that this is a very happy community, both male and female together working hard at the employment of their choice and enjoying real fulfilment within the power of their understanding.
Early in October we attended a symposium under the auspices of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and arranged a visit to MacIntyre Schools at Westoning Manor, one of the two homes run by Mr. Newton Wright, the founder, and his family. The other home, Wingrave Manor, near Leighton Buzzard, we hope to visit later. MacIntyre Schools differ from the others in that they provide facilities for the schooling of children from three years of age as well as a village life for adults. The children grow up in the school and join the farm community which gives them a home for life. As expansion takes place Westoning Manor will increase to about 100 mentally handicapped. Expansion depends on two factors: first, the decision that at no time will the mentally handicapped be allowed to exceed more than 5 per cent. of the population of the parent village; secondly, the time taken to erect log cabins that are prefabricated in Sweden. Having seen one of these, we felt enthusiastic about them as suitable houses for this purpose.
Westoning Manor is situated in the village of Westoning near Bedford, a mile or so from the M.1. Owing to the facilities of the M.1 the village is growing fast. Relations are excellent and integration is taking place after an early period of disquiet which was overcome by meetings, to the satisfaction of all concerned. As in the other villages, all types of employment are available and the community is becoming self-supporting to a great degree. The laundry is done on the premises by washing machines. Some of the villagers are at present incontinent, but it is hoped that they will grow out of this as time passes. Again here we found a really happy community with the whole Newton Wright family working among the villagers in the house and the organisation was undoubtedly first-class. Mr. Newton Wright told me that one of his villagers came to him and said: "I am fed up with being mentally handicapped". He, to his eternal credit replied: "Very
1444
well. You give up being mentally handicapped and become my assistant." He has been happily acting as such, within his capacity, ever since. Let it never be said that kind words do not bring happiness.
My Lords, I do not wish to take too long in describing our visits which were fascinating and highly instructive, but it may be interesting to know that last year I was asked to give a paper at a symposium at Monyhull Hospital in Birmingham on my idea of the future of the mentally handicapped within the community. That was before our visits, and I spoke on the village community based on the project of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children at Lufton Manor in Dorset, where they teach young men and women agriculture and horticulture, as I felt that this was the ideal life for so many of our friends who need real fulfilment in their lives. My main theme was of a dream village adjacent to a town or village, and I found, during our visits this summer, that this dream had come true and everything that I had advocated was laid out before me and working wonderfully, far better than I could have devised in my dreamland.
What of the future, and how can we bring these projects to full fruition? Any of us who in the past were regular soldiers will remember that one of the principles of war was, "reinforce success at all times". Here we have a very real element of success which is being curbed only by lack of funds. The home farms about which I have spoken all have the ambition to expand so that there can be at least one home farm village in each county. They know, and I know, that they will be able to run these villages in the best possible way and, owing to the fact that to a great degree they will be self-supporting, far more cheaply than a local authority could do.
My Lords, I believe fervently that in order to reach fulfilment our friends must have a variety of work from which to choose. We who run hospitals realise that although we do all we can, we cannot provide the variation in work which will bring the patient to his full potential, nor can we create to such a degree the family atmosphere which I have seen on my visits. With the best will in the world and from experience I know that even

1445
though the will is there the hospital will always be an institution and cannot be a real home.
The hostel in the centre of the town can only be a form of hotel for those who hope to get work or for those who spend their day in industrial training centres, which at best must be monotonous and in no way will bring out the true potential of any who live and work there. I would beg my noble friend to get the Ministry to understand that industrial work is not the "end all" and "be all" for every mentally handicapped person, any more than it is the "end all" and "be all" of our countrymen in general. We have found in the past that there has been opposition to hostels in towns by those who live in proximity. In the places I visited every village was fully integrated with the people round about and took full part in the affairs of church and community as a whole. Any hostility was overcome by meetings and discussions and a very happy relationship has been arrived at. I believe that this type of relationship is more easily attained in rural areas than it is in large cities, and that may be because the mentally handicapped are working, with great success, on the same pursuits as the normal village community is indulging in.
My Lords so far as medical matters are concerned, all the villages are attended by the local medical practitioner who visits at agreed intervals and is on call at any time he is requested. At none of the villages was it found necessary to have a resident psychiatrist, which leads one to believe that in a really happy and fulfilled atmosphere the mentally handicapped behave as any of us in the normal way, and do not need psychiatric care except in emergency cases. I was informed that there were very low I.Q,s among the villagers and that many improved enormously after a short period in the village. All have a period of probation of six months to see how they settle down, and 'that is a matter that is fully understood by the parents. Very few failed that probationary period. I talked to parents who were on the governing bodies. In some cases they were actively helping in the village concerned and they found a wonderful peace of mind as to the future of their children and had an enthusiasm which amply showed that the children were reaching a fulfilment which they could have only dreamed about.
My Lords, I am drawing now towards my conclusion and I am more than ever convinced that this is the way ahead and that Her Majesty's Government must build on success. I have said before, and I repeat, that the future of the mentally handicapped should be a national issue as opposed to a local authority responsibility. Certainly special schools should continue to be their responsibility; but when it comes to adult employment, homes must be placed in strategic places where land is available and, where possible, where a manor house as the centre of the community can be purchased. This entails national planning. It is for this reason that I most urgently advocate that home farm villages should be established in every county and that this should be brought about by infusing capital into the funds of those who have really learned by experience how to run home farms and who are only waiting for increased capital in order to expand.
My Lords, I believe that the time has come for Her Majesty's Government to call a conference attended by the principals of the home farms now in operation, the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children, and other interested bodies, to take evidence and hence to come to a conclusion as to the best form which home farms should take and in what way they can best be implemented. There will always be a need for our hospitals for the treatment and care of our mentally handicapped, and wonderful work they do; but if we can relieve the strain on them and, if possible, run down some of those with the worst accommodation, we shall have struck a real blow in regard to the care and 'happiness of our friends. I am firmly convinced that we shall find many more than we believed possible who will be able to take advantage of this new and fulfilled life and I know that it is the wish of all of us that the tragedy of mental handicap in many families should be greatly alleviated. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.10 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, having regard to the position in which I find myself in your Lordships' House to-day, I would be well advised to take the advice given by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, on July 13, 1965, when we were debating the length of Peers' speeches. He

1447
said, "Let my speech be short, comprehending much in a few words". Happily I am in a position to do that because I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, who has just spoken. It is an extrordinary thing that he and who have not discussed the content of our respective speeches, should in point of fact be thinking alike and I am in the difficult position of having to change my speech as I go along.
In your Lordships' House, we have a very pleasant courtesy of thanking Ministers for making statements, with which we so seldom agree, and of thanking noble Lords for introducing debates. I can say with absolute sincerity how grateful I am personally to the noble Lord for introducing this debate because he has focused our attention on a problem that many of us have spent a good deal of time not wanting to face up to, and I think that is perfectly true of society as a whole. In doing so, he is making us, if he has not already made us, face up to a reality situation. I could not agree with him more when he said that it is doubtful whether we know the extent of the problem before us to-day. I doubt whether we know how many parents reject their severely maladjusted children, and society as a whole has always been embarrassed by this particular problem, that of the mentally handicapped child. Society has come to terms with the physically handicapped, with the deaf and with the blind, but we have not been able to come to terms with the real problem behind the mentally handicapped. In saying this I am not unmindful of what is being done, and if I may say so, being done very well, by a number of Government Departments, but I believe that considerably more could be done in this field.
We know that there are several degrees of mental handicap: the mild, the moderate, the severe and the profound. I am primarily concerned with the problem of the severely handicapped because, generally speaking, the mild and the moderate are probably reasonably well catered for in our educational system although they are regarded as educationally subnormal. Unfortunately, the profoundly mentally handicapped find themselves in a position where there is perhaps very little that medical science can do for them. But
1448
I do believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, has said so forcefully, that there is much that we can do for the severely handicapped—those with an I.Q. of 50 or less. How many there are in that position I do not know; the figures vary. I am sure that the Minister will give us a figure, but I would have thought that there is a substantial army of something like 200,000 severely mentally handicapped persons to-day. It is these with whom I am mainly concerned as I believe that more could be done for them than is being done at the present moment.
I should like to emphasise what the noble Lord has said this afternoon, that our aim must be the creation of normality for them, to bring, so far as one is able to do so, a real fulfilment into their lives. It is possible to create a kind of normality of living for them and to bring about a real measure of fulfilment for them. It is, in fact, being done at this very moment in a number of village communities to which the noble Lord has made reference, one of which I saw as recently as last weekend—a school, a community where, as he quite rightly pointed out, they take them in at the age of three and they keep them for life.
In a caring community—and if we are nothing else, whatever our political views may be, we are by and large a caring community; we are concerned with the welfare of those less fortunately placed than ourselves. I believe that we have to provide more of these village communities for life with people whom they get to know, in surroundings with which they; become completely familiar. I think that these communities must be so located that people in the wider community can be involved. The one that I went to last weekend, which the noble Lord mentioned, is a place for life, where people can have a real sense of fulfilment and where the wider community in which this community is situated can play its part. We have to realise that if we are going to help the severely mentally handicapped, we have got to provide facilities where they themselves can share in the life, the amusements and the activities of the community in which you and I live.
I doubt whether there is anyone in your Lordships' House who knows more about this subject than the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and I should like to take

1449
this opportunity—if he does not think it presumptuous on my part—to say that the community owes him a great debt of gratitude for what he has done for so many years in this field. The severely mentally handicapped are often unable to communicate easily with ordinary people because of difficulty of speech, but I have seen, as he has, these severely mentally handicapped persons capable of looking after cattle, pigs and chickens, capable of ploughing and milking, capable of making pottery to a far better standard than I can; doing upholstery work, doing woodwork, and, it may surprise you, the girls can cook to a degree that is quite a joy to eat. Our aim should be to provide these facilities so that these severely handicapped people can lead a life as near normal as circumstances permit.
I do not know what the noble Lord the Minister is going to say. I hope I can persuade him not to say certain things. Having regard to the side of the House on which I happen to be this may be a surprising thing to say, but I do not want to see the State undertake this kind of work at the present moment and I hope that the Minister is not going to say that this work should be undertaken in the main by local authorities. Those of us who have some responsibility in that field know that local authorities in this country are already overstretched. They are already overworked and I think it is true to say that none of them has yet succeeded in carrying out all the responsibilities that these Houses of Parliament have imposed upon them in the last few years in relation to the treatment of delinquents and in relation to the chronically sick and disabled. I think it would be a mistake—and I say this with great respect to the Minister—to involve them still more in something that I think they would not be able to do.
In this country—and this is not to the credit of any one political Party—for a large number of years we have enjoyed a vast and comprehensive network of social services. Many of those, if not all of them, were started in the first instance by voluntary organisations and when they became of supreme importance to the community "the State", as we are pleased to call it, took them over. But the experimentation, the initial investigation and the mistakes were made
1450
originally by voluntary organisations, and I should like to see the growth of these village communities, these village farm communities—because there are different kinds—continue and remain in the hands of voluntary organisations so that they can pioneer for several years to come. Their work will be needed all the more as the years pass, and I think we have to face the fact that if this work is going to be done it will be best done by voluntary organisations, because somehow or other one day they will find the people and, secondly, they will find the money. I believe that in the last analysis it will be done just as effectively as by an efficient local authority; but I am also convinced from my own personal experience of voluntary organisations that it will be done much more cheaply.
Finally, I want to say to the noble Lord the Minister that I hope he will take up the suggestion made by—may I say my noble friend?—Lord Grentell, that there is real research into what is really needed in this field. The noble Lord is convinced, and I am convinced from what I have seen, that this is a venture which ought almost to be on a county basis because it is so needed. I hope the Minister will say that, somehow or other, the Government will consider helping to create more of these village communities and more of these village farm communities. So many of them have large areas of ground, and if only they could get the capital expenditure to erect the houses necessary they could do much more. The one that I went to last weekend, where they have 24 people, could take four or five times that number if they had four or five houses. For a mere £45,000 a suitable house with all the equipment necessary could be made available. It may well be that the Government may not feel able to do this. If they could consider an interest-free loan I think some of these village communities would be only too happy to avail themselves of it.
There are only two other suggestions that I should like to make to the noble Lord the Minister: one is that there is a real danger—and I know that the village communities and the village farm communities will not mind my saying this—of their working in isolation, and at this particular stage in the development of this idea it is dangerous that they should

1451
be allowed to continue. I should like to see some sort of getting together so that they could discuss their own problems and difficulties and have present somebody from the appropriate Ministry who could help them. In other words, I am pleading for some kind of supervision, and (I do not mind using the word, although I hope it will not give offence) some kind of inspection in order to prevent splendid isolation. I would go so far as to say to the Minister that I hope we might have a Minister simply and solely to be on call for the various organisations which are working to-day for the severely handicapped, and that he will see that this is a matter that can, during its experimental stage, remain in the hands of voluntary organisations.
3.27 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, before saying the few words that I wish to say in support of the Motion I should first like to say a kind word to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who has just made his first speech from the Front Bench. We are very pleased to see him there and I hope he will make a great many more speeches in the course of the next few years.
I should also like to echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, in regard to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. We always greatly enjoyed his speeches on the National Health Service when he spoke for the Department of Health and Social Security and we are very pleased that he is to make one more speech on this subject to-day.
There is not a great deal that I want to say about this Motion which has been moved so well by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. I entirely agree with every single word he said, and I was particularly pleased to hear him say that these local communities function without the help of psychiatrists. I believe there is a great danger in the thinking that if you are caring for someone who is mentally handicapped you must immediately call in a psychiatrist to take care of that person. In fact such people are much better taken care of by their own doctors and their own friends and families. I was impressed during my work as chairman of the Attendance Allowance Board, with which I have been associated for two years or more, with the enormous
1452
number of severely mentally handicapped children who have been taken care of by their parents at home. One had no idea that the burden would be as great as that involved, and one is surprised and encouraged by the number who are being taken care of in that way.
Gradually it is once more dawning on people that it is a good thing for the mentally handicapped to be able to work. In saying that, I do not mean the virtue of work in the Victorian sense, that it was a fine and proper thing to do; but that it is very good for them to have something functional to do and something which they can do. It has an enormously important therapeutic effect on them. It improves their physical health and their mental health and makes them far more contented, even those who have a very low I.Q. It gives them something with which they can occupy themselves, and also they produce something which is of value to the community.
I can remember that in the old days before the last war quite a large number of mental hospitals had farms attached to them. I cannot remember why it was those farms were given up; it may possibly be because the land they occupied was very valuable and could be better used for something else. I rather think there was going about at the time the idea that it was wrong to exploit these people as cheap labour on farms. If that was the case at that time, I think it is one thing that has entirely gone. It is not something that affects any more the thinking of Governments, local authorities or voluntary organisations.
My Lords, although I have nothing to say on the Motion put down by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, I should like to extend the terms of it because a great deal of what he said can be done about the mentally handicapped can at the same time be done for the physically handicapped. I think particularly of the place I have been associated with for a long time, the Royal Hospital and Home for Incurables at Putney, which is rather like some of the places the noble Lord was talking about, in the sense that the people in this hospital are there for life. They do not come in quite as young as do those in some of the places for the mentally handicapped, but at a relatively young age. Once upon a time it was not thought right and proper that they should indulge in

1453
any particular form of activity. But that attitude has now been changed, and these people do as much as they possibly can. Several contacts have been made with local shops and firms, and the goods made by the patients are sold by these firms. This is very good indeed for the patients. It makes them realise they are making some contribution to the world, and also it brings them in a little more money. It is extraordinary, even at the present time, what a good thing it is for people's morale to have a little more money in their pockets, particularly if it is there through their own efforts.
So a great deal of what the noble Lord said about the mentally handicapped applies equally to the physically handicapped. One sees that now in many of the mental hospitals where there are workshops and so on for adults, and where a great deal of work is being done and the products of that work are being sold on the ordinary market. It would be quite wrong if that work were to be concentrated in towns, in big mental hospitals. The noble Lord has put forward a good case for a certain amount of this kind of work being done in the country, in the village communities. But whether one is mentally handicapped or not, some people may prefer to be in the country and some in the town. We should be able to cater for both kinds of people.
My Lords, another matter which encouraged me in the speech of the noble Lord was when he spoke of the way the people from the villages for the handicapped do become integrated into the neighbourhood, and are accepted as normal people going about their daily life in a reasonable way. If I may give a rather foolish analogy of the way local communities can adapt themselves to other people, there was a leper hospital established in a town not far from London. I admit that most of the people there were not in an infectious or contagious state; the disease was burnt out, or the people were under treatment. But when it was first suggested that a leper hospital might be opened in that town there was a good deal of protest from the local people, who thought it a bad idea that lepers should be wandering about in the shops and in the town. But it was not long before the patients were completely accepted in the community because they behaved like normal people. This shows it is possible
1454
for all sorts of, as one might think, improbable people to become part of village communities.
My Lords, I think the same thing applies in a different way to the care of elderly people, who must be given something to do. One must realise the therapeutic value of work, particularly if it is work which will be associated with the coming in of a certain amount of money. There are quite a number of schemes operating whereby elderly people, who otherwise would sit at home doing nothing, do rather simple, repetitive work in company with their colleagues. Not only does this provide something for the market, but it has an extremely good preventive effect, because it keeps these people from decaying mentally and they remain active members of the community. What the noble Lord has said applies equally to the really young and the very old, and I am therefore very pleased he has put down this Motion, which I certainly support.
3.37 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRAD-FELLTE: My Lords, I am going to intervene in this debate to-day in a spirit of diffidence and humility. I would never pretend to be an expert of any kind in the wide and demanding field of the mentally handicapped. I have the deepest admiration for those dedicated people who devote their lives and energies to caring for them. No one can fail to be aware of the problem. No longer is it a cause of shame to the parents of a child who is deprived in this way. One's imagination and sympathy can be awakened, but too few of us really exert ourselves to do much to help beyond buying flags or helping in charitable efforts to raise money; or by expressing verbal sympathy to those of one's friends who carry the parental responsibility for looking after a mentally handicapped child. Think of the agonies of mind those parents suffer when they try to envisage a future for their child, a future which will embrace as happy and full a life as the child is able to enjoy, a future when they, the parents, are dead and the child, now adult, may have to face the world alone. Anything we can achieve to alleviate this anxiety is the least that we can do to take a share in carrying this burden.

1455
So I welcome the opportunity which has been created by my noble friend Lord Grenfell this afternoon to examine one of the possible solutions,
"as a method of achieving fuller life for the mentally handicapped within the community "
to quote his Motion. Any effort which might result in the establishment and maintenance of a fuller life should be studied, and my mind has been turning towards those who are striving after this ideal. This afternoon we have already heard, and no doubt before the debate is over we shall have heard more, about those voluntary associations and trusts that are working in this field. I want to use a few minutes to speak about the Camp Hill Village Trust.
This Trust owes its being to Dr. Karl König, one-time medical superintendent of a home for mentally handicapped children in Germany. He came to this country in 1939 and started similar work in Scotland. Inspired by the teaching and philosophy of Rudolf Steiner, he founded and became superintendent of the Camp Hill Rudolf Steiner Schools near Aberdeen. From this Scottish home and school word spread to England, Northern Ireland, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Norway, Finland, South Africa and the United States of America. In its development and growth the Trust now includes the care of adults as well as children; and to me this is where its strength lies. Just as the education of a mentally handicapped child in one of the Camp Hill schools is related to his or her ability, as well as to his or her age, so, on becoming adult, a handicapped person needs a social environment adequate to his or her ability and age.
In 1954, Dr. König put the plan of a Camp Hill village for mentally handicapped adults before a number of parents and other people interested in the problem. The idea caught on and led to the founding of the Camp Hill Village Trust. It also led in the following year to the establishment of Bolton Village, in Denby Dale, on the North Yorkshire Moors, a village that now consists of 400 acres, with four farms and vegetable gardens and five workshops. This was followed in 1959 by The Grange at Newnham-on-Severn in Gloucestershire, which owns two estates of 44 acres,
1456
mainly devoted to fruit farming, with two workshops for weaving and pottery. In 1960, Newton Dee at Bieldside, near Aberdeen, was started with 17 acres, one farm and vegetable garden, a bakery and three workshops for the production of rag dolls, weaving and woodwork.
No one is admitted to one of the villages until he or she is 18, though an application for admission can be made from 16 years of age onwards. Once the application has been received and the individual has been interviewed by Dr. Weihs, the Trust's medical adviser, and accepted, he or she becomes a villager and the new life in one of the village communities begins. There is a long waiting list, and this is understandable, for it is when the handicapped child is growing towards the age of leaving school that concern and fear build up in the parents' minds: "What is the future? Where can he or she go when they leave school? What will happen when I die?"
The life and work of the villages compares with that of any closely knit group of human beings. The villagers live in families with house parents, who often have their own children living with them, too. They go to work in the workshops at a variety of things: making rag dolls, wooden toys and other articles, beeswax candles; weaving, glass engraving, metal work, pottery, breadmaking, cakes, biscuits, jam and fruit juices. They work on the land, and they share in the cultural and social life of the community. A household may consist of anything from 4 to 15 people—naturally, it depends upon the size of the house. It is essential to appreciate that the villagers are not boarders but full members of the household, sharing the life, duties, chores, joys and problems, so far as they are able. They find in their "family" that measure of security which they so badly need, and many of their own problems can be dealt with on this level in a natural way. As no other staff are employed, all the domestic and maintenance work is done by the villagers and their co-workers.
As well as working on the farms and in the gardens, at forestry and estate work, and in the workshops, the villagers help with other work, such as administrative office work, the sale of the products that are made and in the post office. There is a thriving mail order business

1457
being run at Botton for retailing village products from all the other centres. The work is of a high standard and some articles carry the label of the Industrial Design Centre. There is also work involved by the distribution of stores, the domestic work in the kitchen and household and the maintenance of the houses and estates.
Everyone has a full working day, with an appropriate holiday period, and the money to keep all these activities going—the cost of running the villages—comes from voluntary contributions, some help from the parents, some maintenance grants from local authorities, and deficiency payments to the tune of 75 per cent. from the Department of Employment and the Department of Health and Social Security. From the beginning of the Camp Hill Communities one of the basic principles has been that no wages are paid, that all the needs of the individual are met from the common fund, and that work is done for work's sake, for the enhancement of the dignity of man. My Lords, is there a lesson to be learned here which might change the spirit abroad to-day? I wonder.
A number of family-size households grouped together, each consisting of a responsible couple and their children and handicapped villagers, constitutes a neighbourhood. Such a neighbourhood deals with its own social tasks and works with other neighbourhoods in matters affecting the whole community. There may also be specialised groups or ad hoc committees to co-ordinate the cultural life and adult education. These cover artistic activities, the celebration of festivals, a rich and varied adult education programme, a course for students interested in social service, and at Botton village a school for staff children. These cultural and educational experiences, combined with the experience of day-by-day living available to all those to be found within a village community, help to mature individuals, so that they can participate with increasing responsibility, and some of them can be prepared for future integration into society outside the villages.
The villages, therefore, offer residence and work for those who seek a permanent community setting, as well as for those for whom life in such a village is a temporary phase of the development
1458
towards greater independence. The handicapped villagers as nearly as possible approach a normal life. They are by no means—and here I quote: "Inmates of an institution, or patients or people to be looked after". All, according to their ability, can contribute and help their village to carry on. They are no longer "the odd man out" who is different and looked down upon. Within such a community everyone is given a chance to give, to help and to serve. The villagers can live a life as people with a handicap rather than as handicapped people. The age range is from 18 to 60, with the majority between 25 and 45. There is no set minimum or maximum ability requirement, though it has been found desirable to have some capacity for community living. It is too early yet to say how the villagers will age. Some movement of the older and more sensitive has already taken place from the demanding climate of Botton. The problems that will have to be faced in general may not be parallel to those in normal life and their solution will evolve as community living develops. Special care units or places within the villages have been contemplated, but so far they have not been incorporated in any of the British villages. On every ones lips these days are the words "community care", and it is just that caring that those involved in running the Camphill villages are trying to establish.
My Lords, we have had a most moving appeal from both sides of the House. The debate is to be summed up by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, a Minister whom we have ail learned to respect and to have affection for. He has shown himself deeply and sincerely interested in the subjects which were his when he was in charge of a Department, and I am sad that he has stepped into another sphere—though that is always inevitable in this life of ours. As one who has always been interested in the National Health Service and the social services side of the work of Departments, I would conclude by saying that it is with great regret that we say au revoir to Lord Aberdare, and it is with great pleasure that we look forward to hearing what he has to say this afternoon.
3.48 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I am sure that everyone in this House, and many more outside it, will be grateful to the

1459
noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, for initiating this debate and especially for the notable speech with which he opened it. May I also endorse the concluding remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke—I dare not attempt her full title—in expressing our sense of relief that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is due to wind up this debate on behalf of the Government. To everyone who is interested in problems of the health and welfare of our people, it will be a source of deep regret if ever he leaves his present Department, and I am sure that whoever his successor may be he will certainly find it very difficult indeed to follow him. May I also express my pleasure to my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell for his outstanding baptism of fire—if that is not a contradiction in terms. He certainly carried it off with enormous credit, speaking on a subject about which I know he feels very deeply at heart.
This debate deals with a subject which must be pressed home continually until the present number of these villages for the mentally handicapped is multiplied many times over. We all freely admit that this cannot be a solution for every mentally handicapped adult. Some may need constant hospital care and hospital supervision; others may be better catered for in hostels established in an urban environment and merging with an urban community. To the constantly nagging question, to which so many speakers have referred, one that preoccupies the minds of so many elderly parents to-day, "What is to become of our mentally handicapped children after we are gone?", the village community very often provides the ideal solution.
I too have visited several of these villages of the mentally handicapped, and have come away on each occasion enormously impressed, first, by the diversity of the fuller life that each of these mentally handicapped villagers is able to enjoy; each village with a distinctive character of its own, just as any normal village possesses. In each one, the surroundings, the workshops, the housing arrangements and the general character of the village varied widely. Most of the children had obviously been selected as suitable potential members for the village community. Some of them had already special skills and aptitudes
1460
to contribute. But all the villages had an atmosphere of purpose and dedication which ensured their success. All of them were faced initially with tremendous difficulties that had to be overcome; difficulties such as shortages of trained staff, high costs of maintenance, a constant urge to enlarge and extend their work and many other problems. So that outside help, whether from the local authorities or by direct Government assistance, became a matter of urgent need and a source of constant anxiety.
In July of last year, the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children, of which I have had the honour to be chairman for a number of years—perhaps too many already—and its offshoot, the British Association for the Retarded, which deals mainly with the problems of mentally handicapped adults, organised a four-day tour of some of these village communities. We visited a number of these from Yorkshire to Devon, including the excellent village settlement of CARE, to which reference has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. Our National Society followed this up, in October, with a one-day symposium at which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, naturally enough spoke, and conveyed the good wishes of Her Majesty's Government. Since then a Working Party has been set up by the Society consisting mainly of parents of mentally handicapped children specially interested in this problem. Their report made a number of valuable recommendations in favour of a new project to act as a model pilot scheme, and sponsored for the first time by a large national organisation in the same way that the National Society had previously sponsored the highly successful Industrial Training Unit at Slough and the Agricultural Training Unit at Lufton Manor in Somerset, both pioneer projects of their kind.
In this connection, the highest possible praise must be paid to the Rudolf Steiner Association, to CARE, to many other voluntary organisations and dedicated individuals, for the wonderful contributions they have made to this problem in the past. They have brought to the work a zeal and devotion, a spirit of burning enthusiasm, and often of deep religious

1461
fervour, which have helped to ensure the success of their undertakings. But there is still a crying need to-day for a much larger project, on a wider basis, run for the first time by a large national organisation, with a wealth of experience and expertise, to deal with these specific problems. There is a real need to cater for a much more varied and numerous population of mentally handicapped adults, so that sociological and economic research can be carried out to assess the best type of such a village settlement, and how it can be best adapted to deal with the wider problems that face our country to-day.
Of course the cost of such a project is bound to be almost prohibitive. We are waiting for some public-spirited benefactor, preferably from your Lordships' House as a result of this debate, to come forward with the offer of a large country estate, or at least of a large country house to serve as a nucleus, and in any part of England or Wales. It need not necessarily be close to an urban community, as the successful Camp Hill villages in Aberdeenshire and the North Riding of Yorkshire have already demonstrated. But it ought to be accessible to parents of mentally handicapped children and adults, so that the villagers are not altogether cut off from contacts with their families and friends—a highly important factor in boosting their morale and their personal pride, as members of our wider social community. It should be selective, but not unduly so. It should range over as wide a cross-section of our mentally handicapped population as possible, so that valuable sociological data may be obtained as a result. It should cater for its inhabitants in the long term, and, preferably, for their lifetime care. It should provide a training ground for helpers and teachers, for research workers and sociologists. It should extend its activities in many directions as yet untried, whether agricultural, horticultural or in the field of light industry. It should be the forerunner of many similar projects in other parts of the country—although I dare not be quite as ambitious as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and look forward to these village communities existing in every county; and heaven knows what the boundaries of the new counties are likely to be—so that ultimately a whole network of these village communities for mentally
1462
handicapped adults will be established in our midst.
We now look to the Government for an imaginative lead in this direction. With the Government's good will and active assistance, a great deal can be accomplished to enable Britain to give a lead to the world in grappling with this major problem. The Government which have already done so much to help the cause of our own mentally handicapped fellow-citizens, are now faced with a great opportunity in this debate. We are all aware of the many anxieties that face our country in these difficult days, and of the appalling problem of the Government in having to establish their list of priorities. We know of the clamp-down on Government spending and the insistently increasing demands on our local authorities. But here is an opportunity for the Government to embark on a great imaginative and constructive enterprise. It is an opportunity too good to be missed.
4.1 p.m.
THE COUNTESS OF LOUDOUN: My Lords, how heartening it is to find that the hospital service seems to attract professional men of great ability who are able to come right down and look at small things—buying sweets in the village shop, the tea cups and the biscuits—which represent the vital difference between a hospital institution bed and a divan with a headboard; the difference between misery and contentment to our borderline members of society!
Last weekend, I had the pleasure of visiting Princess Christian's Hospital, near Tonbridge, in Kent. This is a hospital in the National Health Service where the aim is to train and rehabilitate as many as possible of the residents, as they are called, and to return them to the outside community. These residents are drawn from the local subnormality hospital, and as there must be a good chance of their benefiting from the change only those with an I.Q. above a certain figure are selected. There are approximately 190 patients who are accommodated in five "houses" around the hospital; four of these are for male patients and one is for the females.
One of the "houses" is based within a farm unit where a good number are employed tending a fine dairy herd, as

1463
well as calves and a large number of pigs, and doing all the variety of work on a farm—roadmaking, ditching, pruning and gardening. Unlike most farms nowadays, mechanisation is deliberately limited, since too much would defeat the purpose of providing work and experience for the residents. When I was there the dairy herd had just come in to be milked, which is done electrically, and the residents tackled it efficiently and obviously with no fear of the animals. I was told that the rota for work is changed frequently to give everyone a chance to try every job. The poultry unit is situated near the female hostel and, like the farmer's wife, the female residents look after and are responsible for the poultry—under supervision of course. Then I met John, whose farming days are past, who proudly told me that he gets up at six and cleans the dormitory in his house every day. For that he is paid 60p a week—he made it sound like £60, and I had to ask him twice: his pride in his humble job was so apparent. He proudly showed me his own cup and saucer that he had bought himself, his own jar of sugar and his biscuits.
But what of the problems, my Lords? One of the main problems is recruiting staff, due largely to the shortage of staff houses. Not enough of these are available. This problem is increased by the low rate of pay for ancillary staff. The minimum rate has only recently been raised to £23·40, which these days is not a living wage. Another basic problem is the shortage of hostels to which residents can be moved when they are considered ready. There are several there now who would be capable of returning to the outside community if there were hostel places available. With no progression the nature of the establishment is changed. With no progression, no hostels, no residents going out, this wonderful centre of rehabilitation will become an asylum in a pretty country place. Staff and residents will become discouraged and the project will fail. No places in hostels means failure, but there are just not enough hostels. Of the 40 hostels planned for the area, only five have been completed. It must be realised, too, that this centre is not geared to cope with geriatrics or those with physical problems. When a resident becomes too
1464
old or infirm he has to move back to the subnormality hospital, with all the attendant heartaches that that entails.
Because of the length of time that the hospital has been established there (since 1910, I believe) and the fact that the local people have discovered that there is nothing for them to be afraid of, these people are accepted by the local community which goes out of its way to help. For example, young people in the Voluntary Service Unit at Sevenoaks School run a "disco" for the residents—not just occasionally, but regularly once a fortnight. I wish that your Lordships could see the residents going about their work, doing not only the jobs around the farm but also the everyday jobs of a large but ordinary home in a country setting—all busy, busy. If only we had more places like that!
I should like to end with a mention of Peredur Home Farm, near East Grinstead. This farm has been established for some 25 years and is working well, but for the last two years it has had the spectre of the new East Grinstead by-pass hanging over it. If the proposed route is chosen it will destroy the project—the life's work of its directors, Mr. and Mrs. Rudel. Surely, my Lords, we have our priorities wrong somewhere.
4.7 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, we have had an extremely interesting debate and we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, for having initiated it. I should like from this side to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, on making his first speech from the Opposition Front Bench on a subject which is so very worth while. I am sure that we all enjoyed very much what he said, and I certainly agreed with all of it.
It is most important that we have something which is permanent. I know Camp Hill Schools only very slightly, but I know a little about the one in Aberdeen, which demonstrates how magnificent it is to create a community with its own interests and training close to an ordinary community of people who are not handicapped at all and with whom they can integrate. We must not isolate people even if they are mentally handicapped, because it is quite extraordinary what can be done if mentally handicapped people are brought into a community in the way

1465
that is being done in these village communities. I would entirely endorse all that has been said about this work being something that is very well worth helping, and I should like to encourage the speaker who said that we must have more such communities.
I know of one which is about to start in Somerset. This will be part of the work of the National Society for Autistic Children, with which I have a very close association. This place, which is called Somerset Court, has just been purchased. It will be turned into a community centre, and will be the only one of its kind. The children going there will be at the very end of their schooling. They will come from the Ealing School and will live there permanently, and it will be just like Camp Hill or any of the other places we have been talking about. It will be a centre where the care of the autistic child and the autistic adult, as they will become, is the main purpose, but it will also be linked very closely with the local authorities and ordinary village communities surrounding it.
That community will be in the same vein as those we have been talking about, and those run by the Society for Mentally Handicapped Children, for which the noble Lord, Lord Segal, has done such an enormous amount of work, and also the Peredur centre, mentioned by the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun. I hope that our protests about the great motor-way, which would completely crush this important centre, will be successful and stave off the by-pass permanently. It would be nothing short of madness to destroy this centre, which is not very old but which is doing a wonderful job, just because the authorities want to put a motorway in that particular place. Surely it can be directed into a slightly different area.
My Lords, I think that our Government have done a tremendous lot to encourage all these voluntary organisations. I was extremely interested when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, say that he thought all this experimental work (it is now becoming a permanency, but it began experimentally) should be done by the voluntary organisations. I agree entirely, but I think it is important, because they are voluntary organisations, that they should also rank for grant-aid, either from local authorities or from the
1466
Government. Here, I should like to congratulate Lord Aberdare, because he and Lord Windlesham have set up this Committee, which is studying how Government funds can be used to help voluntary organisations.
Lord Windlesham has a small group of people, very knowledgeable about voluntary societies and social work, who are advising him (and he, in turn, is advising the Government) on how grants for voluntary societies and voluntary work should be used. I think it is very farseeing, and a very good thing to do. One does not want to do away with the spirit of the voluntary societies, with the spirit of the people who started them and so on, but it is very difficult, as those of us who have been in this work for years know, to get from voluntary sources a continuing amount of money for these organisations, and if they can get some help from the local authority or from the central funds it makes all the difference, particularly if the money is in the form of capital, which enables them to build the necessary houses and the necessary hospitals to enlarge their activities.
So I would congratulate the Government very much, and Lord Windlesham in particular, on having set up this Committee. I am sure that he will read the OFFICIAL REPORT Of this discussion in your Lordships' House to-day, but I hope that the people who are helping him and advising him will also read it, because so much valuable information has been given by people who really know about these organisations and who have been working for them for years. This is just the kind of information which this grant-aiding unit will find immensely valuable. I hope very much indeed that what has been said to-day, all of which I endorse, will also be of assistance to the group headed by Lord Windlesham, because I am quite sure that they can do a great deal to enlarge our work and make it more valuable.
In conclusion, I endorse most strongly everything that has been said this afternoon. All the organisations I know are trying very hard to work in this same spirit of continuation and of help for the mentally handicapped and the physically handicapped—and particularly the mentally handicapped, because of their great difficulty in being integrated into the community. As everybody has said, we are

1467
all getting older; and when we go who will look after the children; who will care for those who, in every generation, are unfortunately going to be mentally handicapped? It is just this type of work that I am quite sure is the key to the continuation of the happiness of those generations growing up, whose parents must and will, in the fullness of time, no longer be there to look after them, for they can then feel that in the years to come they can rest happily knowing that their children are being cared for. I commend all this most heartily to Lord Aberdare and to his Department, who have done a most wonderful job, and more particularly to Lord Windlesham and his group, who are going to give money from the Government to the voluntary organisations.
4.15 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I should like to thank all those noble Lords who have so kindly referred to me in the course of their remarks. So far as I can see at the moment, the fact that I am without Portfolio does not mean that I have lost my responsibilities in this House for health and social security, but it does mean that I have accumulated a number of others, including, as your Lordships may have noticed yesterday, answering on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. But it is a great pleasure that I have not lost these responsibilities in this House, and I am delighted to be able to wind up this short debate to-day. May I, as everybody else has done, thank my noble friend Lord Grenfell, who made a most interesting speech to open the debate. It was a typically modest speech, but one which was full of deep knowledge; and all your Lordships have already thanked him with great sincerity. We always listen to what he has to say, not only because he knows so much about the subject and not only because he had done so much work with the mentally handicapped, but because of the deep dedication which he has given—indeed, I would say that "love" is not too strong a word for it—to the mentally handicapped.
I very much share my noble friend's admiration for much of the work that is being undertaken by the organisations that we are considering this evening. He mentioned a number of bodies, and a number of other voluntary bodies working
1468
in this field have been mentioned in the course of the debate. I have seen some of them: the Home Farm Trust, for example, which I have visited and which officials of my former Department have also visited recently, and where they had discussions. In his description of the activities of these organisations, my noble friend drew your Lordships' attention to certain basic criteria which he felt should be observed in designing provision for the care of mentally handicapped people. He very rightly emphasised their need to live as stimulating and rich lives as their handicap permits, in the community, so I far as possible, and with their fellow citizens. He also made some specific proposals to further the development of the farm-based village communities that he described. I shall return to these points in a moment; but I think it may assist your Lordships if I briefly sketch the basic structure of the Government's plans for the development of services for the mentally handicapped.
The White Paper, Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped, set out in detail the general principles on which our development plans are based, and it made 15 separate points. I will not impose on your Lordships by mentioning each of them, but I think it is important to remember that, taken together, they amount to an identification of the right of mentally handicapped people to a dignified and useful mode of life; to a declaration that a homelike, and not an institutionalised, environment is required when they can no longer be adequately looked after in their own homes; and to an emphasis on the need for flexible forms of provision and for close collaboration and co-operation between the various agencies providing the services. I am sure, from what your Lordships have said to-night, that no one will dispute these aims. Indeed, they were absolutely implicit in what, if I may respectfully say so, was an extremely interesting speech by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. I, too, should like to offer my congratulations to him on his first appearance at the opposite Despatch Box. I hope that in many future debates we shall be able to see as closely eye to eye as we do on this occasion. My Lords, the noble Lord asked me for one figure which it would perhaps be useful to put on the Record. The best estimate we can

1469
make for the number of severely handicapped in England and Wales is 120,000, of whom 50,000 are children.
Very early in his remarks my noble friend Lord Grenfell made the important point that families with mentally handicapped members have the right to an assurance that, when and if necessary, those handicapped members will have available to them suitable long-term care. This aim is at the centre of the Government's plans for the development of hospital and local authority provisions.
Our immediate priority has been on local authority services because, taking the country as a whole, it is there that provision has been most uneven. But our ultimate objective is close collaboration between hospital and local authority services to provide the optimum balance between them. I am glad to be able to say that significant progress has been made since the White Paper. Local authorities have responded well to the targets set out, and plans have been made for a steady increase in the number of training centres and residential homes in all parts of the country. Hospital authorities too have been devoting considerable resources to mental handicap provision and there are encouraging signs of closer collaboration between hospitals and local authorities, but there is still a long way to go.
The White Paper acknowledged that although each passing year will bring about better provisions, it would be some two decades before the targets set in the White Paper were achieved; and much, of course, will now depend on the economic situation. The progress that we have made to date has been possible only by the achievement of economic growth. Now we face serious balance of payments problems, due to the increase in the price of oil, and it is too early to predict how this may affect our social service provisions. Already we have had to make very large cuts in public expenditure, and inevitably this will mean delay in our plans for the improvement of services for the mentally handicapped. I think it would be wrong of me not to make this plain.
The Government's planning has been primarily, but not exclusively, concerned with the Statutory services. I say "not exclusively" because we have always been very much aware of the significant
1470
contribution made in the mental handicap field by voluntary organisations and private individuals, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood for her remarks in this connection. But our primary concern has been with the development of Statutory services for reasons which I am confident are cogent. The number of people affected by mental handicap, and the diversity of handicaps between individuals, is such that the resources of any non-Statutory agency in manpower and administration as well as capital facilities would be inadequate. Though indeed there are many mentally handicapped people who are able to function at a near to normal level, there are also those whose degree of handicap is such that even with a great deal of specialised help they will always function at only a very basic level, perhaps remaining without speech or the control of their bodily functions, or unable to walk or use a wheelchair, and consequently basic services must be statutorily provided.
Since the publication of the White Paper the impetus for change in concepts of care for the mentally handicapped developed in the late 1950s and through the 1960s has been sustained, and experience over the past two and a half years has more than ever convinced us of the need for effective collaboration between the various agencies. There is an increasing realisation of the greater capacity among the mentally handicapped for a more normal life than was hitherto thought possible. This point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. It has important implications for the balance of provision between the hospital and local authority services. It will, we hope, increasingly become the case that patients admitted to hospital will later be discharged to live in homes in the community. What was once a one-way door into an environment separated from the hurly-burly of outside existence will become more and more a two-way door.
I listened with great interest to what the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, had to say about the Princess Christian Hospital which is evidently trying to put this programme into effect. Latent capacities will be developed to enable a normal way of life to be possible. It is in this perspective that we have to consider the role of village farm communities. We have

1471
heard from a number of noble Lords about individual communities and I listened with the greatest interest both to my noble friend Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, who spoke about the Camp Hill Village Trust, and also to my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood, talking about Somerset Court and the plans there for the autistic.
These communities have some significant advantages. Many of your Lordships and particularly, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Segal, mentioned one advantage, that many parents have a very real and understandable concern to see their mentally handicapped children settled into an environment which offers both continuity of care and also a fulfilling life. I share the view of my noble friends that for at least some handicapped people the village farm communities offer just this. Secondly, it is true, I think, that a simple life in a rural setting may be more suitable for some mentally handicapped people than a life exposed to urban stress, especially for those who come from a country background. Thirdly, village farms are able to forge easy co-operative links with the rural communities in which they are placed.
These village communities may also have their disadvantages, though not all of these are insuperable. There is a danger which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that they may become inward-looking, and their residents isolated, the very danger that they set out to avoid. Secondly, they have to be selective and usually cater only for the higher grades. The very fact that they set out to provide a home for life means that their residents have to be very carefully chosen to ensure that their personality and ability match up to the daily life of the community. There must therefore be flexible arrangements for transferring a person who is unhappy in such a community to some other form of provision. Thirdly, the facilities for various types of development of skills and personality are often less than those that could be made available in an urban community. If a village type community is to fulfil a role in the provision for the mentally handicapped, an essential requirement is that it must be a recognised part of the larger community in
1472
which it is located, and there must be free interaction between them.
I know that this is so in several cases mentioned by my noble friend: the Home Farm Trust, the CARE villages and the MacIntyre School. In the latter case he specifically mentioned that the number of mentally handicapped people was limited to 5 per cent. of the population of the parent village. Provided that such interchange exists between the mentally handicapped and their fellow citizens, that would seem to me to meet the two-way door criteria which is so much a factor of modern concepts of care for the mentally handicapped. I must say to my noble friend that not everyone agrees with this view. Though he may well feel that I am sympathetic to his ideas, I must make it clear that many experts disagree. However, there is a significant degree of overlap between all care concepts, whether provided by hospital, local authority or any other agency. The Government have always believed that there is a place for voluntary and private services in the overall pattern of provision as well as for those operated by Statutory agencies. I have no doubt that there will be a place for village farm communities and other similar arrangements so long as there are well-motivated and competent people who wish to provide them.
I am not sure that my noble friend's remarks about co-ordinated planning for all the needs of the mentally handicapped point as surely as he suggested to the need for national responsibility for these services. If we believe in maintaining family links and in community relationships, then I think that responsibility does lie correctly with the local authority. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, urged me not to say that, but I think we do see eye to eye. All I am really saying is that so far as the Statutory services are concerned that responsibility should lie with the local authority. The social service departments of the new county authorities covering, as they will in most cases, both urban and rural areas, will in my view be best placed to make suitable provision for the mentally handicapped citizens of their county.
In concluding his remarks, my noble friend called for a conference to examine the best form for village farm communities to assume and to determine ways in

1473
which they might be promoted. As my noble friend will be aware, in recent months there has been a great deal of discussion (organised by voluntary bodies) about the village community concept. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Segal, mentioned the discussion that I myself was privileged to attend, organised by the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children, of which he is so distinguished a Chairman and for which he has done such a tremendous amount of work. It seems right for this sort of discussion to continue in order that those responsible for the operation of such communities may develop their ideas.
I come now to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, because the Government agree with him that voluntary effort should remain the driving force behind the village community movement: they believe that the Government should devote their efforts to the expansion of existing statutory services. We shall of course continue to listen to and study all that is said by voluntary bodies working in this field, but we do not feel that a Government-sponsored conference would add much to our knowledge at the present time.
This has been a most interesting debate and I have listened with great attention to everything that has been said. Though I am no longer physically at the Department of Health and Social Security, I know my colleagues there will study everything that your Lordships have said with the very greatest interest. We all deeply admire the efforts made by so many voluntary societies and so many individuals, and we wish them very well.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he hold out no hope at all?—bearing in mind that this problem is going to be with us always. I think I am right in saying that about one out of every hundred children born shows some degree of mental handicap; so as far as we can tell this is always going to be a very substantial problem. The local authorities certainly help the village farm schools in the matter of education. Can the noble Lord the Minister hold out any hope at all that the Government will do something towards helping with the capital expenditure for the houses which are needed?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, these are difficult times in which to ask for capital help. Certainly we will look at what the noble Lord has said and consider it very carefully, but I think it would be wrong of me at this particular stage to go further than that.
4.34 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, we have a rather strange, old-fashioned and pleasant way of calling one another "my Lords" or "my noble friends", according to where we sit in the House; and immediately we get outside the Chamber (no matter which door we use) we become friends. But it is always a pleasure when somebody inside the House uses the words "my noble friend" if he happens to be sitting opposite the noble Lord he is addressing. I should like to congratulate and thank "my noble friend" Lord Wells-Pestell for the first speech he has made from the Dispatch Box. I hope he will make many more speeches, especially on this subject. I am deeply grateful to him.
What has come out of this debate, to my mind, is the necessity for doing something to ensure not only the happiness of families in looking after their children, but also the happiness of the mentally handicapped and the ways in which they might obtain real fulfilment from their lives. I am grateful for what my noble friend has said. I realise that it is difficult to alter the whole concept of local authority command in their guidance role and concerning their responsibility for the mentally handicapped, but I would ask again that the Government should work with them and ensure that success is achieved by their efforts.
Referring to the question of a mentally handicapped child being looked after within the family for its lifetime, I was particularly interested in what my noble friend Lady Elliot said. I have many letters from parents of autistic children who are very deeply disturbed because they know that after their children have finished their schooling they are cast on the world and they are apt to go straight into a sub-normal hospital where they do not really belong. This is a terrible thing, because they do not belong there at all. So I hope that whenever we are thinking of these children and of new places for

1475
them to go to, we must see that they have the chance of going there for life so that they may have that peace of mind which I thank God my wife and I have, that our child is settled for life but who can come to us at any time, whenever we wish.
I am deeply grateful to all Members of your Lordships' House who have spoken and I hope that this little debate, which has lasted only about one and a half hours, may do something to further our cause. I do most sincerely thank all those who have spoken, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE INFORMATION MEDIA
4.38 p.m.
LORD FERRIER LORD FERRIER rose to call attention to the power of the information media; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, that the media influence public opinion by presenting information to a literate and tolerably educated society in this country can, I think, be taken for granted. That such power exists is not in dispute and I will not take up your Lordships' time by dwelling on it at the beginning of a short debate.
The questions seem to me to be: how great and how beneficial is that power? Is it exercised wisely? If not, should an effort be made to circumscribe or direct it? If so, how? The power of the Press, the Fourth Estate of the Realm, is great but, as bearing on public opinion, it has been and is being increasingly overtaken by the broadcast in radio and television. It is the enormous expansion of the latter as the central channel of the nation's nervous system which seems to me to call for some reappraisal by society. Since I put down this Motion early in November, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge and our experience of the last few weeks—indeed of the last few days—has emphasised the power of the broadcast. During the last 48 hours three things have happened to make me recast most of my speech. First, yesterday's Times carried two letters—and I imagine most of your Lordships have seen them—which, taken together, cover
1476
most of the ground that I had and have in mind. Secondly, 12 Peers have added their names to mine to speak to-day and I must therefore be very brief, hoping to mention any points which other noble Lords do not mention when I come to wind up, if there is time. Thirdly, and most important of all, the Report the Future of Broadcasting by the Social Morality Council was published over the weekend. I found it very interesting, as others may well do. It interested me in one respect, in that in some 93 pages there is hardly any reference to the need for a link between Parliament and the broadcast and vice-versa; no reference to the radio programme, "To-day in Parliament" which is just about the best thing the B.B.C. do; no direct reference to the B.B.C.'s specific obligation to do that programme; no reference to the influence or existence of your Lordships' House; no reference to the televising of proceedings in Parliament, or to the painstaking and, if I remember rightly, pain-giving three-day experiment which we carried out in this House.
I shall later therefore make this omission a prominent feature of the closing part of my speech, and I shall do so because I am convinced—and I do not believe I am alone in so being—that if our Parliamentary system of democracy is to be sustained some means must be found to convey to the people as a whole the fact that the place of Parliament under the Monarchy is paramount. Before I leave this Report, I extract one item which was mentioned in another place on May 3 last year; namely, it is estimated in the U.S.A. that a person of 18, who would now be eligible to vote in this country, will have spent 20.000 hours viewing television compared with 10,800 hours at school. On page 22 the Report goes on to say:
"The figures for Great Britain must be roughly comparable and no stronger motive could be proposed for continually assessing the effects of television and setting goals which will enrich and not impoverish the public for whose benefit broadcasting services are provided".
To return for a moment to the Press and the changing pattern of its influence, it is well to remember that the sheer cost to the individual, to people like your Lordships and myself, including postage and delivery if you live in the country,

1477
has turned the newspapers into a comparatively expensive item in anyone's budget. In any case, the daily papers give but little coverage to Parliament and its affairs, with the exception of the "heavies", and my view at the moment is that The Times is the best of the lot. Again, in addition to their cost, the influence of the once powerful weeklies is being dimmed by the Sunday newspapers with their weekly reviews and illustrated supplements. The need for advertising and other financial pressures means that less and less space is available for the straightforward reporting of factual news, unless there is something sensational. Even the editors of the news services wield their blue pencils with great vigour, as we see from the "ticker tape".
The radio has its place in the service of information and, at certain times of the day, has the monopoly of the air. However, to the bulk of the public the television services stand supreme. This is not a Party matter. This problem faces democracy, and in doing so it is inevitable that by tone of voice or facial expression, by the lifting of an eyebrow, the potent pause, a broadcaster can slant almost any item. It can be accepted that in the B.B.C. we have the finest broadcasting system in the world, warts and all. By the way, I believe that their overseas services should receive more financial assistance from the State, but that is another matter. I will not take up valuable time to expatiate upon the marvellous technical achievements of television and the ramifications of its service. Looking back as I do over a good many years, to my father's time, what we see to-day as commonplace is in fact a miracle. Here and now we must take it for granted and face up to its enormous capacity for good—educationally, artistically, socially and politically—and alas! also its capacity for evil. We must face up to its sheer power to inform or mislead, or to calm or excite, to comfort or alarm, to soothe or enrage or otherwise to excite the emotions. One important fact is that both radio and television have a compulsive nature about their attraction which has a bearing on the subject. This leads to the eye and the ear being assailed by a great deal of repetition which in turn leads to inevitable almost subliminal impression.
This brings me to the "processing" as I like to call it—of current affairs. I
1478
do not include the straight news (unless this includes selective extracts from speeches) because my impression is that news editors and news readers on radio and television, whether on B.B.C. or I.T.N., are ordinarily meticulous in their presentations. It is the "processed stuff" which worries people. That feeling is widespread. As I have said, broadcast items can be distorted or interviews corrupted by such phrases as "but surely" and "but, would you not agree", to which we are so often treated in a broadcast. The only real measure of control seems to be the quality of the broadcaster. I should like to read an extract from a leader sent by a correspondent. I do not know from which paper it has been extracted, but in it these words appear:
"The trouble is that, by and large, the profession itself seems to be attracted mainly to people of a trendy-Left cast of mind, which is not to say that Left-wing people as such are incapable of being fair and objective."
After suggesting that some broadcasters simply do not realise that they are being biased when they are, it goes on:
"They often seem to confuse their own personal views with objective reality, which is a dangerous state of affairs in such an important medium of communication."
My Lords, I turn now to two recent examples of the influence of power. In early November the B.B.C. must have decided that petrol rationing was inevitable and the "World at One" proceeded, day after day, to make our flesh creep, despite repeated denials from the Minister concerned. Though admittedly they broadcast his statements, they seemed to brush them aside. The result was the main cause of the stupid scramble which took place for petrol before Christmas. Then came the threat of an Election. On and on went the "World at One", interview after interview, and the usual gang of clowns came tumbling into the ring, as it were. That some control should be exercised by a broadcasting council, or the like, is not favoured by the B.B.C., the I.B.A., by the Social Morality Council or by the Government, all on the same ground; namely, that it would lend itself too readily to political or other forms of censorship. Indeed many hands are raised in horror at the very mention of the word "censorship". To me the media's expressions of alarm ring rather hollow when one realises that the media,

1479
Press and all, exercise their own censorship. It is they who decide what is to be published; it is they who decide whose views are to be sought or relayed; it is they who reserve the right, at their absolute discretion, to cut a taped interview. In other words, their responsibility is great. The difficulties and the complexities of the task of the Chairman and Governors are so obvious that I need not dwell on them and take up your Lordships' time.
There is another point. I have reason to believe that there is a security risk here. "Reds under the beds", you say? Well, call it what you like, but let us face the fact that many of them have come out from under the bed and make no secret of their views. Further, we must remember that a part of the Marxist creed is the infiltration of the media; that is an accepted policy of international communism. "Security risk", you say? What security? Shall we answer, "That of the national interest"? But, as the Chairman of the B.B.C. has said in his recent penetrating Paper to the Royal Society of Arts, "What is the national interest, and how does one determine it?" I am not going to try.
Tactless interviews can impair foreign relations. I think, in particular, of recent ones about Persia and India. As for the national interest abroad, your Lordships will forgive me if I mention again (I have mentioned this time and again in your Lordships' House) the reckless stupidity of series such as the "British Empire" series which do indescribable harm. Then there is the problem of morals, of decency, of marital fidelity, and of violence. I have in mind a clip from a film shown on S.T.V (in a review programme admittedly, and after eleven o'clock as well) with a revolting close-up of a hoodlum raping a screaming girl. It should never have been shown, but it was. But worse, the camera panned adjoining rooms showing other hoodlums going on with their eating or drinking, or reading or card playing, and the like, utterly indifferent to and apparently unmoved by the poor girl's bitter cries.
I feel exactly as this report in quoting from Mr. Milton Shulman. The report says, more broadly, that television is accused of promoting anti-social values. To quote Mr. Shulman,
1480
"Only a tiny segment of television encourages the young to be socially aware, to be co-operative and responsible, to be community conscious, to value the truth, to despise cruelty, to cultivate a sense of duty, to be charitable, to be selfless, to be kind. Most of it is indifferent or neutral about social values, inculcates little sense of communal duty or responsibility promotes the acquisition of goods as a criterion of success, glamorises the trivial and superficial, justifies violence as a means to moral and legal ends, encourages an escapist approach to reality and concern, builds up false expectations, stimulates an undue craving for material rewards.
"Broadcasters do not transmit these values deliberately or callously; they are the accidental by-product of the system."
My Lords, I am taking much of your time, but I am trying to sketch in a background to our debate, to which I look forward with great interest. Incidentally, it is a great regret to me that Lord Maybray-King has been unable to take part. I know he wanted to do so, and he has authorised me to say so.
You may say, "All right. What do you suggest should be done about it?" Much has got to be done. The Social Morality Council suggests a National Centre for Broadcasting. Frankly, I do not quite understand what they are getting at; but that may be my fault because I have not had time to digest the report, though I have read it from cover to cover. However, they recommend that a fourth channel should be reserved as an educational channel—perhaps that might include reports on Parliament! I, with many others, regret that the Government resisted a Select Committee's recommendation that they should set up "a full ranging inquiry at the earliest opportunity to consider broadcasting after 1976." However, both Houses will have to debate the legislation which will need to be tabled before the franchises are extended. One advantage of a five-year extension will be that we, the public and everybody else, will have more time to chew the matter over.
In conclusion, my Lords, and to hark back to what I said before, let the B.B.C. now fulfil the spirit, as well as the letter, of their obligation under Clause 13(2) of the licence. As you know, it reads:
"The Corporation shall broadcast an impartial account day by day, prepared by professional reporters, of the proceedings of both Houses of the United Kingdom Parliament".
Surely that is not meant to be tucked away, as it is on the radio, in slots which are so far from the peak that the ordinary

1481
people simply cannot listen to it. As it is, only a limited range of listeners compulsively hear those broadcasts. I believe that the only way to comply fully with that obligation is for a programme like "To-day in Parliament"—a "talking head", as it were, of the proceedings of Parliament—to be "on the box" at an hour when it is possible for most people to see it. Until the B.B.C do this, in my view they bear a heavy blame for the current trend (which everybody seems calmly to accept) to scorn the place of Parliament in the conduct of the nation's affairs. This chicanery, as I see it, is a black spot in their conduct of affairs. How can the people be other than mystified with what goes on in Westminster? "The Week in Westminster", at 10.15 on Saturday morning, is when most people are out. "From the Grass Roots", on Sunday at 11.0, is when some people are at church and others are washing their cars. "Westminster", on BB.C.2, at 6.45 on Saturday evenings, starts at the same time as "Dixon of Dock Green" with a rating of 8 million listeners.
My Lords, I may be quite wrong, but I am persuaded that here our Parliamentary system of democracy has a blockage in its central nervous system. By the way, I denied myself "Dixon" last Saturday to watch "Westminster" It was an excellent programme (so good, indeed, that in my view it might well be repeated, as it is placed, as I have said, where the ratings are absolutely minimal) concerning the administration of the new voters roll. It was most interesting.
Further, my Lords, I would make it obligatory for broadcasters, and perhaps camera and lighting crews, engaged in current affairs to submit to a security check such as the Civil Service requires. I could enlarge on this but there is not time. I would ask the television authorities also to overhaul the practice of showing snap scenes of happenings in the street—the tired traveller or negotiator held up by floodlights, and with a microphone thrust in his face; or, worse still, the "chipping" of somebody going in before a meeting and trying to draw him as to what he is going to do or say. And why those shots of demonstrations, perhaps struggles with police, but no shot of the ordinary citizens whose goings and comings about their business have been dislocated? May we have some of these
1482
views? I am sure that other noble Lords who have been kind enough to put their names down on the list of speakers will conjure up other suggestions. I have no doubt about that. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.1 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, I am sure the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for introducing this important subject, but at the end of this short debate those of us who have participated will all feel a little as we feel when we appear on television or radio and are limited in time. We feel afterwards that there were many things that we ought to have said but which we did not say. So the treatment of this important subject in a short debate will essentially be inadequate. I want right away to declare an interest: I am a director of a television company. In the few remarks I make I shall be dealing with television, but I trust that my judgments will remain reasonably objective.
Perhaps all of us who have thought about this theme share a common dislike of the media; all of us may wish to use this kind of debate to express our individual grievances about the media. Who is there among us who has not appeared on television and at the end of the performance blamed the producer for his own inadequacies? Who is there among us who has not sat quietly at the television screen and felt that the point of view which we hold strongly has been inadequately presented on the programme witnessed? Who is there among us who has not been somewhat infuriated at seeing a point of view adequately presented with which we profoundly disagree? We tend as a result to develop an attitude to television somewhat hostile to the whole idea.
Right away, in expressing our dissatisfaction with certain aspects of television, let us at the same time pay tribute to the considerable achievements of the media, and try to be balanced about the matter. Let us recognise that when they make mistakes they are sometimes operating in conditions of the pressure of day-to-day journalism and events which sometimes make reasoned judgments difficult, although we are able to make reasoned judgments after the event. While saying this, we must right away agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, that the television exercises a considerable power and

1483
influence in our society. I know many people minimise this, but the mere fact that advertisers saw fit last year to spend £160 million on television advertising is at least reflection of a belief that it influences attitudes. So this afternoon we are discussing a powerful influence in our democracy.
Television in our society should reflect the fact that we are a democracy, and consequently it should provide for the presentation of a broad range of views. At the same time, television, because of the power and influence which it exercises, should use that influence with a deep sense of responsibility because it is such a powerful instrument in a democratic society. It should, of course, present minority views. It should present the Communist view. But it should be careful to avoid its becoming an instrument of Communist propaganda. If I may pay some tribute to establishing balance in this very sensitive field, I would compliment Independent Television on their excellent documentary on ballot rigging in "This Week" which was presented last Friday evening. There is a belief that militants as such—and it is a difficult area of judgment—are news. I live on Clyde-side and I witnessed the treatment by television of the Upper Clyde Shipbuilding's "sit-in". The leading figure was elevated to become a folk hero and then invited to participate in all kinds of programmes in which he was not necessarily an authority. The net result of all this activity on the part of the media was to elevate the man to become Rector of Glasgow University. There is a danger here, because militancy is exciting, and news, and therefore it affects the ratings to over-emphasise or give undue prominence to this particular view. I am not suggesting that the British Broadcasting Corporation or the Independent Broadcasting Authority are the victims of a Communist conspiracy at all, but in our determination to get high ratings we perhaps go for what is exciting and extraordinary, and accordingly upset the balance which is important in exercising our responsibilities.
Let me give your Lordships one particular instance of the influence of television. At one time in my career I was associated with the Co-operative movement. The shares of the Cooperative Movement are held by millions
1484
of working people in this country and are immediately withdrawable. The "Nationwide" programme of the B.B.C. discovered that there was a small co-operative society in a town in Yorkshire which had suffered from the closedown of the local steelworks and accordingly there was a withdrawal of capital. The local board decided that they would freeze the capital meantime because of immediate difficulties. This news apparently found its way to the B.B.C. "Nationwide" programme, who immediately took cameras up there and did a programme on "Nationwide".
They interviewed a young lady who had been an employee of the co-operative society, and who had been successfully prosecuted. She was one of the witnesses. The young lady said that she wanted to get married but could not get her money out of the society. Her total funds in the co-operative society were £15 —and she owed an even greater sum, so she had really no assets in the society. This seems like a long story, but let me tell your Lordships that, following that "Nationwide" programme, between £6 million and £7 million of capital was withdrawn from co-operative societies in this country. This was simply an isolated case because the Co-operative Movement is financially strong; but it is an indication of where power and influence is used without responsibility. I know that this matter has been the subject of correspondence with the B.B.C., and a subsequent programe was produced, but the damage had been done. I mention it because I say that people who are exercising this duty in television should feel a deep sense of responsibility.
This will be particularly true in the period ahead when we are going to have serious problems of industrial relations. Here again, I suggest that recent experience has been that there is a tendency to trap people into committed statements which make situations more and more difficult. In fact, if a militant is seen regularly on television—and it is a very heady kind of thing to be seen regularly on the television—he builds a national image for himself and tends to become a prisoner of that image.
Not long ago I was engaged in a large industry where we had invited the trade unions to come to see us to make a last-minute appeal to avoid a strike which

1485
would have had consequences of a very important character nationally. The chairman was about to appeal to the trade union leader to hold off the strike, and to see what we could do to solve the situation. Unfortunately, on his way from his office to the headquarters of this large industry the trade union leader had been caught up by television and had already given his statement that he was going to stand firm and come out on strike, and that statement would appear on the 6 o'clock news that evening. It is a very serious thing when people become prisoners of the statements they make on television, and this makes subsequent industrial negotiations very difficult. The Prime Minister recently invited the miners' leaders to meet him, but the weekend before the meeting television cameras went off to certain people who were to appear at that meeting and got them to commit themselves to say that the meeting would be a waste of time. My Lords, that is an abuse of power, and television should try to exercise its responsibilities in a more sensible way.
There is a leading trade unionist in this country. His name is John Boyd: a chief official of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. John Boyd has consistently refused to appear on television during any industrial dispute because, he said, "Anything I might say on television might exacerbate the situation." Unfortunately, as a result of this act John Boyd's ratings in the Amalgamated Engineering Union suffered and he was not elected to the major post for which he was a candidate recently. That again is the danger: that a man can feel that when he appears on television regularly his ratings may go up in the union elections. I suggest to Independent Television and to the B.B.C., particularly in the difficult period that we are now going through in this country, that there should be some monitoring within their organisations to consider whether the steps they had taken the previous night, or the night before, or the night before that, were making the situation more difficult or were contributing anything to better community and industrial relations. That question ought to be asked.
5.13 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as by profession we on these Benches have been engaged in the pro-
1486
pagation of news—sometimes called "good news"—for longer than most other professions represented by your Lordships, it seemed right to attempt to make some contribution to this debate instituted by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier.
For me, the power of the medium of broadcasting is vividly and concisely illustrated by a short statement of fact; namely, that when on radio or T.V.I or any other person says, "Goodnight", or when each morning this week on television I say "Good morning", more people hear my voice than I shall address personally in the whole of my ministry, and, more awe-inspiring still, my voice will be heard by more people than Christ even addressed in the whole of his life.
As has been stated, the possession of a wireless or television set is one of the new facts of our time. Many noble Lords will remember the wireless when we were in our 'teens or just out of them. I remember that my father triumphantly brought home a little box about six inches long, called a distributor. Into it we plugged six pairs of earphones, and, after adjusting our cat's whisker, with great difficulty we were able to sit and listen to King George V's first broad cast. Now, not many more years later, 12·5 million people have a black and white television set; 4·7 million people have a colour television set; an aggregate of 500 million people can watch a Royal Wedding; and, my Lords, in order to count the number of radio sets you must look by your wife's bed, in your children's rooms, in the garage, and if you have the decorators in each painter has one by his side. What this means in terms of men, women and children in families may be judged when a speaker says, "I'm so glad to be able to come into your home to-night". He seems to be doing just that. If you teach in a school, run a youth club, visit a hospital or have children you will have abundant evidence of what I mean. I can only declare the interest that I have four hobbies: ski-ing, avoiding committees, radio and television.
The media are the advertising channel in every home; not only in commercial spots but more effectively in the life-styles that are taken for granted in ordinary programming. What do stylised ordinary people say, do and look like to-day?

1487
"Coronation Street", "The Archers" and, yes. "Dixon", my Lords, give a partial answer. What gets people "worked up" to-day? The news gives a partial answer. What is being joked about to-day? I suppose "Gas and Gaiters", although I should be sorry to think, as some do, that the lifestyle of any Bishops on these Benches even faintly corresponded to that splendid Trollopian caricature.
Much current discussion of the place and power of the media in society hinges around the question which the noble Lord has just been dealing with, of whether they create trends or accentuate existing movements or fashions. I venture to suggest to noble Lords that there is evidence to support the view that mass communications of all kinds are more effective in reinforcing existing values, attitudes and ideas than in changing them. Most of us seem to be conservatives with a small "c". Most of us, most of the time, exercise our freedom of choice in fending off the unfamiliar. Note how we stick to the same newspaper. I do not know how often the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, reads the Daily Mirror. I saw him nod and say, "Never". I read certain papers to see what the Devil is doing.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I do read it when I can get it free, as in the Library here.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I notice the noble Lord's generous instincts. Most of us, I suggest, ward off the unfamiliar and stick to the same channel according to our age group. I wonder whether grandiloquent claims about the power of the media to change society are not suspect. Similarly, I suggest that it is the provocative which is remembered and not necessarily the profound: the Malcolm Muggeridge rather than the Michael Ramsey; the Bernard Levin rather than the Bernard Lovell. Though the provocative—say a speech by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Robin Day—may tickle the ears momentarily, it is doubtful whether it has much lasting effect on the mind or is likely to change an attitude.
My Lords, turning especially to the propagating of news through journalism, whether written or broadcast, I wonder whether critics—and I rather thought at
1488
one time that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, was coming under this judgment—too easily forget that in responsible journalism facts are sacred. Of course, there is a place for sensational journalism, for scoops—a scoop like climbing Everest, a scoop like reaching the moon—but never may facts be sacrificed to sensationalism. Accuracy matters, too. The B.B.C.'s first Director-General, Lord Reith, set a splendid example. One day, in 1926 I think, he was reading the news himself. That sounds odd now. In the middle of the bulletin, an agency message reporting the end of the General Strike was pushed in front of him. Without pausing in his reading he scribbled on it, "Check with 10 Downing Street". The Prime Minister confirmed the news. Then, and only then, was it broadcast to the nation.
Whatever the risks—and I acknowledge, my Lords, that there are risks—news must be as complete, as swiftly promulgated and as reasonable as possible. The present Director-General, Sir Charles Curran, said:
"You do not exclude things because they ought not to be heard. That is an argument which I have had to deploy many times in the last three years when people have talked to me about our reporting in Northern Ireland. If men are dead we have to say so. If men are alive, the time to say so is when people expect them to be dead. Responsible people have told me that we choose the news because it is sensational. What they mean is 'unusual'. And we do report the unusual because it is interesting to people".
I submit that he is right. Life is people meeting people, and I am bound to disagree with my noble predecessor in speaking that if we live in a world of television and we are attempting to represent the public, whether as a Member of Parliament, a bishop or a public official, surely we must come to terms with the facts of life and master it, whether it is radio or television, with totally different techniques. I blush to recollect how often my fellow clergy criticise this media but how few of them are prepared to master it, although I am happy to say that now all members of theological colleges of all denominations are trained in the use of this media. If it is news it must be reported by the media, as I say, accurately and at once, for to-morrow, to-day will be yesterday.
I hope your Lordships will allow me to pay tribute to the way in which not

1489
only the straightforward newscaster like Robert Dougall has enhanced the art of spoken English with an indefinable courtesy of personal communication, but also how informed and experienced journalists like William Hardcastle in his "World at One" have forced middle aged and elderly bishops, and possibly some of your Lordships, to take an increasing interest in national and international events by clothing blunt news flashes with informed comment and rational debate, however short.
It is difficult to assess the effect of one part of the media—religious broadcasting—on the nation. Your Lordships will know, of course, that half a million, mainly "shut-ins", listen to the "Daily Service"; 2 million to 3 million to the "Thought for the Day"; 2 million to the "People's Service" on radio on Sunday, even though they may be cooking or doing something else and 2 million, approximately, look at this programme on Sunday television. Suffice it to say that to some of these programmes more people listen or view than attend all the places of worship of all denominations. The "shut-ins", as I say, are cared for. We know that. The minority who are worshipers in this denomination or that are catered for. We know that. But what we tend to forget—and especially, I am sorry to say, the so-called Church people—is the very large number of people who would claim no special denominational allegiance, who readily admit to listening to or viewing programmes which treat with the problems of human situations not only by giving an ethical answer but also by bringing on to the scene something supernatural that alters the whole human perspective and enables the whole problem of living to be tackled from a new angle; that is, a religious one. As a Christian I warmly welcome that. Nor do I do anything but welcome honest doubt and constructive discussion disseminated through the media, though, like other noble Lords who have spoken, one would like to throw a stone or a boot at the television because one so totally disagreed with what is said.
I try to remember two things—and I venture to suggest that we would all do well to remember them. First, that those engaged in this media are men of imagination, of intense concentration, who
1490
have to react quickly to the news of life, sometimes at very short notice. Most of them, although there are exceptions as there are among bishops and other groups of men, are men of high integrity who care for the public weal. That I remember. The other thing, which Milton asked me to remember, is,
"Where there is much desire to learn, of necessity there will be much arguing, many opinions, for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making."
So, my Lords, in spite of all the evidence of tremendous risks, of which we have heard, of the power of the modern media, I beg leave to judge that all will be well if we remember that,
"though all the winds of doctrine were let loose upon the earth, so truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength."
Or to put it more shortly, as good Pope John did:
"We are here on earth not to guard a museum, but to cultivate a garden flourishing with life and promised to a glorious future."
5.26 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, the subject of the information media is a very wide one and in the interests of those who are going to follow me I will concentrate on a very small area—television. I do this because I joined the B.B.C. Television Service in 1937; I was Director of Outside Broadcasting for four years immediately after the war, and I have retained my interest in this exciting media ever since.
My Lords, I am concerned about three things: first, that the balance of views is not always perfect—far from it! Secondly, there tends to be a triviality and a lack of depth in dealing with so many subjects which are of such concern to our nation; and, thirdly, so many people who are invited to appear on television, whether they be Parliamentarians, Members of your Lordships' House or from another place; whether they be representatives of the trade unions, representatives of the professions, of the City or of industry, are so seldom typical of the profession or calling from which they come.
The B.B.C.'s Charter says that the Corporation are there "To inform, to educate and to entertain". I do not know whether those duties were consciously put in that order, but I cannot help feeling that "inform" and "educate" now

1491
take second place to "entertain". I think this means that people are selected who may be good entertainment, who may create clashes, confrontations, and conflict, but do not tend to put the balanced view which I believe public service broadcasting particularly has an obligation to put. There is too little sense of responsibility, I think; they do not seem sometimes to provide adequate information, and they do not always give us the balanced facts. So my first anxiety, as I say, concerns lack of depth and excess triviality; the desire for clash and conflict, noise and movement. And the effect on ratings, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryffe, said, seems to have taken supreme place in too many television programmes.
People have praised the William Hard-castle programme. I listen to this, and I must say, as the right reverend Prelate said before me, that I am sometimes driven to distraction by what I believe to be lack of balance. But then all people on one side of the political views are annoyed by the views of the other. I sometimes wonder when I listen whether, after eight years, we might not have a change of bowling. The cult of the individual certainly becomes very strong and I wonder, however perfect the person and his team may be, whether he should continue ad infinitum to have such tremendous power over what is broadcast every day in "The World at One" and "P.M." at 5 p.m. This is a tremendous power to put in the hands of one person and one team, however good they may be.
Another programme in which I discerned continual distortion was the "Money Programme", on B.B.C.2. I could not help feeling that this was drawn up, or directed, by a dedicated anti-capitalist. Certainly everyone appearing on that programme tended to show that our industrialists—and heavens knows! it is they who have to create the wealth of our nation—were either crooks or charlatans and that all of them, almost without exception, had very strong sexual appetites. I could not understand why this was so, but that is the way they were depicted week after week.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, perhaps it is only the unacceptable face of capitalism?
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, if that is true, I am sure that the trade unions are no less virile and robust. Why do we not have a programme showing their habits in this connection? We have not had one, if the noble Baroness thinks they are less robust and more flabby then I am sure that she is wrong.
In regard to the choice of people who are not typical of their Party, I appeared recently in a David Frost show on a Sunday night—and an admirable show it was ! We were discussing the future of the Monarchy, and it was appropriately put on shortly before Princess Anne's wedding. Angus Maude and I represented the Conservative Party (and it is not for me to say whether that choice was right or wrong), but the two who were representing the Labour Party were people of very extreme Left Wing views. One was Norman Atkinson, whom I knew in another place and I believed to be well Left of centre; and the other was Denis Skinner, who is a dedicated republican who believes in the abolition of the Monarchy. This is not typical of the Labour view at all, but I have raised this subject because it typifies the way in which the rowdy person, who will shout and bellow and command the cameras and the microphone, will so often get a hearing where a balanced view will not get the same attention.
Overall I find it strange because, after all, we are living in a mixed economy where the industrial health of our nation is vital to our success in the world, that we have not had the Third Estate—the trade union side—given their share of attention. There has been a tremendous change over recent years and we all know just how important that is; but we have not had anything like the treatment—and I think it is worthy of serious treatment—of the trade union subject. If I were a moderate trade unionist I should be disheartened at the number of times the militants are given outstanding publicity. I have seen Mr. Daly, of the National Union of Mineworkers, who says that he is a dedicated Marxist (I am not putting words into his mouth), and McGahey, who says exactly the same from the North, and gets a great deal of publicity, as did Jimmy Reid in the Upper Clyde Shipbuilding dispute earlier. It is a shame that the moderates, who are so

1493
much more representative of the average trade unionist in this country, get so little publicity for their views on television.
I do not know whether some of your Lordships see Thames Television but the "Today" programme which comes on at 6 o'clock seems to be besotted with Kevin Halpern, who again is another dedicated Communist, and is constantly invited to air his views. This was a man who ran the Liaison Committee for the Defence of Trade Unions and helped to organise the Communist-inspired strike against the Industrial Relations Act. I cannot see why a man of these extreme views should be regarded as representative and why the moderates should not be given a fair hearing.
I believe sincerely that the B.B.C. and the I.B.A. are trying to undertake their duties and to maintain balance. So I ask myself, in view of these illustrations, why they are not succeeding. I think the first fact is that of course we have had a tremendous expansion—three television networks and almost double the hours that we had a decade ago. This is the most hungry medium that was ever created for programmes, and therefore large numbers of young people have come in; and young people in their early twenties tend to be radical and to have extreme views. Secondly, many of these have now graduated into responsible positions as producers. I speak from experience: it is not the commentator one should blame for a viewpoint, it is the producer behind him, whose face the viewers never see. Do not think that the person you see, the front man or the link man, is representative. He would not be there unless the producer behind him worked well with him and knew that he was going to create the programme and put forward the views which that producer held. Then these producers, often in their middle twenties and commanding audiences of millions of people—and therefore considerable figures in their own right—obviously have favourite guests. They have friends whose telephone numbers they know, who they know will cooperate and will be available at short notice and will stimulate the programme to produce what the producers believe to be the essential results. I believe that is what has happened in recent years.
Here I wish to make a constructive suggestion. I cannot help feeling that the
1494
B.B.C. lacks any monitoring or research as to whether their programmes are properly balanced. The total income of the B.B.C. last year exceeded £125 million. They spend every year £80 million on television and £30 million on sound. Surely it is worth their while to spend some money to monitor the balance of their programmes and to see whether they are carrying out the terms of their Charter in regard to political balance. I believe that this comes back to lack of management control. With these sums of money, and these responsibilities, there is a need for careful management. It is a very big organisation. I am sure that a young reporter on a newspaper would have his copy carefully checked by people of more senior responsibility, but this is not so in television. A young man will put a programme on the air, will engage his artistes to appear—Parliamentarians or artistes of the theatre or the stage. No one will query his arrangements and the show will go on. This seems to indicate some lack of management control just at a time in our history when the authorities have to be very careful and very responsible in all that is broadcast.
I have felt for some time, my Lords, that democracy is severely at risk. I believe that those who have control over our television medium never have had to exercise greater power or greater responsibility. I believe that they should initiate a monitoring and research organisation. They do such wonderful research into their historical series, and one small part of the amount devoted to this spent on seeing whether they are carrying out their responsibilities as I have outlined them would pay for this service. I believe that is where, at this very crucial time, their task now lies.
5.38 p.m.
LORD HILL OF LUTON: My Lords, as this is the first occasion in more than 10 years that I have been able to speak in a debate which covers broadcasting I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for giving me this opportunity at this time, by means of this debate, to speak untroubled by responsibility and unimpeded by the Addison Rules. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, cast his net pretty widely, varying from a communist conspiracy to a determination of broadcasters to destroy the fabric of this country. But something he said

1495
has my warm approval. He suggested—and I think rightly—that one of the results of the growth of the strength and power of the media has been to endanger the esteem in which Parliament is held in this country. I have no doubt that is the case. It is a problem that concerns us all but I believe that the remedy is in the hands of Parliament. The public is entitled to have Parliament, in both its Houses, exposed to the people of this country by these media, as indeed by the printed word. Indeed, from my short stay in the other House and a shorter stay in this House, I am convinced that the esteem in which Parliament is held will grow greatly by the mere publication through the newer media of its actions and activities. Parliament is a very much better place in both its Houses than many members of the public appear to believe to-day.
My Lords, I was glad to hear the noble Lord praise the news, as, indeed, I was to hear the right reverend Prelate make his remarks on the news and other aspects of broadcasting. But in effect, the noble Lord who opened this debate—and I paraphrase his words—said that too much time was given in broadcasting to the rebels, the destroyers and the divisions in society. I hope he will accept that as a brief summary of the line he took in his speech. That really does raise fundamental issues which I would put to the House in question form. Is it the duty of the broadcasters to provide a platform for all views seriously held by significant sections of the public? Should the broadcasters, whether the motive be patriotic or otherwise, prefer some views to others? Although it has not been said in this debate, should the broadcasters accept the argument used by some (to quote one of the broadcasting bodies, the B.B.C.) that being the British Broadcasting Corporation it should adopt a patriotic stance?—whatever that may mean.
I am reminded of the phase after Suez. In early 1957 I assumed some responsibility in the Macmillan Government for the co-ordination of information; and then, in the shock after Suez and with an eye on the overseas services, there was a determined attempt to control the external or overseas services because those services had presented both sides of the argument on the incidence of Suez. I
1496
am bound to say that the mood quite swiftly subsided, but it was there. It was an instance of the argument that the British Broadcasting Corporation, being British, should put one side, the so-called patriotic side, rather than both sides.
In my view, the role of the broadcasters, irrespective for the moment of whether they do it well or badly, is to present as best they can all sides of a problem. There is a problem that applies to us all, that we all tend to regard something that is slanted in our own direction as beautifully impartial. We tend as well to remember the view which we intensely dislike, and to forget the expression of a view which conforms with our own. Criticism is often levelled at the so-called bias of interviewers. Usually they do their job well, sometimes superbly well. I have in mind a recent interview by Robin Day of Enoch Powell. But there is a source of misunderstanding which creeps in. This arises because often an interviewer has to put a question that he believes the public wants to have answered, but he is in danger of having it regarded as an expression of his own view. Let it be admitted that sometimes interviewers appear discourteous. That is understandable enough when they are interviewing a wriggling politician. But it is inexcusable; the interviewer should base his work on careful preparation and consistent courtesy.
My Lords, there are one or two other associated points which I think it is fair to state. There are some who think it is bound to be a bonus for them, particularly if they have a constituency, to go on television. I am afraid that is not true. These people come with nothing to say; they duck the questions and from their point of view in fact the result is lamentable, as it is also from that of the broadcast. There are some, and this goes for public life generally, who cannot resist an invitation to the microphone or camera. It is a form of flattery which is irresistible. Everyone knows the old story of the Oxford don who, receiving a letter inviting him to broadcast and being told the fee was twenty guineas, replied saying that he would gladly broadcast, and enclosed his cheque for twenty guineas. There is still something of this to-day. It really is a nonsense for people to go to meet the interrogation without

1497
something important to say and, if I may add, a determination to say it. Then again, there are many figures in public life who, knowing that the final outcome is going to be a two-minute programme, speak for thirty minutes, and then every piece omitted in the twenty-eight minutes becomes the most precious part of the broadcast, and they are furious with the outcome. Lastly, and this is the advice of excellence, those who are interviewed need not be overawed as they are to-day. Increasingly, if people believe the interviewer to be unfair, they should say so and hit back at him, making better television in the process.
But on the main issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, the power of the information media, I do not dissent from the view that that power is great. I think we are hoodwinking ourselves if we claim, as some seekers after truth are apt to claim, that we do not know whether it has influence or not. Of course it has. It has changed the social habits of people even more than the internal combustion engine. I have one reservation to that general statement. I think that ordinary people are much more shrewd in their reaction to attempts to influence their attitudes and outlook than is commonly believed. There is a basic nous in people that tells them when they are being bamboozled by even the most impressive of politicians. The power of the information media has affected the lives of every one of us. And let this be said in case it is forgotten: the change that it has brought in the life of people is, by and large, one of enrichment, but that, I recognise, is not what we are talking about to-day. We are talking about broadcasting as an instrument of propaganda, as I think the noble Lord would agree. As is perfectly true, it can be an instrument of propaganda. The real question is whether the system as it is now is misusing that power. Obviously, the most extreme form of misuse is State control. The radio was so misused by Hitler; the television and radio are being so misused to-day in the Soviet Union, and no doubt in a good many other countries, not all of them dictatorships of the Left.
LORD BOOTHBY: France.
LORD HILL OF LUTON: Yes, France. I may be wrong, but I do not think we are going to see broadcasting in this country being misused quite in that way. For one thing, we have a massive safeguard, provided by the healthy state of uncertainty with which any British Government approaches a General Election. A Government that foresee or suspect or fear a period in Opposition are not going to tic the broadcasting authority too closely to their coat-tails. There is, of course, a tradition of independence, not to say cussedness, which has been fostered by the B.B.C. and Independent Television. But although direct State control is in my view no real danger, the broadcasting bodies need to be constantly on their guard against undue influence by politicians. I can say from my own experience that politicians of both Government and Opposition are constantly on the prowl around the camp of broadcasters trying to snatch away a freedom here and to club down an irreverence there. Tweedledum and Tweedledee are quite ready to sink their differences in order to draw up a list of rules for broadcasters. I recall a few such rules. No invitations to politicians who stray from the Party line, whatever the Party; that is one of them. Invitations to Members of Parliament to be shared out irrespective of whether they are any good at broadcasting or not; that is another. I remember the 14-day rule. Indeed I found it agreed between the major Parties when I became Postmaster General in 1955. At least I helped to prepare its burial.
But if broadcasting, as has been asserted here to-day and is often asserted outside this House, were in the hands of people intent on using their influence to propagate their own views, the danger would be real indeed. If this conspiracy theory were true, I should be appalled. But I am bound to say this, and I hope your Lordships will accept it. Perhaps as much as anyone in this House I have seen the system at work. I know how senior people are appointed. I know the responsibilities that the Authority and the Governors of the B.B.C. endeavour to assume. My experience lends no credence whatever to the conspiracy theory. But there is another interpretation of what happens in broadcasting, and I think this

1499
brings us a little nearer to the truth. The theory is this: broadcasting is an activity in which many important decisions have to be taken, in the nature of things, by men and women some distance down the hierarchy. The reporter, for example, conducting an interview at the airport, takes decisions which put his editor in something of a straitjacket. The producer of a live programme is in the gallery and the finger on the button is his, not that of his boss. The result is that vital decisions—and this must be faced—have to be taken by the young, and on the whole the young are sceptical of authority and sceptical of the status quo. Hence, we do get programmes in which a critical approach to existing institutions is more common than it would be if the programmes were mainly done by the older and more settled members of the community. So the question arises, are too many decisions left to be taken too low in the hierarchy of broadcasting?
I thought this was so when I first became associated with a broadcasting organisation. I should say to your Lordships that I changed my mind. I came to realise that the so-called system of upward reference, to quote the jargon of the B.B.C., the system under which the producer takes his own decisions, referring them upwards when he believes that to be necessary, lies at the source of live, imaginative development of television; and that it is worth the risk, and risk there is, of wrong decisions. I am convinced that this is one of the important elements in the success of the British broadcasting systems, something that is accepted throughout the world, and I would take the risk. It applies to all areas of broadcasting, current affairs, drama and the rest. To give this responsibility at that creative level is a very important factor, it seems to me, in the life and vigour and development of television. It is not a perfect system but it is a very good one. I do not know of a better system, and I have seen and heard broadcasting in most parts of the world. Of course, errors and mistakes occur and bricks are dropped, but they would be under any other system.
I welcome this debate. Broadcasting has enriched many lives. I know that it has enriched the life of the noble Lord,
1500
Lord Ferrier; I know of his abiding interest, for there is a file of over one hundred letters from him to the B.B.C. He has the right to express his views in the way he has and a right to be vigilant. But we can be certain of one thing. Broadcasters have no chance of complacency under the daily dose of professional criticism in the newspapers, the telephone calls, the letters, and the informed and constructive comments of your Lordships as well as those of Members of another place. They cannot bury their mistakes; they work in a glare of publicity equalled only by the fierce light that beats upon politicians. Perhaps the politician who never made a mistake should cast the first stone.
Finally, only one noble Lord has raised the subject of independence by the mention of the word "censorship". May I conclude by saying that I deeply believe that the independence of the B.B.C. is not only a great source of its strength but it is something which the rest of the world would wish us to retain. In my period as Chairman of both bodies I travelled around the world a good deal. They knew, if it is not chauvinism to say so, that the broadcasting services in this country are by far the best in the world, and they also knew that an important element in that success was the independence of their organisations. Again and again, sometimes seriously, sometimes lightheartedly, members of overseas broadcasting services have said to me "Hang on to it for our sakes as well as your own". It really is a pearl of great price. Let there be criticism, as indeed there is, but let us remember that the independence of our broadcasting bodies in terms of the programme content, for all their flaws for all the "dangers" that may be dropped, is something very precious, and the secret of the success of British broadcasting.
5.57 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, it is a good thing to have a serious look at the media once in a while, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for this debate. I feel rather humble in following the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, with his vast experience both of the B.B.C. and of I.T.V. and his magnificent speech. It would be presumptions of me to say that I agree with it, but I found it really inspiring. In regard

1501
to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, I agreed with some of the things he said, but I disagreed with one particular statement that he made, and it was a statement that is so often made by Conservatives; that the wealth of this country is created by business and capitalists. That is a really dreadful statement and I simply do not accept it. If the noble Lord thinks that the wealth of this country can be created without the trade unions, without the working people of this country, he is livng in Cloud Cuckoo-Land.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I accept what the noble Baroness says. I did not mean to say that our wealth is created by business alone, but if there were not industrial concerns in this country we should not be exporting, and therefore we should not be feeding half our population with the fruit of those exports. If you do not have business you do not have any wealth. I can conceive that it is a combination of many other things as well.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, you will not have exports without having trade unionists. I simply do not accept the last statement of the noble Lord, either. However, we can leave that now and get on with the debate.
I am not going to attack the media at all. Both the Press and television are now part of our environment, almost one of the family, and in their case familiarity breeds tolerance, not contempt. It does not, however, rule out continuous grumbling and criticism, and we argue all the time about the interviewers, about the news, and about the opinions. The Press and television do a pretty good job in news, in entertainment, in broadening interest in life generally; and also, particularly, in broadening people's understanding of current events. I think that they could do an even better job. Personally, I do not feel paranoid about the power of the media, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, seems to be, because I believe that too much power, whether in the Government, the Stock Exchange, the Civil Service, the trade unions or the Army—too much power in any one of these organisations—can threaten the stability of our democracy. I also believe that there are in any society people who have destructive tendencies, whether in politics
1502
or in religion; and who are motivated by irrational prejudice, and that is a thing we have to recognise, and even accept and contain.
When, at the United Nations, the Communist bloc constantly bullied me because the United Kingdom did not ban the Fascist Party—they made no mention of the Communist Party—of course my arguments about free speech did not convince them, which showed a deep ingratitude for the fact that, as I said, the Communist Party in Great Britain was not banned. Ironically, free speech is sometimes the cross that every democratic country has to put up with. Of course there is a risk about freedom of speech and democracy; but if those of us who are dedicated to Parliamentary democracy are vigilant, we have to find ways of dealing with those who threaten it.
Why is it that sometimes Communists are left to expose workers' grievances and exploit their discontents? It is because they go about their politics more seriously. They turn up at meetings of trade unions, and cast their votes. We have to take a close look at the way they are elected and become the leaders of large trade unions. Recently, both the B.B.C. and I.T.V. have thrown much light on their activities, and have exposed the scandals in the voting activities of some trade unions. Mr. Woodrow Wyatt was one of the first Labour Members of Parliament to draw attention to the malpractices in voting that went on in the then very extremist Electrical Trades Union—I think that was in 1956. He has not had sufficient recognition and acknowledgment of the work he did in reversing what had been a consistent, extreme Communist leadership and turning it towards a more moderate and representative one with, I believe, Les Cannon as General Secretary.
The extremists in the television trade unions have never forgiven him, and about two months ago they managed to persuade the I.T.V. channel to excise bits of a programme in which he appeared. Mr. Wyatt pointed out that ordinary trade union members were not aware of the political affiliations of the members who were nominated for official posts; they did not know that they were Communists. We now have not only this one-time exposure of ballot-rigging,

1503
but also on Friday, January 18, in the programme "This Week" I.T.V. were sensational in their exposure of ballot-rigging at the East Kilbride branch in Scotland of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. Signatures and votes had been forged; a Communist was elected. But after this exposure he would not even stand. The officials responsible are still in office, however.
Here is a case where it seems to me that some kind of legislation should be enacted which deals with this kind of thing in this area, where democratic trade unionists ought to take their political role and prospects seriously. We would not tolerate such goings on in local government. How can we allow it to continue in the trade unions? If the Labour Party members of trade unions would fill their meetings, cast their votes, and publicise their democratic principles and objectives, we would not have this kind of thing, and there would be no calls for censorship from noble Lords like the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, or the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing.
Recently, there has been too much talk about the forces working in our society to undermine and destroy it. The Prime Minister recently sent a letter to the Bulletin of (I think it is called), The Conservative Centre, in which he talked about,
"their relying on the false appeal to class loyalties, and relying on the silence of the majority".
The media repeat such statements as if they were facts and not opinions. The implication is that there is some magic formula, or even force, which can be used to make people behave like good little citizens. My Lords, the media have a great role to play in educating the silent majority, and particularly during the bad times we are going through now, and may be going through for some time to come. They have a great role to play to show that grievances are not exploited only by Communists, and that they can be shown up by representatives of the silent majority and, as I say, to give this silent majority a really loud voice.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I wonder if the noble Earl, Lord Arran, would forgive me for intervening before he starts. I think that it would be useful if I re-
1504
minded your Lordships that this is a short debate and must finish, no matter what, at 7.7 p.m. Standing Orders allow me a little time to wind up, and I think, by tradition, my noble friend Lord Ferrier is also allowed—
LORD SHACKLETON: One minute.
LORD DENHAM: —one minute at the end. Would your Lordships please bear in mind that there are six more speakers before the noble Baroness winds up?
6.9 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I am going to gabble. I can do so very naturally anyway, but I shall gabble particularly to-day. Please do not think that I could not speak at greater length. I have been looking forward to this debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for having it. It is high time we had it. I shall speak as a reporter, which is basically what I am. I think that your Lordships regard me as such. I shall certainly not speak as a politician, although I am proud to speak from these Benches.
It is time to speak because, day by day, damage is being done to this country by the mass media, particularly radio and television. As immediate proof of this I would cite the reports of the distinguished U.S. journalists who visited this country last week. The impression they had received was seemingly that we were down and out. They were amazed to find things going on more or less as usual. It was further reported in yesterday's Press that 50 Americans failed to turn up for a convention here in London. Why, my Lords?— "Because they thought they would starve over here and they would rather lose money than end their days in bombed-out, blacked-out London." Why do these Americans get this impression? Presumably they get it from their London representatives who, in turn, get their information from our newspapers, our radio and our television.
Let me take them in order, my Lords, and begin with the newspapers. Admittedly, our newspapers are prejudiced—which papers are not? They are partisan, and we know that they are partisan. For example, we know that when we buy the Daily Telegraph we

1505
are buying a high Tory newspaper; we know that when we buy the Morning Star we are buying a Communist broadsheet; we know that when we buy the Sun or the Mirror or the Observer or the Sunday Times we are buying left-wing papers.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
THE EARL OF ARRAN: Yes, my Lords, we do. Those who read the Sunday Times will realise that it is a left-wing paper. The point is that, on the whole, our newspapers put their goods in the shop window; they do not fly under false colours. Basically in need of circulation without which they could not survive, they none the less reflect the views of the political Party to which they are attached. We have an honest Press and I, for one, am proud to work for it.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
THE EARL OF ARRAN: I cannot go on when continually being interrupted. When it comes to radio and television, the story and the picture are very different. It is part of the Charters of both the B.B.C. and the I.T.V. that in their programmes they should show objectivity. In fact, the B.B.C. are very far from achieving this. All credit to them for their technical documentaries and their plays, which are of the very highest standard and which do much to inform us of what is good, and also of what is bad. But I listen in and watch a lot, and I solemnly say to this House that the B.B.C. are showing a bias which I can only presume to stem from producer level and probably higher, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, knew just what was going on during his term of office but the results were disastrous. In the last ten years, the B.B.C. has received the nickname of the "anti-British Broadcasting Corporation", and it has deserved it.
A fortnight ago, I sent a telegram to the editors of the radio programme "World at One", which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. I used to edit the programme for six months. I sent a copy of the telegram to the Chairman, Sir Michael Swann, and it read:
"To-day, New Year's Day 1974, I formally place on record that you editors and your team consistently throughout 1973 broadcast the most slanted, prejudiced, defeatist, anti-British
1506
programme of news and comment on any of the sound or television media."
Every word I said I believe was true. Your Lordships will notice that the words I used about the programme were, "slanted, prejudiced, defeatist, anti-British". I did not accuse the editors of political bias. Personally, I dislike extremes, either left or right, and, as your Lordships may know, I hate Fascism even more than Communism. I accused the programme of selling Britain down the river, of emphasising our misfortunes, of taking a positive glee in what goes wrong in Britain and of denigrating what we stand for.
How is this done, my Lords? The distinguished editors and journalists of this House could tell you. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, that wizard of black magic who is not here, could tell you how to take a straight forward series of factual news items and arrange them, twist them, transpose them, prominence the least important items, while ignoring what really matters. Among the noble Lord's vital jobs during the war was to transmit to the Germans from a radio station in Kent, via his German-speaking editors, purporting to come from occupied Calais, a programme called "Soldaten Sender Calais". I used to listen with awe, because I speak German.
While the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, was deceiving the enemy, I was trying to "persuade" the neutrals via the London Press Service—which I started—which went all over the world and which is still part of the Government information service. Naturally, I did not lower myself to the foul level of deceit to which the noble Lord descended and to which Mr. Dick Crossman contributed, but I told quite a few white lies, if only by omission. That is why I am well aware of having been "conned" by the B.B.C. over the last five years. I have been amazed by the skill which goes into B.B.C. news bulletins and commentaries. The news bulletins are the ones which particularly need examining. As C. P. Scott said, "News is sacred, but comment is free". I strongly suggest that the B.B.C. looks at its news rooms. Now for comment. One of the most successful techniques is to hold art impartial discussion. I think I am still within my limits.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Earl is two minutes over his allotted time.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: Shall I stop, my Lords? As I was saying, you invite a well-known M.P. and publicist and as a counter-balance, to stick within the rules, you invite another M.P. from the other side who is flattered to appear on television. Naturally, the ace makes a complete fool of his rival Parliamentary colleague, who is too dim-witted to realise that he has had the "mickey" taken out of him and thinks it will go down well with his constituents. This is one of the oldest tricks in the game, and, in the hands of experts, it out-Goebbels Goebbels.
Another trick is to "lead" an invited audience, so that the answers to the questions given to them give the impression of complete solidarity. Would anyone dare to tell me that the invited audiences are not hand-picked beforehand, that they are just Bill Bloggses taken at random out of a batch of individuals? That would be sheer nonsense, my Lords, and you know it. But this is only the detail of the main picture of which I happen to have a particular knowledge and experience. The picture itself is far more comprehensive; it covers the broad sweep of radio and television and, in my opinion, it needs urgent correction from the top.
So far I have covered radio, that formerly declining medium which is now becoming increasingly popular, and newspapers. I now turn to television—probably the most influential medium of them all. Here, again, it is a sorry story that one has to tell. I do not know about your Lordships' views and experiences. My own are that if I wish to listen to straight news—and I am essentially a hard news man—I watch the I.T.V. at ten and not B.B.C. at nine. The I.T.V. does a better job professionally and, in comparison, the B.B.C. is painfully amateurish. My criticisms about the B.B.C. "World at One" in regard to bias, prejudice, defeatism and doom apply even more strongly here, with the additional charge of incompetence. While, again, the emphasis is on a decaying Britain, even a dying Britain, the editors seem to take a fiendish delight in steadily undermining this country and its prospects.
It is not as though the B.B.C.'s programmes looked forward to Britain's prospects under Socialism. That I would understand. It could be right at that.
1508
What I object to is the steady whittling away of what we stand for, the negation of our ability to do anything right, from Concorde to Parliamentary democracy. To me there is nothing more ironic than playing "God Save the Queen" at the closing-down time of the B.B.C. Have I time to talk very briefly about the I.T.V.?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords. I do not know whether the noble Earl is asking me a question, but if one worked it out the ration was about six minutes when I made my short intervention. The noble Earl has now had ten minutes; but it is entirely a matter for your Lordships.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, in that case I must reluctantly withdraw. I think I have said all I really wanted to say. I hope I was not incoherent.
6.20 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, in the words of a great former statesman, "Time is not on my side", and there is no reason why it should be. But this is a very important debate, and it is a pity that time is unavoidably restricted. One of the great problems of the media is that so often grave situations—I will not use the word "crises", but grave situations—tend to crop up when Parliament is not sitting; and this in fact happened very recently, when for several days we had a number of people appearing on television and on radio giving views of a rather extreme nature which received great publicity but which should have been expressed either in Parliament or around the conference table. I do not necessarily condemn those who expressed those views—we have a free broadcasting system and we have a free Press—but it is a great pity that there is all too little reporting of those who should stand up to be counted, those of moderate views, although the word "moderate" can be interpreted in many different ways, rather than of extremists on either side.
My Lords, I suppose I have had less experience of television and broadcasting than any who have taken part in this debate. The only time I appeared live on television was 13,000 miles away, in New Zealand, two years ago, where I was accorded a very courteous interview. I was then asked whether I would be prepared to submit myself to an interview

1509
on the subject of the Common Market. I declined, not because I did not have views on the Common Market but because my right honourable friend Mr. Rippon, who was then in charge of negotiations, had only just returned, and I felt that it would be an embarrassment to the Government and to the Party opposite if I gave my views before the views expressed by the Minister had been digested by the host Government or by this Government. I suppose that in certain circumstances I could have been pressurised into doing this—there are certain interviewers who do tend to pressurise—but on this occasion my refusal was graciously accepted, much as I should have liked to express my views at that time.
We tend to be living in an era of "talk-ins" and "teach-ins". We now have broadcasting by telephone, with live telephone calls, and this often puts the person appearing on the programme "on the spot", particularly if a very controversial or awkward subject is being discussed. Of course, those who go on the air, whether on sound or on television, must inevitably have a certain amount of knowledge of their subject. They are expected to have this; but I think there is a very dangerous tendency now to get people into a studio, be it sound or television, and, live, without any prior notice, to ask questions which are definitely slanted. I believe this applies as much to trade unions as to employers, or to one political Party as to another.
But having said that, my Lords, what we in this House have to make up our minds about, I think, is: do we have an effective and efficient broadcasting and newspaper system in this country? Through the comparatively little travelling which I have done, and through the number of foreign newspapers and radio programmes which I have heard. I believe the answer is that we have. We have many faults in our newspapers. We have sensational headlines, and we have headlines which are often taken completely out of context; but at the same time I believe that we have more accurate reporting than many papers abroad—and more relevant reporting. I remember, in Los Angeles, seeing a copy of the Los Angeles Times two days before returning to England. It was at the time of the last G.L.C. elections, and the headlines were:
"Tories decimated".
1510
My Lords, Los Angeles is something like 7.000 miles from here. I rather wonder what would happen if our own newspapers, which have given some considerable coverage (much of it irrelevant, I think) to a certain affair surrounding a distinguished person in the United States, were to take a similar line. I do not believe our Press do this. I think our local newspapers, particularly, are of very great benefit; and I think the more that people in public life can keep in communication—and there is also a question of communication with their local newspapers—the better media we shall get visually and orally.
6.28 p.m.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, I shall try to scramble through my remarks as fast as I can. I must pay a compliment to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for introducing this Motion. He keeps us up to date in our discussions about the media, and this is a very valuable service. I should like to suggest that "influence" would have been a more accurate word to use in his Motion than "power", because I agree very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Hill, that we are fortunate in having a public which devours newspapers and listens voraciously to television and then goes away and makes up its own mind.
My Lords, I have come here neither to carp nor to flatter, but I should first like to pay two compliments. The first is to correspondents as a race. If any of your Lordships had been engaged in public relations in the United States, as I was for some years, and had seen one evening in New York four world-famous correspondents standing in a porch, in snow, waiting in case a word of news should come out from upstairs, from where Sir Winston Churchill was staying, you would have some views on some more people who can talk with authority about anti-social hours. This is a profession of anti-social hours, and I am bound greatly to admire those who endure these and then produce work of the highest quality.
Your Lordships have made some allusions to particular matters, and perhaps I might take them up very briefly. May I re-award the Oscar I awarded a few years ago for reporting on external affairs to the B.B.C.'s "From Our Own Correspondent", which maintains its perpetually high standard? May I say,

1511
however, that there has been one change in B.B.C. practice which has weakened the understanding of the people here of international affairs. That is that for those of us who listened always to Tom Batman and Christopher Serpell there is now a great gap in the coverage, and there is no-one who sums up the world as a whole and gives a two-minute summing-up of it right in the middle. That has reduced the value and impact of the B.B.C. coverage of international affairs.
May I make one mention of "The World at One", to which so many noble Lords have referred? I have had the privilege of broadcasting with Mr. Hard-castle, and if you treat Mr. Hardcastle as an equal rather than as an ogre you get absolutely fair play and a very good short session on "The World at One". It is however true to say that before Mr. Hard-castle's time there was a period in which the programme could only be called, "The World all in Pieces". Given the atmosphere in which that programme is conducted, I should like to express my confidence in the present conductor, provided—and this was one of Lord Hill's most important points—that you go there knowing your stuff, and you say your piece. I reveal that as one who on one occasion (I am sorry to talk about myself) was asked by an interviewer, "So we in Britain have aroused the wrath of country X?" And I had, for once, the presence of mind to say, "No; country X has aroused our wrath." You can do that, my Lords, on television if, as I say, you know your stuff; and by and large, the people who interview you are basically fair-minded people. Of course there are exceptions, but I think we have passed from the age of interview persecution.
One rubric under which I always examine this matter is this: that any kind of free Press and free broadcasting is better than any kind of controlled broadcasting in a Communist or Fascist State. I believe that on this matter the noble Lord, Lord Hill, is fighting a battle that in this country has been won already, and will stay won. Of that I am confident.
Now, my Lords, if I may spend a minute on imperfections, the first imperfection, which I think is addressed to people rather than to Government or media, is this. The other day I heard a reporter say on a programme. "We
1512
report the facts and let the public judge." My Lords, that is naive nonsense. The master of the news that is seen in the newspaper is the person who selects what goes in and what stays out. Moreover, anyone who has had close contact with this kind of work knows quite well that there are occasions on which the correspondent is asked to write news with a certain slant. So we must realise that there are imperfections of fairness, imperfections in reporting, and this is a subject on which the only solution is for the public to educate itself.
Then I want to say a word on impartiality which is a great problem in broadcasting. If I may, my Lords, I am going to give one small specific instance. On a particular day when the rail situation was very bad a news reporter read a news bulletin which said, "Only 10 out of 20 trains from Bristol to London are running to-day." That intended to be impartial item of news fell straight into a trap, the easiest trap it is possible to fall into. A Pakistani lawyer once explained to me that, supposing you had a pint glass and that had in it half a pint of water, an optimist would say that the glass was half-full and a pessimist would say that it was half-empty. It was perfectly all right for the reporter to tell us that 10 trains out of 20 were running from Bristol to London, but when the little word, "only" was put in that prejudiced the item. It upset people who were thinking, "Well, it is jolly good that 10 trains are running from Bristol", and departed completely from impartiality. That, my Lords, occurs too often, partly because the person who composes the bulletin is in a hurry and partly because insufficient attention is paid to small words which, in the guise of impartiality, can produce a partial impression. In the tense state of our country at the moment, it is extremely important for the media to watch that aspect all the time, perhaps with more vigilance than hitherto.
This leads me on to my final comment on the situation. We have an atmosphere in our country (this is really the only reason why I joined in this debate) in which any promotion or exaggeration of tension is very dangerous. It is more than ordinarily incumbent on the media, particularly broadcasting, audio and visual, to bear that in mind all the time; not to insist on a patriotic note—that is

1513
not the point at all—but simply to watch all the time that nothing is said that makes things worse. This is a perpetual danger from which people can suffer in the somewhat nervous state in which we live. It is joined to a longer-term psychology of the country. As I have ventured to mention before in your Lordships' House, there has been over the last few years an intellectual fashion of defeatism; of saying that we are no good, and that we are going down hill. Then there are occasional flashes of totally inconsistent nationalism—about sporting events, shall we say?
My Lords, I feel that we should all be happier in our relations with the media if the media would occasionally give some overt and visible sign that they realise these things, and would review the situation and be a little careful about it. There is one very profound reason for this. In this country if you object to the media, or what they say, you can say so. But if anybody is going to hear or read what you say, how do they do it? Through the media Therefore the media have the responsibility of being not only the accused party but also the judge of whether the accusation should be heard at all.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, they are their own censors.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: Yes, my Lords; they are their own censors. I do not for a moment suggest that there should be any other kind of censorship. I have said that once and I say it again. I am sure that is right. But I think it imposes on the media an obligation to show that they are exercising self-discipline. And they must not just do it; they must show that they are responsive to criticisms such as come up in your Lordships' House; that they have the machinery and the will to look at themselves all the time. There was a story in Lord Beaverbrook's time that every morning there was a meeting at the Daily Express office (I do not know whether this is true) when the agenda was, "Why was yesterday's paper lousy?" That, of course, was from their point of view. But it does indicate a certain spirit—not, of course, of self-humiliation. We have splendid quality in all media and splendid people working in them but there is needed just a feeling
1514
by the public that the media recognise that there are fallibilities about their systems, and that where these stick out more than they should something is being done to correct it.
6.39 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, before I begin my comments may I make one suggestion? If noble Lords speaking at the beginning of a two and a half hour debate would cut down the length of their speeches a little, it would leave a little more time for those of us who come in at the end of the debate to develop our views. It is customary to refer to some of the speeches which have been made. May I pay my sincere tribute to what I have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth He talked about the influence of the B.B.C. I think that the influence which it exerts is much more important than any power it may have. On the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I should like to know what action is to be taken on the most important suggestion that he made, that B.B.C. television cameras should not picture on television people making the entrenched statements which happen to be made during industrial negotiations. I understand that the B.B.C. is free to take any action it likes on that suggestion. I imagine that nobody can ask it to take any action but I hope the very valuable contribution which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, will be noted.
I should like to make a reference to my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, who drew the attention of your Lordships to an appearance on television of certain Members of the other House in a debate on the Monarchy. In the argument which I shall quickly deploy I feel that the people of this country have the capacity and the sophistication to judge what appears on television. If we try to curtail the efforts of too many of the characters who appear on television, we shall defeat the object which many of us might hold, of getting a more enlightened democracy in this country.
Perhaps I may give an example of what I mean: if people would only try to stop and think why they wish to criticise the B.B.C. for televising protests in this country, I wonder whether they would realise that quite often these pictures may

1515
well be counter-productive to the objectives of those who organise the protests. Take the case of ten million people who at any one moment may be sitting in their homes and viewing on their screens a demonstration or a march in London. Ten million people will probably see the marchers—apparently well clothed and well fed—and what does it convey? It may happen—indeed it has happened—that a policeman loses his helmet and that marbles are put under the hooves of horses; a girl typist, endeavouring to enter her office for work, is terrorised by militant strike pickets. All those events have occurred. But what about the reactions to those events? Thanks are due to the B.B.C. in this connection for the fact that ten million viewers can see these events as they happen, and public opinion and those who support law and order (as it happens, in this case, the police) are probably greatly reinforced.
I consider that the B.B.C. exercise their freedom responsibly, and we should not interfere with this. They have rendered a service to public opinion, and any criticism of the B.B.C. is completely unjustifiable in this connection. It is significant that the number of protest marches has decreased considerably. Could it not be said that, quite unwittingly (and to its credit) the B.B.C. has played a part in this? If the B.B.C. is to be accused of presenting politics as a political confrontation, is it not the politicians themselves who set the pace? The strident political tirades of one Party or another may be the stuff of which politics are made, but this is not, I think, what the public want to see on their screens. So if people to-day are disillusioned with politics and politicians, does not the fault lie with the politicians themselves? If the people of this country are becoming more intelligent and sophisticated, do they not switch off their sets when they hear a political tirade? I happen to know that this does occur, and it surely must be because in connection with all our problems people want to hear constructive arguments and not Party petulance. The B.B.C. has now carried all this far beyond the confines of Parliament, and I consider that they have made a contribution to moderation. I should like to suggest that it is the politician who should look at himself. It is my belief that the B.B.C., perhaps un-
1516
consciously, may be moving public opinion towards moderation, and we should be grateful for that.
Finally, I would submit a plea to your Lordships. It seems to me that the speeches which are made in your Lordships' House are not reported as widely as they might be in the Press. We in this House are not elected and therefore are not looking over our shoulders to see the effect of any speeches we make. We have no constituents and therefore we are not inhibited in that respect. There are many of your Lordships with great experience in Government, industry, farming, education and so on. Many great issues are debated in this House, and I cannot help feeling that it would be helpful to the country if views expressed here by your Lordships could be given more publicity. Many of the speeches which are made here are of a very high order, and the country is entitled to be made aware of them. My Lords, I trust the people over these issues, and over the issues of broadcasting and television.
6.45 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I shall be as brief as I can and your Lordships will forgive me for not commenting on speeches which have been made, as I should have liked. When the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, put down his Motion I do not think he could possibly have known how timely it would turn out to be when we debated it, because there can rarely have been a time when the public have been so obsessed with news of every kind in all the media. The country has suffered almost a traumatic shock as disaster piles upon disaster. In some ways the media have tended to take a ghoulish delight in this situation and to wallow in the mud, without giving sufficient thought to the effect this might have abroad. To this extent I find myself in agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Arran—though when the Editor of the Sunday Times reads what he has said he will probably come down and shoot him! I entirely agree about the visiting Americans; and a Conservative Member of Parliament the other day said that if we believed the media anyone would think that Britain was like one vast, empty Waterloo Station, with bombs going off everywhere in it as well. Yet, with some justice, I do not believe that the Press and T.V. are

1517
entirely to blame for what has been called "election hysteria". The Times told us on Monday that Mr. Heath was annoyed by the Press speculation and scare-mongering. If the Government had wanted to stop rumours about an Election, they could have done so at any moment—one might almost say "at a stroke".
One of the difficulties about the whole question of the power of the media is that freedom from censorship is essential; but so also is a sense of responsibility from the media, and this is often lacking. We on our side have always suffered especially from the power of the Press because we have always been a radical group of people suggesting reforms which any contemporary Establishment have always tried to distort and suppress; and nowadays of course it is more serious because 90 per cent. of the Press have aims and politics which are not our own. But the coming of T.V. and broadcasting in general has changed this position and made it more impartial. We are in fact in the middle of a revolution in communications, with all the new technical innovations that are happening all the time. I believe that eventually it may change the structure of society itself.
We do not know enough about this and there is no research to tell us about it. What is the impact of T.V. on so many things? For instance, does commercially oriented T.V. here and abroad tend to create the consumer society, with docile, dependable wage earners and wage spenders which the consumer interests want? What about the role of the mass media in social problems? Do they simply report events or do they actively create them? It is easy to imagine oneself a schoolboy in Belfast, seeing friends on the "telly", throwing stones at the soldiers, and conceiving an ambition to go and do the same. It is human and natural, but it is highly dangerous, not only for the situation by for the psychological impact on the boy himself. We do not know enough about those children in Northern Ireland who see themselves day after day engaged in lawlessness which is condoned by their society. What can be the effect on their future?
I should like to talk particularly about a subject which has been raised by many of your Lordships: interviewing. However, there is not time to do so at this juncture. I deeply regret the new flavour
1518
of hostility, and even contempt, that has come into being on both kinds of television. I have not time to illustrate that, though I should like very much to do so. There is one part of my speech that I cannot cut out because I have given notice of it to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, so I am sure that he has the answer ready. This is not a criticism of the B.B.C. or the I.T.V. but it is a question for the Government to answer. To-day there was to have been a Party political broadcast by the Labour Party on all three channels. Yesterday the journalists involved with the I.T.N. news protested because they were told that the news was going to be cut to ten minutes.
One of the things we all miss is the full half hour of I.T.N. news—the best programme of the day. The journalists asked if they could have 20 minutes, that is to say 10 minutes put back into the programme schedule, and this was put to Sir John Eden, the Minister. He had the power to extend the time so that there would be 20 minutes of news and 10 minutes of the previously agreed Party Political broadcast. The Government refused. This is entirely unreasonable. As a result, Mr. Wilson, who was giving the broadcast, is giving it only on B.B.C. 1 and 2 by his own choice, so as to restore to the country the news which we greatly value. This is grossly unfair to the journalists, to the Labour Party because we have nearly half our audience gone, and it is grossly unfair to the viewers on I.T.V. We should like to have an answer to that.
My Lords, I must gallop along, and I want to finish by saying that almost as much as partiality what I fear from the media is trivialisation, vulgarisation and sensationalism. The late right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Durham, whom we all miss very much, said,
"The problem of the use and misuse of the mass media in communication is basically a problem of conscience itself."
My Lords, it is sometimes difficult to harness, or even try to attain, a corporate conscience, but this is exactly what the media have to do.
6.52 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am in the position of somebody having to play a 33⅓ r.p.m. gramophone record at 78

1519
r.p.m., so I hope your Lordships will forgive me for that. I should like first to congratulate my noble friend Lord Ferrier upon obtaining time in your Lordships' House for this debate on the media in general, and television in particular. My noble friend's track record is very impressive, since this is the fourth debate on broadcasting topics that he has initiated in your Lordships' House in the past 18 months. And, as he knows, the Government believe that it is right that the broadcasting authorities' activities should be debated, both in this House and in another place, since this is one of the chief means of keeping them sensitive to public opinion.
This debate will be remembered, if for no other reason, as the occasion when the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, spoke first after being freed from the shackles of the Addison Rules, and after his great experience first as a broadcaster of immense popularity; secondly, as Postmaster General and successively as Chairman of the I.T.A. and B.B.C. I think your Lordships will agree that it was a notable and important speech that he made this afternoon. The Press and broadcasting are often linked together under the umbrella of that absolutely intolerable term, "the media." They are in fact very different, and comparisons and analogies between them are not always valid or helpful. Apart from a short piece about the Press by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, our debate today has been more concerned with broadcasting, and broadcasting cannot be conducted on the same basis as the Press.
Broadcasting, my Lords, depends on the availability of suitable frequencies, and these are in short supply. Moreover, they have to be allocated internationally and their use has to be subject to technical restraints so that broadcasters do not cause interference to other services in this country and abroad. This is why all broadcasting services have to be licensed by my right honourable friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and it is not possible for someone to open a broadcasting station with the same freedom that he might publish a newspaper. In some countries broadcasting is run by those with the longest purse. In many others it is run by the Government in furtherance of its own policies. In this country, we
1520
have evolved the solution of trying to ensure that broadcasting services are run in the general public interest, by making broadcasting the responsibility of public authorities answerable to Parliament. Certain conditions are laid upon the B.B.C. and the I.B.A., and among those which are relevant to this debate are the requirements that they should be impartial in their treatment of controversial and political issues and that, so far as possible, programmes should not offend against good taste and decency.
It is the duty of the Governing Board of the B.B.C. and the members of the I.B.A. to ensure that these obligations are met. There is a very wide range of opinion across the country as a whole as to what is acceptable and what is not. This is revealed in any discussion about matters of this kind. But it is the task of the Governors and the Authority to interpret what the community as a whole would regard as acceptable. The Governors and the Authority are people of public stature, and of a wide range of outlook and experience, and they are fully capable of carrying out this difficult responsibility.
Concern has been expressed by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing that more radically the producer, rather than the Governing Board, sets the standards of what is broadcast. The producer will inevitably have a powerful influence on what is publicly broadcast—indeed, that is his job. However, ultimate responsibility for deciding what should or should not be broadcast rests with the Governors of the B.B.C. and the members of the Independent Broadcasting Authority. This does not mean that they act as censors; indeed, much of their control has, of necessity, to be in the form of criticism of programmes which have been broadcast. It means that they lay down the broad guidelines and that the Governors are at the summit of the B.B.C.'s system of "reference up" to which my noble friend referred. The Authority are in a similar position in relation to the I.B.A.'s discussions with the companies about programmes.
Moreover, the broadcasting authorities are kept sensitive to public opinion in a number of ways. They receive letters from members of the public. They are advised by a number of advisory bodies. Their General Advisory Councils are

1521
composed of leading men and women drawn from all walks of life, who can be relied on to keep the broadcasters' programming policies under scrutiny. We know from Press reports that they do so. The B.B.C. and the I.B.A. carry out continual audience research designed to assess audience reactions to their programmes. They have permanent representative panels making regular returns, and undertake specific studies to discover the public's reaction to a particular programme and types of programme. And finally, of course, both the B.B.C. and the I.B.A. are answerable to Parliament, as this debate shows. If there were a clear consensus in Parliament that the broadcasting authorities were not living up to their obligations, the Government, without making a judgment themselves, would convey Parliament's concern to the broadcasting authorities. In extreme circumstances the Government would have to consider the suitability of the Board or the Authority to remain in office. That is how the accountability of the broadcasters is made a meaningful reality.
In these circumstances, Governments have long taken the view that Ministers should not comment or make judgments on matters of programme content. It would be fairly easy to set a precedent for Government interference in programme content, and if that were to become the general practice it could pose a very serious threat to freedom of expression in this country. So noble Lords will not expect me to comment on particular points about programmes which have been raised to-night. Parliament has deliberately placed the responsibility for these on the Governing Boards of the B.B.C. and I.B.A. and I know that they will take careful note of what has been said.
Though I will not comment on individual programmes, I think it may help if I make some general comments on standards on television. At a time of changing standards, when opinion in society is divided on matters of taste, the broadcasters are bound to be criticised more than they were in the past, when there was a greater unity of view about what was or was not acceptable. The broadcasters try to reflect honestly the society they serve, but since society is widely divided about matters of this kind their task is now much harder.
1522
The B.B.C. and the I.B.A. are conscious of the fact that television comes directly into people's homes; that it is watched by different generations of a family together and that standards acceptable in the theatre or the cinema, where people have made an active choice to go to a performance, may not be acceptable for family viewing in the home. But the broadcasters must not ignore their other duties to provide the best of all forms of entertainment and to keep the public informed about controversial topics of current importance.
By far the largest individual subject of this debate has been the question of whether the broadcasting authorities are always as impartial as they ought to be. The B.B.C. and the I.B.A. are obliged to preserve due impartiality in their programmes. The word "due" is important. It means that they are free to lend weight to civilised moral standards. They do not have to be impartial about murder or racial prejudice. Nor does the duty mean that all programmes must be bland or void of any strong expression of opinion: it means a balance of objective presentation taking one programme with another. The broadcasters are not required to show both sides of the case in every individual programme, and some programmes will by nature tend to give emphasis to a particular point of view.
The B.B.C. is also required not to put forward a Corporation point of view and the I.B.A. is similarly required not to broadcast the views of the Authority or the programme companies. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is right. Noble Lords have criticised the B.B.C.'s and I.T.V.'s treatment of the present industrial disputes and have said that the media have increased the present tensions and added to a national sense of crisis. More than one speaker has made this point, though it was not agreed with by every speaker.
My Lords, I know that the B.B.C. and the I.B.A. are fully aware of the dangers of over-dramatising news and comments. Your Lordships have been particularly critical of the conduct of some interviewers, and of the choice of those interviewed. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury reminded your Lordships that very often the provocative is remembered, whereas the profound is very often not remembered. The

1523
B.B.C. and the I.B.A. are rightly sensitive to criticisms that they have not observed due impartiality, or that they have failed fairly and objectively to present news and current problems. Criticism of this kind, if sustained, would seriously undermine their standing in the confidence of the public. They will certainly take careful note of all of the views expressed in your Lordships' House to-night.
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, asked me a question about a particular programme, and this is one of those occasions on which I must break the rule and talk about a particular programme. The scheduling of programmes on television is of course a matter for the B.B.C. and the I.B.A., within the hours of broadcasting permitted by the Government. The curtailment of broadcasting is a measure designed to save fuel, and the Government's objectives in this respect remain unchanged. The staggering of closedown between the B.B.C. and the I.B.A. was arranged to prevent a temporary surge in demand at that time of the evening which a simultaneous switch-off would create, and which poses a difficult problem for the electricity supply system. The need to avoid creating a surge of this sort remains, and my right honourable friend did not feel able to agree to the I.B.A.'s request for a simultaneous close-down this evening at 10.30.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, after a great deal of pious prating about impartiality on the part of the Government, I believe that is about the most inadequate answer I have ever heard.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, it would have been very difficult indeed to have a simultaneous close-down. This was an agreement between the broadcasting authorities. My right honourable friend's Department was also concerned with this, as was the electricity generating authority.
My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate tonight on the power of the media, about which several noble Lords have expressed concern. Noble Lords will be aware that Her Majesty's Government have decided that the present arrangements for broadcasting in this country should be continued until 1981.
1524
While the present system may not produce results entirely acceptable to all your Lordships, Her Majesty's Government believe that it combines the advantages of considerable freedom for the broadcasters with limited restraints, imposed by requirements for them to be responsive to public opinion and answerable to Parliament. I am sure that the B.B.C. and the I.B.A. will think very carefully about the views expressed by your Lordships in this debate and will take them into account in running their services.
7.3 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, it only remains for me, in replying, to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which has been extremely interesting. It has been an outstanding one, as the noble Lord who just sat down said, in that it contained a speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton. Talking about the Addison Rules, I do not think I am alone in having said, "Is it not time that the Addison Rules were thought over again?" As my noble friend Lord Denham said, I have initiated something like four debates on this subject, and this is the first time we have really had from the horse's mouth the view of broadcasters and I think it is a pity that the Addison Rules apply to other nationalised industries.
As I have only three minutes left, I should like to thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Hill, although he did not run over his time, as we have run over it here—perhaps if we were in the Common Market we might stop the clock. But I hope that when he reads my speech he will acquit me of having said that the B.B.C. were always wrong. I am always loud in my praise about the absolute marvels they produce.
I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Denham that he got through the record to which he referred extremely well, because I was able to follow what he said. It was an extremely interesting speech, if I may say so, much more interesting than a good many we have heard previously on this particular subject. I believe that it contained statements of policy from Government which we have not had before.
On the noble Baroness's point about the timing of the I.T.N. News, having

1525
been in the electricity industry I take it that the surges are caused by people putting on the kettle when they switch off the television.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, some people have gas.
LORD FERRIER: This is what the surge is, as I understand it. Since I have seen, "S.O.S., S.O.S., S.O.S.", on the screen for a good long time, it crosses my mind that the electricity people might have got over this difficulty by asking I.T.V., who were supposed to switch off at 10.20 p.m., whether they could have stayed on until 10.30. They could have said in the broadcast warning, "Switch Off Something, or don't put on your kettle. "However, that is by the way. My Lords, I think I have filled my time, and I now ask your permission to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUILDING SOCIETIES' PROBLEMS
7.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what they propose to do about the problems confronting the building societies. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I believe I should start by thanking my noble friend Lord Ferrier for his quite remarkable punctuality in finishing his fascinating debate. My Lords, in rising to put the Question on building societies, I should like at the outset to declare an interest in being associated with one particular society, in fact, the 38th society in size. I would add quickly that that society holds no responsibility for anything I am about to say.
My Lords, I begin somewhat in trepidation for, as is usual in this House, there are many other noble Lords who have a far greater experience and knowledge than myself of this subject I should like to take this opportunity, as I shall not have one later, to thank all those noble Lords who have indicated that they wish to take part, and to thank them particularly for being here at this relatively late hour. I am sure their views will enhance the value of what I hope will be an instructive debate.
The House will recall that the building society movement was born over 200 years ago for the express social objective of making it possible for more and more people to own their own homes. In fact, the earliest society that I have been able to trace was the Land Buyers' Society which operated in Norfolk in 1640. The rates of interest that society then charged, I regret, were not recorded. I suspect they were a little different from those of to-day. From the quiet and uncontroversial waters of the 17th and 18th centuries, the movement has matured into a major influential factor in the national housing programme. Not surprisingly, we find that it is now subjected from time to time to an often critical glare of publicity. But the record of the movement, of its social achievement over the last 50 years, I believe stands proud and high.
My Lords, if we look at the figures in 1914, we see that only 10 per cent. of the families in Britain owned their own homes. By 1944, that figure had risen to 25 per cent. By 1973, last year, the figure stood at over 51 per cent., the highest percentage of any European country. Since building societies are responsible for over 90 per cent. of home mortgages, few, I think, could argue that the movement, with its strongly held social objective, has not been an outstanding success. On the other side of the coin, the building societies have been able to make such a major contribution to home ownership only by attracting an ever-increasing amount of savings and investments into the movement.
The keystone of their success in this field I believe could be summed up in two words: public confidence. Anyone who has savings to invest would, I am sure, agree that the building societies are closely identified as the haven of security and safety. The fact that they also offer a service of easy withdrawal, of competitive rates of interest, and, above all, no management charge, is why in the past the movement, by its astute management, has been so successful in attracting funds. Again, if we look at figures we see that to-day 14 million investors have over £17,000 million savings with building societies, and whatever temptations political Parties may have in the future—and I have in mind of course the threats of nationalisation—I hope it is recognised that it would be a grossly irresponsible

1527
act were anything ever done by politicians to impair that high degree of public confidence that building societies enjoy.
The purpose of my Question to-night was not solely to eulogise on building societies and all those involved in the movement. Their splendid record, as I have tried to indicate, speaks for itself. My purpose to-night is more to probe the Government and my noble friend on how the Government see their responsibility towards the immediate problems facing building societies, and how they intend to equip the movement to meet the challenge over the next fifty years so that it can continue to be an effective force and to play as effective a part as it has done over the last fifty years.
What are the problems facing building societies at the present? They fall, I believe, clearly into two parts: the short-term problems and those of the long term. In the short term, it is no secret that building societies are faced to-day with an acute difficulty of attracting funds and investment into the movement, which is a complete reversal of the situation of some two years ago when there was a glut. The reason for this is the simple commercial fact that the money market has become fiercely competitive and very expensive. Building societies appear to be faced now with two clear choices: either to do nothing, to batten down the hatches and reduce lending to a trickle until the money market eases, or to raise yet again the mortgage interest rates in order to be in a position to attract funds to lend. The consequence of the first choice—to do nothing—is crystal clear. It would be that in a relatively short time, unless the money market improves, considerable damage would be done to the housing programme, which would no doubt lead to a serious recession. Indeed, the new house building industry, we know, is already suffering acutely. The consequence of the second choice—to raise mortgages yet again—would I believe be socially unacceptable and would do the movement immeasurable harm.
What can the Government do to help building societies over this dilemma, and where do they see their responsibilities? This is the kind of question which I hope my noble friend has come here to-night ready to answer. We know that the Government are watching the situation most
1528
carefully through the new Joint Advisory Committee, which was set up only some two or three months ago. I am sure that all in building societies greatly welcome this new channel of communication between Government and the building societies movement. But I hope that to-night my noble friend will be able to go further than to say: "We are watching the situation carefully"; I hone he will be able to say: "We are examining the measures that should be taken to safeguard the housing programme."
What measures can the Government take in the short term? There are a host of alternatives and I propose to suggest to my noble friend just three possible courses, all of which I hope are practicable. The first would be to put a curb on the very free rein on local authorities which at present go out to attract the funds. I have in mind a minimum capital sum, similar to that which the joint stock banks have to observe to-day, below which the local authorities could not invite a rate of 13 per cent. to 14 per cent., as they do at the moment. Local authorities have in recent months become perhaps the most serious direct competitor to building societies in attracting savings. Such a curb would, I believe, assist building societies without seriously damaging local authorities' ability to raise money.
My second suggestion to my noble friend would be the early implementation of the low-start mortgage for first-time buyers. It is a matter which I know the Government are actively pursuing; and again I hope that my noble friend will be able to say something to-night about the progress that is being made. I hope that such a scheme could incorporate the setting up of a substantial Government fund—say, £100 million—at a low interest, which building societies could partly draw on when offering the low-start mortgage; and so long as the scheme was limited to a capital ceiling and to first purchasers only, it would, I believe, greatly assist many young couples who must look with despair at the prospect of owning their own home at the present time. The argument that a low-interest Government fund would be a subsidy, and, "Why should this particular section of house buyers be singled out?" is no longer, I believe, in the present climate, sound. I recognise that other noble Lords may

1529
disagree with me. There are already a number of precedents of direct and indirect subsidies on house buyers.
If we take, for instance, the Kingston Borough Council, we see that at the moment they are borrowing at something like between 13 to 14 per cent., yet they are able to offer house mortgages at 8½ per cent. in order to attract labour to that area. Again, if we look at the option mortgage scheme, we find that this has a direct element of subsidy; and if we look at the income tax relief on ordinary mortgages we see that there is an indirect element of subsidy. I do not believe that anyone would begrudge young couples today participating, perhaps for a limited period of time, in a low-start mortgage which has, or would have, an element of subsidy.
The third suggestion I should like to put to my noble friend is that the Government should raise the present ceiling on the 100 per cent. option mortgage scheme to £10,000. My noble friend will recall that this point was raised before, and the figures showed then, and still do to-day, that the greatest need for this is in the London area. Perhaps my noble friend could say whether the Joint Advisory Committee are considering this matter at the moment.
To turn briefly to the long-term problems of building societies, we know that the Joint Advisory Committe are at present examining what can be done to ensure a steady flow of funds into building societies. I wish them luck, for it is no secret that this matter has eluded building societies for over a hundred years. There are other long-term problems which I very much hope the Advisory Committee are examining. Is it the intention, for example, to allow building societies to compete in the Common Market? I hope it is. Is the 1964 Building Societies Act now too restrictive on the limits within which building societies can conduct their business? I believe it is. Surely there is a case to-day for giving building societies much wider powers of investment than just gilt-edged and local authority securities. Why should they not be allowed to invest a proportion of their funds in property and land? Would this not allow them to make a far greater contribution to, say, urban renewal schemes? I believe it would. Is it not time that the building societies were
1530
allowed to accept more than £10,000 from any one shareholder? Should the societies now be considering offering joint equity mortgages which could perhaps reduce the rate of mortgage interest? I know that this suggestion is being considered by the Association at the moment and I understand that it will need a change in legislation.
My Lords, it is questions like these that I hope the Joint Advisory Committee are examining for the long-term good of building societies, and I hope that when my noble friend comes to reply he will be able to say when the Joint Advisory Committee report will be published, what the Committee are discussing and what conclusions they are reaching. It would be reassuring if my noble friend could say, among other things, that all these matters are under review and that amending legislation is also under review. Over the last 12 months the Government have politely but firmly been urging building societies to show more imagination in their affairs. The Press have been a great deal ruder and considerably less well-informed. I believe that building societies would be happy to respond to the Government's challenge, but they are hamstrung until they are allowed a greater flexibility.
Finally, my Lords, I would say to my noble friend that in asking this Question to-night against a background of economic gloom, I recognise that my noble friend may be tempted to say that the problem of building societies is but a white speck in a clear blue sky compared to the storm clouds that are gathering over Whitehall. I am sure that that will not be his answer, however, because I am confident that both he and the Government realise that if building societies are told to go off into the wilderness until better conditions prevail, that will be a body blow to the whole of the housing programme. The purpose of my Question is to give my noble friend an opportunity to assure us to-night that the Government are aware of, and are taking all steps within their power to correct, the present unsatisfactory position.
7.22 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, may I first congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on having put down this Question and got time for its debate. It is

1531
a most timely debate. On looking down the list of speakers, I note that my noble friend Lord Royle, is to speak. It is, I understand, his 78th birthday to-day and I know that when I congratulate him and say that we will hope he will be in his place for many years to come, I will be speaking on behalf of noble Lords on all sides of the House. For the next few minutes I am going to take a good, hard look at building societies. I notice also that I am to be followed by noble Lords on all sides who have a great deal of experience in this field—far more than I have. I hope that they will find that I have been sympathetic and constructive, if indeed a little critical.
Building societies are one of the several kinds of mutual societies that developed mainly in the last century. I believe they were a reaction to laissez-faire capitalism. Those mutual societies, including building societies, were generally based on a small community and were formed for serving that community. They were generally confined and inward-looking but they nevertheless gave an excellent service to the community which formed them. Some of them were building societies in the literal sense of the term in that they were formed for the purpose of building houses for their members. They grew very rapidly and the peak was reached in 1890 when there were 3,500 on the Register. But by the turn of the century it was down to 2,300; by 1920 it was 1,300; in 1940 it was under 1,000; and to-day there are 450 building societies. But it is worthy of note that while the number of building societies on the Register has been declining, the number of housing societies and housing associations which are taking over some of the original purposes of building societies have been greatly increasing, and at the present time housing societies and housing associations are the most numerous of the mutual societies on the Register. There are now 3,900 housing societies and associations on the Register.
Of the 450 building societies, 50 do no business at all, or very little business, so we can forget those. Of the other 400, 300 are local or regional societies but they frequently compete with each other in the same community or region. The remaining 100 are either national building societies or have aspirations to
1532
become national. But while this great decline in the numbers of building societies has been going on, there has been a considerable increase in the number of building society branches. That increase has been most rapid in recent years. In the last five years the number of branches of building societies has increased by 50 per cent. I venture to say that there have been occasions when rapid growth has sometimes been at the expense of stability.
Present day building societies are concerned almost exclusively with the finance of house purchase. They have three features in common: first, they are nonprofit making, and I think that is why I have great sympathy with them; secondly, they borrow short and lend long. That is a great risk. It involves considerable techniques. It is in my experience comparatively easy when your capital is increasing but not so easy when your capital is declining. It certainly involves the keeping of substantial funds of liquid or semi-liquid capital which of course reduces income. But, above all, it means that you have to generate a very high degree of public confidence. Thirdly, the present-day building societies have one unique feature, in that their members have a conflict of interest. The people who subscribe the money want a good rate, or at least the market rate, while the people who borrow the money want the lowest rate they can get. There is, therefore, a sheer conflict, but that conflict has considerable advantages. It is one of the principal spurs to efficiency within the building society movement and it makes the building society somewhat unique compared with some of the other mutual societies.
All mutual societies, and particularly those which have to generate a high degree of public confidence, have to learn and inwardly digest two great lessons of history. The first is that the fortunes or misfortunes of one single society in their movement can strongly influence the public confidence in all their societies. That being so, it means that the societies are bound together. They have a great deal in common; their future depends upon each other. In such circumstances, there is a very strong need for national organisation and for strong leadership and a measure of discipline within the movement. That applies to all mutual societies that depend upon public confidence, not

1533
only building societies but also co-operative societies.
The second important lesson of history which these mutual societies have to learn and inwardly digest is that the only organisation which survives in the long run and which continues to prosper is the organisation which is capable of adapting its organisation and its policies to the ever-changing circumstances of the time. Those which cannot change to meet the changing circumstances eventually become merely something in our history books. I believe that wise leadership within the building society movement would at the present time concentrate on three major issues. The first is amalgamation. Amalgamation of building societies is necessary for three chief reasons: first, to facilitate the recruitment of quality staff and to attain that specialisation of management which contributes to efficiency; secondly, to make better use of assets, particularly of branches, and to facilitate the adoption of the most sophisticated methods of accounting; and, thirdly, to rationalise and economise in advertising.
I believe that the building society movement should have a plan of amalgamation which would at least lay down the guidelines and also set the targets. Here I would commend them to the national plan of the co-operative movement which was adopted in 1968. That plan has had a considerable effect in laying down guidelines and getting not merely amalgamation but rational and sensible amalgamation. I would hope that the lessons on amalgamation which have been learned in the co-operative movement in the last few years would be of benefit to the building societies.
Parliament can help a little in this matter. At the present time the legal process for amalgamation and transfers of engagement is far too cumbersome. Let us take amalgamation. First, you have to get the prior approval of the Registrar; secondly, you have to get a special resolution passed by three-quarters of the members voting either in person or by proxy; thirdly, you have to get the written consent of the holders of two-thirds of the shares, unless this is excused by the Registrar; fourthly, you have to put a notice in the Gazette so that anybody who wants to object can do so.
1534
This is far too cumbersome and is years out of date. For years co-operative societies have been able to amalgamate by a resolution of two-thirds of the members present and voting or voting by proxy. It is time that we changed the laws relating to building societies so that they may amalgamate in the same way as co-operative societies.
Similarly, in the case of transfers of engagement, a simple resolution of two-thirds should be sufficient on the part of the transferor society, and in the case of the transferee society a motion by the board of the society which is receiving should be sufficient. By this simplification we can greatly help amalgamation. At the same time as building societies are proceeding to amalgamation power should be given to the Registrar to give consent to the opening of branches. That would provide the kind of economy which is necessary in the building society movement.
The second question of policy to which I think attention should be given is that of capital reconstruction. I do not accept the general view which is sometimes put forward that there is a need for a stable rate of interest in the mortgage field. A stable rate of interest in this field is not a practical proposition. The mortgagor has the sacred right of redemption, and so long as this situation applies the rate of interest cannot be too far divorced from the market rate. If it was above the market rate the mortgagor could redeem and get a mortgage elsewhere. So it is not possible to have completely stable rates; but it is possible to have rates which are more stable than those which we have at the present time. I believe that too much importance is attached to the withdrawability of capital, and that the whole building society movement—not just one or two societies—should very gradually change its capital construction so that it has withdraw-able capital, capital which is medium term and capital which is long term. This can only be done by making changes at points in time when rates of interest are being changed anyway. On those occasions the building societies should gradually build up those three forms of capital so that they have capital which is withdrawable on demand, capital which is for, say, three years and subject to three months' notice thereafter, and capital

1535
which is for six years and subject to six months' notice thereafter. That should be the general objective, but you can only get there slowly. I believe that would give a little more stability and would relieve the building societies of unnecessary risk.
The third necessity, I think, is for the building societies to try to ease the burden on the borrower. I am not one of those who think that the rate of interest is the great burden on the borrower. I believe that the majority of people who have bought houses in the post-war period have been able to get the money at a negative rate of interest because the tax rebate and the rate of inflation together have exceeded the rate of interest which the mortgagor has paid to the building society. Even at the present rate of 11 per cent. you have tax at the rate of 7·7 per cent. which means that if inflation is at the rate of 7¾ per cent. or more there is a negative rate of interest.
I think the genuine grouse of the mortgagor is not so much the rate of interest as the system of repayment. Originally, building society repayments were made in declining amounts; the mortgagor paid interest on the amount of capital plus a fixed contribution of the capital. Since the capital was greater in the beginning and was gradually declining, the amount paid by the mortgagor for interest and capital was gradually declining. The building societies put that right mainly between the wars when they generally adopted a fixed instalment system. That fixed instalment system was adopted deliberately to help the mortgagor, so that he had a fixed amount to pay which covered both interest and capital and was a fairly constant ratio of his money income throughout the year. Most societies continue the fixed instalment system. That system is out of date. In an inflationary economy like ours, if the payment which has to be made annually by the mortgagor is to bear a consistent relation to his money income over the period then it has to be an increasing amount. I believe that more attention has to be paid to the system of repayments than has been given to it hitherto.
I realise that there are limitations. These are that the average mortgage is for only seven or eight years anyway,
1536
and consequently with a figure which was increasing most mortgagors would be on the lower amount and in a very short time would be giving up their mortgage before they came to the higher amounts. I do not think that that is important in an era of inflation. But I am one for simplicity, and I believe that any scheme of an increasing instalment should be on a simple basis, not merely because it is simple but also because it is likely to get over the difficult tax question. I would suggest that every young couple who go to a building society for a mortgage and are entering the house-purchase market for the first time, should have the option of getting a mortgage whereby in the first three years they paid nothing but interest, and thereafter they paid an increasing contribution to the capital so that over the whole period of time the amount they paid to the building society tended to bear a constant ratio to their increasing money income. I believe that more attention has to be paid to this aspect.
One final point. I have grave doubts whether this is the time for giving a subsidy to house purchasers. Surely we cannot call upon a Government who ate increasing rents to tenants in council houses at the same time to give a subsidy to those who are purchasing houses. I think this would be inconsistent and would be open to the strongest possible criticism.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether it would not be fair to say that the fair rents system will itself be subject to subsidies?
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, before we had the fair rents system my own view was—and the figures supported it—that the subsidy which was given to the house purchaser by the tax rebate was far greater than the subsidy given to the council house tenant. Since fair rents have come in, and since rents have been increased, then the house purchaser must be getting a subsidy which is even greater than the council house tenant. Therefore it would be wrong to increase the subsidy to the house purchaser.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to say that I found his argument extremely convincing; but has he not

1537
forgotten the rents rebate side of the fair rents system?
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I did not forget the rents rebate side; but I would admit that that is a factor to be taken into account.
7.41 p.m.
Loan HILL OF LUTON: My Lords, I really must apologise for intervening twice on the same day, but it so happens that the issues involved in these two debates are ones in which I am intensely interested and, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for raising this matter in his Unstarred Question. I am grateful, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for the speech that he has just made, showing a wide and deep knowledge of the problems of the movement, and problems to which the movement must devote their mind. He will forgive me if I do not follow him because I want to speak more particularly about the urgency of the present problems, without in any way minimising the severity of the more general problems that lie ahead, some of which he has dealt with in his very valuable speech.
This is really a housing debate. It is essentially that, because, after all, the widespread demand of the people of this country shown over the years for home ownership—and this debate is about home ownership and the possibilities of its further growth—the building societies have made possible this astonishing growth to which both noble Lords who preceded me have referred. The figure to-day of the houses in this country which are owner occupied is 52 per cent. That indeed is an indication, whatever may be the political background, of this urge for home ownership and, let us get it clear from the outset, it is the building societies which have made that possible.
But what is the priority? I ask the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate: what is the priority of home ownership in the minds of the Government to-day? What can they do to facilitate home ownership at this time of difficulty? To put the question in another form, can they allow the level of building starts to continue to decline without giving their minds to the question of the priority of this form of social and human develop-
1538
ment? These are really the basic issues which this debate raises. Naturally the problems should be seen against the experience of the building societies last year. Yesterday the Building Societies Association gave the figures for the year. For myself, I find it easier to contemplate the returns of an individual building society with which I am associated and in which I must declare an interest. It is the second largest building society, the Abbey National, with assets standing at over £2,500 million and with 2,250 million investors. At first sight last year's results looked good, with gross receipts from investors of over £1,000 million, but the figure of £690 million was withdrawn. There were 77,000 mortgages completed (and incidentally only 1,500 of these were in excess of £13,000), but because of the increase in the price of houses that number of mortgages was 20 per cent. less than the previous year. Roughly the same amount of money was lent, but there was a 20 per cent. drop in the number of beneficiaries. Putting it another way, the average amount advanced increased by 22 per cent. from £5,430 to £6,640.
Incidentally, it is important to make certain other things clear. Over one-fifth of those advances—and this will apply to the movement generally—were on pre 1919 houses; one half of the borrowers were buying a house for the first time; one in five of the first-time purchasers were under 25 years of age; and over two-thirds were under 35. Taken as a whole, this picture looks good but it conceals some very real problems. Towards the end of the year the net income from investors fell and there were phases, although they were short, when the amount of money going out was almost as much as the amount coming in. Mind you, let us recall that there is repayment money as well. That is an important factor: in the case of Abbey National £400 million a year is to be considered in relation to these figures.
As your Lordships will know, the 7½ per cent. which the building societies offer, for the man paying tax at 30 per cent. is 10·7 per cent., but we cannot compare with some of the rates being offered to-day: local authorities, 12 to 14 per cent. in comparison with our 10·7 per cent. The banks, for sums over £10,000

1539
are offering 12, 13 and 14 per cent. The margin is wide and unbridgeable in present conditions. The competition for short-term money is very severe. I do not want to exaggerate, for it is still true that a large number of people regard the building society as the soundest, safest place for their money, but the effect of competition is intensive in terms of the money that can become available to borrowers.
So what are the problems? Sticking to the example of Abbey National, £153 million more came in last year and £153 million more went out. The money was more mobile. If we look at the gross intake the position is not so bad but it is in the net intake that we find the worry. It is the higher level of withdrawals plus a fall in gross intake which presents the fundamental problem to-day. Of course, the building societies have encouraged ready withdrawals—that is one of their strengths—to their customers and, unlike the banks, they are open on Saturday mornings. But the problem is how to attract more money and, in greater part, how to retain a bigger proportion of the money which they attract? How to compete with the banks; how to compete with local authorities?
What can the Government do? The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has referred to some possibilities. The option mortgage scheme now provides for those who opt for subsidy as from January 1, of 3·25 per cent. That figure might be raised but it would increase demand without increasing the total amount of money available for mortgages. As the noble Earl said, there is a scheme between the Government and the insurance companies to assist borrowers under the option mortgage scheme to obtain up to 100 per cent. provided the value of the house to be purchased does not exceed £7,500 the amount could be raised. The schemes to be worked out for reducing interest in the first five years for the first-time buyer—well, it may help. It will help some but possibly not others. I suppose in modern conditions it is the second five years, when mother gives up work and the children are arriving, that is likely to be the period of greatest strain. There are other schemes to which reference has already been made. But in a
1540
position in which the building societies cannot effectively compete, what are the steps to be taken? What are the choices?
Let us face the fact that one step is the raising of interest rates by building societies. It is a terrible thought, and nobody wants to do it, but if general interest rates remain at their present level and there is no Government action possible or taken, this rise is inevitable if mortgage money is to remain available in reasonable quantities. If one considers the effect of a mortgage famine on the whole building situation, it seems we are presented with a choice between evils. I suppose the competition of others could be weakened. The freedom given to the banks in the Memorandum of Competition and Credit may have been relevant at the time it was done, but I gravely doubt whether it is relevant to-day. I know it has been modified to the extent that the banks are asked not to pay more than 9½ per cent. on loans up to £10,000, but there are important investors in building societies, such as married couples, who have an investment between £10,000 and £20,000. I saw it suggested in the Financial Times this morning that banks ought to be required to lend to building societies at a reduced rate, so reducing their abnormal, indeed high profits to-day. Should the Government repeat what they did in 1959 and make money available at the going rate, although inevitably a subsidised rate, to building societies? I do not much like the idea, but it may be inevitable. It has been done before when it was linked to loans on pre-1919 houses. So I suppose it could be linked to first-time purchasers, thus not only accommodating their needs but releasing money for mortgages generally. It is a possibility. Another suggestion was made of a tax modification that removed the advantage of managed bonds which is largely, I believe, an advantage arising out of their tax position. We must be careful not to leap, as we tended to do last year, into swift, ill-considered arrangements. The £15 million was a waste of money, even if it is hindsight that gives the better view; let us admit it. The stabilisation fund based on an allegation that building societies were overlending, the idea being that some of it should be held back for the future, whatever its merits has no relevance to the position

1541
to-day. The fact is, I suppose, that basically our problems arise from the inflationary position in this country and the abnormally high level of interest rates. No permanent solution will be found until that problem is dealt with, until the gap between what we can offer and what can be got elsewhere has been bridged.
My Lords, it may be that some of these ideas, or perhaps others, could have some effect. But in this debate we ought to make clear one thing, because it is not sufficiently appreciated elsewhere, and that is that the record of building societies in this country is excellent by any standards. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, that that does not mean to say they need not look at themselves, their role and organisation. But their record is superb. No other agency could do the job for which, with their experience and expertise, they are superbly equipped to do. I am not now entering the realms of Party politics or the future. As matters stand, there is no organisation which could do this job with anything like the same efficiency as the building societies do it. There is no doubt that the important factor in security and happiness is the ownership by people of their homes. Incidentally, where else could one borrow at 11 per cent.; or for the ordinary man, 7·7 per cent., which is what it means for so many ordinary men paying 30 per cent, tax? It seems to me that the fundamental question is what role has home ownership in the priorities of the Government? I ask for this reason. A shortage of mortgage money means something more than hardship to the would-be borrower. It means a fall in the number of building starts; an absence of confidence on the part of the builders. We all regret it, but it is a fact of human life, of human nature. Neglect this present position, accept a mortgage famine, and it should be recognised that one accepts at the same time such a further decline in the number of building starts as to affect the building achievement in this country for two or three years ahead.
So I ask the Government not to look at this in terms of the interest of these non-profit making bodies, building societies, but to accept that only building societies can do this job; that in present circumstances the competition is unfairly severe, and that as matters stand the building societies cannot meet it. If something
1542
is not done, there will be a state of decline in confidence in the building industry, and the whole housing policy and housing achievement will suffer. This is a housing question to which the Government should apply their mind, asking themselves not whether this is a matter of a subsidy for this man as against that, but whether it is a matter of securing a steady improvement in the housing conditions of this country, including the opportunity for a man to buy his own house.
7.48 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for asking this Question, and for raising this important and topical issue. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hill, I have an interest to declare, in that I am a director of a building society. But I think everyone taking part in this debate is primarily concerned with the facilitating of home ownership, with the problems of home buyers, and with the problems of those who build our houses, as the noble Lord, Lord Hill, pointed out so emphatically.
A good many years ago, when I was in another place, there was a series of debates on the taxation of building societies. There were a number of anomalies, and these gave rise to some wide-ranging debates in which I took a fairly active part. It never occurred to me then that some day I should be a director of a building society. But what did strike me at the time was the degree of misunderstanding and ignorance among the general public and, I regret to say, among some Members of Parliament, as to the way in which building societies operate. For example, it was not everyone who fully appreciated the fact that there are no ordinary shareholders in building societies. There is no one to whom profits can be distributed, if made. Any margin of profit, after putting the proper amount to reserves and paying tax to the Government, is devoted to keeping down interest rates to the home buyer.
I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has said: that the building societies perform a dual service; they accept savings on short term, the lenders being free to take out their money whenever they wish, and they make loans on long term. Building societies are sometimes criticised for this, but I believe that

1543
that is a service which the building society movement is expected to provide and, I think, in the main will continue to provide. The problem, of course, is how to cushion the home buyer from excessively high interest rates, on the one hand, and from mortgage rationing, on the other; and it is not an easy task.
Another misunderstanding I have found arises from the accusation that when funds are plentiful building societies by their lending policy, cause house prices to rise. I am not sure that that is altogether fair. I have never found people going round saying that the building societies are lending too much—in fact, rather the reverse. I find people saying that smaller deposits should be required from the home buyer to put down, with 100 per cent. mortgages and other inducements to encourage home ownership. But even without that, the demand exists; and the main function of the building society is to try to meet that demand, subject, of course, to their taking all reasonable precautions. I would agree with Lord Jacques that the whole subject should be considered by the building societies very carefully. They require to study, in particular, how to achieve a greater evenness of flow of funds into and out of the societies. I trust that that is one of the subjects being considered by the Joint Committee.
But the immediate problem, the one which Lord Hill has just stressed, is how to facilitate the flow of funds into the building society movement at the present time: whether there is anything the Government should or could do. And this is extremely important for the building industry as well as for the home buyer. When I come to put my own suggestions as to what the Government should do, I am perhaps a little more radical than the noble Earl and perhaps a little more controversial. I think there are three choices. First, the Government could inject money into the building society movement. The Government could inject money for some specific purpose—for example, to assist first-time home buyers. I am not myself very keen on the concept of subsidising the building societies, but if it has to be done at all I believe that any subsidy, if it is to achieve the object desired, will have to be substantial.
1544
The second course would be for the Government to say to the societies, "We are aware that it is essential that the building societies should be absolutely sound"—as indeed they are— "and for this reason they must have adequate liquid assets and must have adequate reserves. But under these exceptional circumstances to-day, the Government will do whatever is necessary, with the consent of the Registrar of Building Societies, to authorise building societies to use some of their liquid assets and draw on their reserves." In return, the Government would make available Government guarantees; and, furthermore, if it was necessary for the building societies to sell their investments at a loss, the Government would pay them compensation for doing so. All this, my Lords, would be for the specific purpose of enabling more mortgage loans to be made available to would-be home buyers. No doubt when funds become more plentiful, the status quo could be restored and the guarantees disposed of. Very careful thought would of course have to be given to such a step, but I believe that it is possible.
Thirdly—and this follows the line of thought of the noble Earl—the Government could look at the sources from which money flows into the building societies and consider whether some of the competition for money is avoidable. This point, as other speakers have observed, has already been recognised by the Government in the case of the banks. In the case of lending up to £10,000, the banks have been asked not to compete with the building societies. But I do not myself regard the banks as the main competitors. It used to be said that the Savings Movement provided the main competition with the building societies in finding money. Today I think that is probably no longer true, and I agree with those who say that the competition comes mainly from the local authorities, who are offering high interest rates for comparatively small sums and thus siphoning off some of the savings that would otherwise have gone to the building societies. I am not blaming the local authorities for this: they have to seek for money and offer high rates of interest to obtain it. But I think there is a possible solution. As your Lordships are aware, there

1545
used to be a Loan Board specifically designed to help local authorities and provide them with money at lower and more favourable interest rates. That Board was dispensed with. It was thought that local authorities should raise their money on the market. I believe that serious consideration should be given to reviving this idea. There is no objection in principle to subsidising or giving financial help to local authorities. That principle is accepted; local authorities could not function without various grants of one kind or another which they obtain from the Exchequer.
If the proposal I have put forward were adopted, there would, of course, be a condition; namely, there would be a restriction on high rates of interest offered to the public for small amounts of money required by local authorities. Indirectly this would undoubtedly help the building societies and it would not involve a direct subsidy to the building society movement. I am not asking here for special favours for the building societies, but in my view it is essential, in order to help house building as well as home buyers, that something should be done to enable building societies to carry on their proper function, preferably without direct subsidy. I would agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hill, said about the magnificent work of the building societies and their great achievements. I think it is in the national interest to consider the situation today of those in the building industry and those who wish to buy their homes. I believe that it would be very much in the national interest to try to ensure that a mortgage famine is averted.
8.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I must declare an interest as a director of a building society, and I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for introducing this Question. I shall not follow other noble Lords into the labyrinth of interest rates because that has been covered so well by other speakers. I would just highlight what I believe is the major problem facing the building societies at this moment. Since 1964, the average earnings and salaries in this country (at this hour of the night I speak in very round figures) have gone up about
1546
twice; the average price of a house has gone up about three times, and the relative average cost of a 90 per cent. mortgage has gone up about five times. I will not at this stage go into the details.
The reason the cost of the mortgage is so much higher than the cost of the house is because of the prevailing high interest rates. The cost of a house has risen disproportionately because of the very high demand which has been put upon the building industry when the supply of houses has fallen short and at the same time the supply of money has been high. Indeed, one cannot blame people who are prepared to pay over the odds, and have been for many years prepared to pay almost too much for the best investment they could ever have made, the ownership of their own house. But there are, I think—and this is perhaps a good sign in this inflationary problem which the country faces—signs that house prices are dropping at this moment. I have heard recently of a builder giving away a mini-car with every house he sells, which is something that would not have happened a year or two back. Other builders are subsidising from their own funds the loan on the deposit which they require from the purchaser. So, while it would be much better if house prices came down much more, it is possible that we are reaching a stage when prices may be stabilising relative to wages.
Further, there is the question of availability of houses on the market. Here the Government must be given some considerable credit for the very real efforts they have made, helped again by the building societies, to improve the number of houses that needed improvement. Quite a large percentage of building society loans are directed to improvements and alterations which generally improve the standard of houses and the housing stock of the country. If time had permitted we could have gone into the question of making more land available for housing but this is something which is rather long-term, and it is outside the scope of the Question to-night.
Having made that point, I should like to give a very real welcome to the option mortgage scheme. We should give full credit to the Labour Government who introduced this scheme. I forget exactly

1547
when. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, was responsible, but I am not quite certain. This scheme has been, in face of the somewhat sceptical attitude of the building societies at that time, a considerable success, and it is on that success that we should look for further Government action, and further constructive action, towards the ideal of home ownership throughout the country.
We are about to have (and I think noble Lords have already mentioned this), a low-start scheme for those who are borrowing for the first time—young couples and so forth. I know that the building societies would wish that for administrative reasons, costs, and a great many other reasons, this should be done, if possible, entirely through the option mortgage scheme. It is, after all, the very people for whom the option mortgage scheme was designed that such a low-start scheme would also benefit. I hope that it will be possible to consider this as a serious suggestion. It is highly desirable that there should be such a scheme.
I do not know that I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, who talked about the question of deferring the interest rate, the maximum impact of the repayments, and so forth. We must recognise that, like all such schemes, and all such hire-purchase schemes, it is deliberately, and perhaps rightly, inflationary in its effect. But I also wonder very much whether the postponement of the maximum repayment, the heaviest burden, for the future years is in fact right. A young couple recently married are often both working. They perhaps have no children, and when the heavy burden begins to fall on them the millstone begins to tighten around their neck. That is when they have children and the wife cannot work. I am not sure that the design of the scheme is quite as the noble Lord would have it.
The other problem is whether this is the right time, when funds are so short, to introduce any new scheme. I should like to think that it is a serious contribution in regard to the problem of the first time borrower, and I think it is he at whom we should be looking to-night. The Government, in due course, should give a greater subsidy to him through the option mortgage scheme; a greater
1548
subsidy than the 3¼ per cent. which is now paid from January 1. I know that this is no moment to ask for further Government subsidies. It would be wrong to suggest that Government expenditure can in any way be increased at this time, however desirable in principle. I hope that when, in due course, we are in a position to consider further help to the housing world, this will be one of the most constructive uses of Government funds. As I shall hope to show very briefly, it could be cheaper than some of the other uses to which such funds might be put.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who asked this Question, has already mentioned this question of a further subsidy. I know that it is not perhaps universally a good idea, but I should like to think that it is something which could be done relatively simply, is administratively possible, and in due course would be particularly helpful as a sort of pump priming operation.
The question has been raised as to whether or not this would be an unfair subsidy to those who are buying their own houses as against those who are living in council houses, and who have had to pay a considerable increase in rent under the Fair Rents Act. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, about that, because I think that, although this is no moment to go into figures, it is not unreasonable to give people some form of subsidy, bearing in mind that the rent rebate introduced under that Act reduces the actual cost of housing to quite a large section of the population. It does not seem to me unfair that we should also subsidise another section, those who wish to get themselves their own house and out of the stranglehold of a council house.
It would be wrong to assume that the building societies are always whiter than white. As in everything else, there is a good deal of grey in the flock. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, implied criticism in that the number of societies had dropped from 3,500 at the turn of the century to 450 at the present time. I would say that this in fact reflects quite a considerable increase in efficiency, in that the numbers have dropped not because some have fallen off the perch but because there have been amalgamations, despite the difficulties to which he rightly referred, and the societies have grown considerably in size and as far as possible have

1549
made themselves more efficient. This is only a very small quibble in what I would say was a most excellent and very reasonable review of the problems of building societies.
In the past building societies have given far too many high quality loans for special high quality houses, farms, and special advances of this sort, which, although limited to a certain percentage and carrying a higher rate of interest, have, in palmy times, when there was plenty of money about, meant that there was less available when the wind blew from the other direction and funds got shorter. At the moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, has mentioned, the percentage of funds being withdrawn, as opposed to the total investment, is a major and serious problem. It would be true to say that in 1973 of the percentage of funds invested as a general figure throughout the movement—and I stand to be corrected—only about 20 per cent. remains in the societies as a general figure to be invested in new houses. This is a frightening figure. You may say it is too low a figure. But in view of the interest discrepancy already referred to, it is something of a minor miracle that the societies manage to retain even as much as that.
The original idea of building societies was very much a socialist theory in principle. It was the ideal that everyone who wants to own his own house should be encouraged to do so. This must still be the aim that this Government, and this country, should pursue, and should strive in every way to achieve, even if the aim would appear to some people to be somewhat less socialist now than previously. I would hope that the percentage mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, of owner occupation has risen from about 25 per cent. at the end of the Second World War to about 52 Der cent. Now; and it is this second half of the population that we should regard as the ultimate target to increase that figure beyond what it is now.
I would think that in the very long term by helping these people (so far as they want to be helped), towards the ownership of their own house, the cost to the State will be far less, in one way or another, than the inevitable rise in the cost to the State of council house sub-
1550
sidies. After all, if you are confined to a council house you have to pay rent for ever, with nothing to show for it at your death; but if you are paying a mortgage, even though that may be higher, you may, in the end, achieve your own house and have something to show for it in due course. This ought to be something that we are proud to encourage.
8.20 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, on an occasion such as this one does not feel like going too deeply into the whole history of the building society movement. But may I say straight away that I should not be here to-night, particularly at this time, if I were not grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for introducing this subject. The fact that I am here now proves my gratitude to him. He will not expect me to go over all the points that he made so very well and so comprehensively, and I hope that other speakers will forgive me if I merely emphasise what they have said. I am quite sure that my noble friend Lord Jacques will also forgive me if I do not try to analyse all his points. I found his speech fascinating and I hope to read the report of it. The day may come when we shall go very deeply into the matters that he raised, and even into his criticisms of the movement. At the commencement of his speech he said that some of us here are better informed on this subject than he is. All I can say is that if we are better informed, we are very well informed indeed.
I turn for a moment to the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton. I also want to declare my interest. If he gets in a bit of advertising, I, too, will get some in. He has declared that he is a director of the Abbey National Building Society, and he will forgive me if I say that I have the privilege of being chairman of the Alliance Building Society. He claimed that the Abbey National is the second largest in the country. All I can say is that the Alliance is the 106th, but it is the best. If he ever considers the question of a merger, we shall be prepared to take over the Abbey National at any time.
The whole range of the movement has been discussed to-night, so I can be very concise indeed. It is completely new in your Lordships' House for us to

1551
discuss the Question: what do the Government propose to do about the problems confronting the building societies? It is the Government's fault that the building societies find themselves in their present position. In the Budget of 1973, the Chancellor handed out all kinds of tax reductions to the better-off. He had to find money with which to do it so he attracted funds by increased investment rates, which took a great deal of money from the building society movement. But, even worse, that was followed by other people offering high rates. Then the banks rode in and started to offer very high rates, which meant that competition was more and more difficult for the building society movement. As has already been pointed out, the local authorities also joined in and offered high terms such as they are offering at the moment, many of them for very short periods, for which the ratepayers will pay very heavily in the future. That is the kind of competition which we have at the moment. Investment in building societies has almost reduced to the point where we cannot see it, and the month of December was a very poor month indeed for all the building societies in this country. Our 7½ per cent. free of tax to normal taxpayers is still a long way from being competitive, but it is not our fault. I ask your Lordships to forgive me for using words such as "we" and "I", but that is inevitable. I really should be saying "building societies" and not "us". Her Majesty's Government have said, "All right, the banks can pay only 9½ per cent. up to £10,000", but if you happen to have £100,000 the sky is the limit. It is an extraordinary situation and it does not help the building societies at all.
In the autumn of 1973, the Government got together with representatives of the Building Societies Association and the result was a memorandum of agreement which set up a Joint Advisory Committee. I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply what that Joint Advisory Committee has done up till now. What has it considered? There is still a great shortage of invested funds, which means that there is very little money for mortgages, which have to be charged at 11½ per cent. I underline what the noble
1552
Lord, Lord Hill, said, and I ask: is the building society movement a social asset which causes the Government to regard them in a priority sense? Other people who are attracting funds to themselves are not doing a social service in the same way as the building society movement. The Government should regard us in that social sense and should consider what we are doing for the people as a whole.
I should like to ask first, whether the Joint Advisory Committee has considered means of helping us to be more competitive for funds; secondly, has it considered deferment of interest payment schemes; thirdly, has it considered index linking schemes; and, fourthly, has it considered more term schemes, which are very important? Are we not justified in asking the Government to consider a reduction in the tax which building societies pay? The building societies pay corporation tax and composite tax, and the time has come when they would be helped very considerably indeed if the Government reduced the rates of taxation. These questions are so urgent and so important, because house-building in the private sector will almost come to a halt if funds are not available. I agree with other speakers, that in these days of enormous inflation, with the massive problems which the Government have on their shoulders, it is asking a great deal to expect them to go deeply into the difficulties of the building societies. But if homes are important, then suggestions of help for the building societies may be the most important item on the Government's list of priorities.
Reference was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, to my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, and to the mortgage option scheme which we all appreciate. I was glad to hear that compliment from the other side of the Chamber. These last few days my noble friend has been initiating talks between some of us in the building society movement who are Members of your Lordships' House. We have very much appreciated those talks, and I am pleased that my noble friend managed to get here tonight at this late hour. As I said, this is a very important and serious matter and I hope that the Government are thinking about it as seriously as the movement is.
8.30 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, like other noble Lords, may I say how grateful I am to my noble friend for giving us this opportunity to-night to talk about home ownership—because that is what this debate is all about—and for giving us the opportunity to question the Government's policy on how to maintain home ownership in the future as it has been maintained in the past. I am taking part in this debate because nearly fifty years ago I started with the building society movement as a saver and in particular as a first-time borrower when I first set about getting my own home, and I have been closely connected with the movement ever since then. I am privileged to be a vice-president of the Building Societies Association and president of the Metropolitan Association of Building Societies. I should like to say that any views that I express here to-night in no way necessarily reflect the views of either of those great and distinguished organisations. Also like other noble Lords, I am a director of a building society, the Portman Building Society—perhaps not quite as large as the society of the noble Lord, Lord Hill, but at any rate a society which, like all other societies, does its utmost to give a good service to those who both save with it and borrow from it.
My Lords, for many years there has been no need to discuss building society affairs in Parliament, for a very good reason. The building society movement is non-Party political and, as has already been stated, has no equity shareholders. Again as noble Lords have already said, the movement encourages personal savings and home ownership—and is that not an objective of all political Parties? It is a very safe and convenient form of investment for, as my noble friend Lord Kinnoull has already said, some 14 million savers. The societies are managed, as the noble Lord, Lord Hill, has said, successfully and efficiently at low cost, and through their agencies some 4 million families have enjoyed the satisfaction of home ownership. These are the facts.
Therefore, my Lords, it came as a very great shock to all those who so successfully direct and manage building societies suddenly to find themselves, a few months ago, being attacked politically on a number of grounds, such as charging
1554
too high rates of interest to the borrowers; for being the cause of high land and house prices; for having some 2,000 branches all over the country; for having too much cash, and indeed for being one of the reasons for the evils of inflation from which we are now suffering. There was, and I think there still is, a deep feeling about the unfairness and the injustice of these and other accusations and allegations. After all, have not successive Governments urged and encouraged home ownership? Have not the building societies done their utmost to support all Governments, whatever their political complexion, to that end? Why, then, my Lords, should politicians suddenly turn and bite the hands of those that feed them? Why should this great movement suddenly be made the scapegoat for political ends? We may well ask ourselves these questions—to which, quite frankly, I know no satisfactory answer other than perhaps that of political expediency and, to be charitable perhaps, ignorance of building society economics. After all, as again every speaker has emphasised—and it cannot be emphasised too often or too strongly—building societies borrow short and lend long.
In times of monetary stability there is no need to change the rates for investors or for borrowers. Indeed, building societies dislike intensely making changes in their borrowing and lending rates because such changes are expensive to make. But when the rates of interest in the other competitive savings sectors improve, then building societies must keep in line, as has already been so clearly stated by noble Lords who have spoken previously. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that it was only after, and not before, the Government increased the return on National Savings that the building society movement had to follow and increase its rate substantially so that its cash flow and its liquidity position could be maintained; because—again, this point cannot be stressed too often—building societies borrow short and lend long.
The noble Lord, Lord Royle, has just dealt in some detail with the situation concerning the competition and the raising of the National Savings rate, so I will not go into that in any further detail; but societies must retain adequate cash resources, not only to meet the future

1555
mortgage needs but—and this is so important—to be able to pay out savings on demand. It is this payment on demand to investors, who for one reason or another may suddenly want to have their savings back, that is one of the great attractions to saving with the building society movement. Perhaps your Lordships will have noticed that although there are approximately 14 million savers against some 4 million borrowers, it is always the mortgage rates that get the publicity; the sympathy always seems to be with the borrower rather than with the lender. This seems to me to be strange, because it is the lender, surely, who deserves the high interest rates as his money rapidly becomes worth less and less; while it is the borrower who, until recent months at any rate, has seen his land and bricks and mortar steadily become worth more as he pays off his debt with money which is becoming worth less and less. I rather suspect that most financial editors and financial column writers are heavy borrowers, and it would be surprising if they were not because they are all people who ought to know the advantage of borrowing from a building society for home ownership.
My Lords, I do not think that the routine administrative problems that building societies have to face are any different from what they have always been. These are to ensure that the value of the property to be mortgaged is adequate to meet the advance made upon it; that the borrower is in a position to make the required monthly, quarterly or annual repayments; and, what is most important, that he is going to be in a position to continue to do so in the future. There is no great difficulty about all this when house prices are constantly rising and, at the same time, incomes are rising as well; and in this respect I think that it has been fairly easy going for building societies in recent years. The difficulties arise, though, when house prices and incomes fall, and this may well be the greatest problem which will face building societies in the coming months. The security upon the loan is reduced, and the ability of the borrower to pay becomes less.
That is why, my Lords, I so greatly welcome the setting up of this Joint Advisory Committee to enable the repre
1556
sentatives of the building societies regularly to meet representatives of the Department of the Environment, the Treasury, the Registrar of Friendly Societies and the Bank of England. These regular meetings, this excellent means of communication, will, I hope, ensure adequate discussion of building society affairs. I would hope that as an early outcome of these meetings we might have an indication of the Government's view on the proportion of savings out of the total national savings desired to be devoted to home ownership. During the last decade the proportion has risen from about 30 per cent. to over 50 per cent. This increase has been fairly steady except on two occasions. In 1967 the proportion jumped from 31 per cent., all in one year, to 48 per cent., and from 37 per cent. in 1969 to 58 per cent. in 1970. The other main sources of saving, of course, are the banks where deposits are so necessary for industry, the Stock Exchange and the National Savings movement. At the same time we have the local authorities, with their local loan schemes. The noble Lord, Lord Hill, and the noble Lord, Lord Royle, made reference to how great is the competition from these sources.
I would ask the Government these questions. Is the present proportion of personal savings devoted to home ownership too much or not enough? To what extent, if any, is such a high percentage the cause of inflation? What are the priorities in the various savings groups? Is home ownership at the top of the order of priority, in the middle or at the bottom? I suggest that the public is entitled to know the Government's thinking on these matters. I know that other noble Lords have referred to the question of priorities. I think that this is at the bottom of the whole situation. Where is home ownership in the list of priorities? As I see it, the most serious problem facing the building society movement at present is how to reconcile a high enough investment rate to attract the flow of funds needed, and maintain a healthy rate of house building, with the urgent need to keep mortgage rates as low as possible to ensure that borrowers are financially able to make the required repayments of money borrowed, and, of course, the interest on it. The two rates are interdependent.

1557
There are plenty of investors anxious and willing to place their money in building societies if they can get a better return from the societies than from elsewhere. But if the interest rate is high the money that is available becomes too expensive for the borrower, and home ownership, the objective of the building societies, is frustrated. Therefore if the house building industry is to prosper and home ownership to continue to increase, it is essential, as I see it, for money interest rates to fall and the value of money to become steadier. This is why everyone ought to be doing everything possible to try to help the Government to defeat inflation. If inflation is not defeated we shall suffer as the Germans suffered after the First World War, when they allowed inflation to get on top of them.
In conclusion, my Lords, may I say that the great strength of the building society movement lies in the confidence that the public rightly have in the integrity of its direction and management, and in the efficiency and the personal service given to savers and to borrowers through its branches. People value the independence of building societies and their freedom from political interference because the motives of the whole movement are quite non-Party political. As has been said, but it is worth repeating again and again, the sole aim of the movement is security of investment for the saver combined with help and encouragement for home ownership. To prevent abuses the movement is strictly controlled, and rightly so, by Acts of Parliament. For these reasons, I hope that the Government will do all in their power to help in whatever way possible—and various valuable and constructive suggestions have been made tonight—to enable building societies to carry on their good work as best they may in the future as they have done in the past.
8.45 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we must all be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for raising this very important topic at this time. I should like to pay tribute to his wide knowledge and experience in this field, which is well known to all Members of your Lordships' House. I know also what a responsible position he occupies in the movement. I am slightly abashed be-
1558
cause I am the only Peer taking part in this debate who has never at any time in his life had anything to do with a building society. I appreciate that every noble Lord who has spoken is an important officer in a building society.
Before I turn to the main theme of the debate I should like to take the opportunity to clarify one or two points about the option mortgage guarantee scheme which we discussed at Question Time on December 3 and to which my noble friend Lord Kinnoull referred again to-day. He asked whether we would increase the limit of £7,500 to £10,000. I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Ridley praise the option mortgage scheme and, quite rightly, pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, who had so much to do with its birth. It is normal practice for the building societies to advance from 60 to 70 per cent. of the value of a house, and to advance larger loans on payment of a premium to an insurance company for an indemnity policy. This covers the society against loss in respect of the excess over its normal level of advance.
The option mortgage guarantee scheme has the effect of reducing the premium paid by an option mortgagor for an indemnity policy, because the Exchequer shares the risk of loss with the insurance company. The scheme does not apply to local authority mortgages because normally local authorities are prepared to issue high percentage loans without asking for an indemnity policy. I think it also important for us to understand that the guarantee scheme does not and was never meant to ensure (this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hill) that an option mortgagor will necessarily receive a high percentage loan. That must depend on the extent to which the lenders have funds available for lending at the price reserve. So, unlike the option mortgage subsidy scheme, the guarantee scheme is subject to a host price limit. It originally applied to houses if the purchase price (or the valuation, if lower) did not exceed £5,000. In 1971 the Government raised the limit to £7,500.
I have said, and I repeat, that we have received no representations from borrowers or lenders for an increase in this limit. There may be two reasons for this. I suggest first that there are still

1559
many houses costing under £7,500. I repeat, my Lords, about 31 per cent. of all dwellings newly mortgaged to building societies in the third quarter of last year cost under £7,500. The noble Lord, Lord Royle, asked in the debate whether the figure under £7,500 was the cost of the mortgage or the cost of the house. I can confirm that it was the cost of the house—
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I did not ask that in the debate but during Questions.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. It may surprise some noble Lords, but these figures are derived from information supplied by the societies.
Secondly, my Lords, people who buy more expensive houses would normally have sufficiently high incomes to qualify for full tax relief on mortgage interest. Consequently they would not normally want an option mortgage, and therefore would not be eligible to use the guarantee scheme. For these reasons it does not seem to us necessary to do as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked, and consider an increase in the limit at this time. But I assure noble Lords that the Government will keep the question under review.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, suggested, as did the noble Lord, Lord Royle, that the composite rate of tax paid by building societies might be made more favourable in order to increase the competitiveness of the movement as an investment medium. At the moment the Inland Revenue arranges to collect from the societies as much tax as individual investors would as a whole be liable for. At present the composite rate does not involve the forgoing of any Exchequer level. To go further would amount to specially favourable treatment for one institution at public expense; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, indicated, that might not be popular with all sections of society.
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull and I think also the noble Lord, Lord Wade, indicated that local authorities might be asked to reduce their rate of interest which they quote when advertising loan stock. But local authority treasurers have to finance the programmes which their elected councillors and sponsoring Gov
1560
ernment Departments agree should be undertaken. Any restriction on the rates which they offer in advertisements to small investors would tend to force the authorities on to the money market, which might add undesirable pressure to interest rates. So in principle the effect of these suggestion appear to be that one would be diverting funds from the public sector to the building societies, a course which presents obvious difficulties.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, mentioned an Exchequer guarantee on building society reserves and liquidity in general, including Exchequer underwriting of any loss incurred by societies in selling any liquid assets such as gilts. I am advised that, though this is an interesting proposition, it could have serious adverse effects on public borrowing requirements and public expenditure, and therefore we should not be willing to consider that.
LORD WADE: May I just intervene very briefly, my Lords? I was putting this forward as one of three possible courses. The third course, which I prefer, referred to local authorities, and the key to that point was to find some way in which the local authorities would not be adversely affected.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. I should also like to add that in order to protect building societies from some investment competition, the Bank of England has requested banks to limit to 9½, per cent. the interest they pay on deposits of less than £10,000. That is a positive step taken by the Government.
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull asked about the extension of building society activities in the E.E.C. We are considering very carefully the representations which have been made by the societies in this connection. My noble friend also suggested that building societies might be allowed to invest in property in this country as a category of permitted non-mortgage asset. This, we feel, would not be appropriate because the purpose of societies investing in assets other than mortgages is to make liquid funds available in sufficient quantity to meet its needs, and real estate would not represent a liquid investment.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, interested me very much in what he said

1561
concerning building society amalgamations. Your Lordships may be interested to learn that the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies has on a number of recent occasions suggested that societies might merge whenever it would be economical and practicable to do so. I can say that the Government are sympathetic to the idea of reducing statutory obstacles to mergers.
I should like now to turn to what I consider to be the main problems facing building societies. These we have heard ably expressed by many of your Lordships to-day. It goes without saying that the importance to the private housing market of a healthy and vigorous building society movement cannot be over-emphasised. The noble Lords concerned have rightly patted themselves on the back. Building societies are of great significance, both as a medium for investment and as the principal lenders of finance for house purchase. The assets of the movement amount to some £16,000 million. They have 14 million investment accounts and about 4 million mortgages. About 70 per cent. of all business is handled by the twelve largest societies, even though there are in total still 450 societies in existence. They have, as has been said already, so won the confidence of investors over the years that they have been able to borrow short and lend long on an increasing scale. The growth of owner occupation, as my noble friend Lord Kinnoull said, has gone up from 26 per cent. of the housing stock in 1944 to an estimated 52 per cent. last year. This is in no small measure due to the success of building societies as a specialised savings institution. My noble friend Lord Wakefield asked me where in priority the Government put house ownership. I do not think I can do better than to repeat what many Members of the Government have previously said—and I would expect Members of the Opposition to have similar views—that they regard home-ownership as having a very high priority indeed.
If we look back over the last ten years or so, we find marked swings in the availability of mortgage funds. When there is a shortfall in available mortgage funds, many prospective house buyers cannot get a mortgage. Builders then cut back on their planned programme of stocks and run into financial difficulties
1562
because their capital is tied up in houses under construction. These cannot be sold as quickly as they can be completed. When there are plenty of mortgage funds, builders may not have enough houses in the pipeline to meet the upsurge in demand. As a result, too much mortgage money can chase too few houses and consequently house prices can go up sharply—as we saw in 1972. The potential house buyer may be able to get a mortgage, but he is faced with an unwelcome increase in house prices.
The damage which an excess of mortgage funds can do has been clearly demonstrated in the last few years. In 1972, when societies were flush with funds, prices rose sharply, but as receipts have fallen this year house prices have stabilised. According to figures recently published by the Nationwide Building Society, average prices for the Society's transactions in the fourth quarter of 1973 were up by only half per cent. for new houses and were unchanged for modern second-hand houses, as compared with the third quarter of 1973. There are also reliable reports that the price of land is stabilising, and substantial falls have been reported in some cases.
The problem of swings in the flow of mortgage funds was thoroughly examined in our discussions with the Building Societies Association and, as the House will know, the Council of the Association recommended to its members last autumn an agreement entered into by the Council and the Government, the terms of which were published in another place on January 16. The main objectives of the agreement are to support the growth of owner-occupation, with a reasonable choice for purchasers; and to facilitate a high and stable level of house-building and stability in house prices.
Under the agreement—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Royle, will be interested to hear about this because he asked me what the Joint Advisory Committee were doing and what, if anything, they were up to—a Joint Advisory Committee is being set up consisting of representatives of the Government and the Building Societies Association. They have had three meetings so far. The Committee is going to provide regularly the Council of the Association with an analysis of the current situation and forecasts of what

1563
might be the appropriate level of investment in, and lending by, building societies. My noble friend Lord Kinnoull asked me whether it was intended that this information should be made generally available. The answer is "No", because it is meant primarily to assist the Council of the Association in its deliberations on recommendations which it makes to member societies. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will also be interested to know that the Council is going to recommend to member societies a flexible use of interest rates and liquidity, and the selective lending policies designed to achieve those objectives.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords before by noble friend leaves that point, would he not agree that any statistical information that this Advisory Committee can produce will be of immense public interest as well of interest just to the Council?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I will certainly consider that. No doubt the Joint Advisory Committee will read about this debate and consider the noble Lord's point. I have no doubt that he and his Society, the Property Owners' Building Society, will have friendly contacts with members of the Association and will probably be able to get information which will not be available to the public. As an important element in the new voluntary arrangement first-time purchasers and the buyers of new houses will of course figure prominently in the allocation of available mortgage funds. I am glad to say that the 20 largest societies—accounting for about 75 per cent. of the movement's assets—have indicated their explicit support of these arrangements subject to their responsibilities under Statute and to their depositors and members.
It is true that there are at present difficulties arising out of the supply and cost of mortgage funds. The problem is essentially one of the rates of interest which have to be offered to attract funds for mortgage lending. The general level of interest rates in the economy has to be allowed to fluctuate if the Government are to retain effective control of the growth of money and credit. This is an essential component of the general strategy against inflation. Furthermore,
1564
rates in this country have to be high enough in relation to those overseas to prevent funds from being attracted out of London. Otherwise our exchange rate would fall and our import costs would rise—including those for food and raw materials. The increased prices would add to the cost of living and prejudice the Government's counter-inflation policy.
In these circumstances building societies have not found it possible at the investment rates (as the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, said, the recommended rate is 7·5 per cent. net), which they currently offer to attract as much new money for mortgage lending as they would wish. But building societies have still been advancing considerable sums of money. On a seasonally adjusted basis, they entered into new commitments totalling £222 million last month. This is a not inconsiderable sum. I have been asked during the debate whether the Council of the Associaion should increase the recommended rates structure at the present time. This is a matter for the Council themselves. I have little doubt that they will continue to act with their usual good sense in this matter. But we are hopeful that in the longer run the new voluntary agreement between the Building Societies Association and the Government on mortgage finance will lead to a more stable flow of mortgage funds.
Building societies have always tried hard to help people to buy their first homes. Several noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hill, raised this point. Moreover, the Government have taken a series of measures—such as the abolition of S.E.T. and of stamp duty on conveyances up to f10,000—to reduce the cost of house purchase. And it is a fact that the numbers of first-time purchasers have increased very considerably since the Government took office. In 1969, only 264,000 building society mortgages were granted to first-time purchasers; in 1972 the number had risen to 371,000. Nevertheless, we recognise that in present circumstances some people on the threshold of home-ownership may find it difficult to meet initial mortgage outgoings.
But the Government have been very conscious of the need to ease the transition into home ownership of first-time buyers

1565
on lower incomes. This was a problem about which we had full discussions with the representatives of the Building Societies' Association. We considered various possible ways of helping first-time purchasers with their initial mortgage payments. This point will interest my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, who asked about low-start mortgage schemes, and the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, who asked about deferred payments mortgages. There emerged from these discussions a proposition for a selective scheme for first-time purchasers based upon the deferment of part of the mortgage repayment due in the initial years of a mortgage. The effect would be normally to reduce the mortgage repayment from 11 per cent. to the equivalent of 8·5 per cent. in the first year. There would be a progression to the full rate chargeable over the following four years. The extra debt due to deferment could be repaid on sale or over the latter years of the life of a mortgage.
My noble friend Lord Ridley proposed that deferred payment schemes should be limited to option mortgage schemes. Although it may be administratively convenient to lenders to limit the scheme to these option mortgages, it is not immediately evident why in equity the scheme should not be made available to mortgagors choosing tax relief, but this is a matter which is being considered in the course of discussions which the Building Societies' Association is having. The Council of the Association have said that they are willing to recommend such a scheme to member societies. We are making good progress in technical discussions with the Association on the content of a detailed scheme for recommendation to their member societies. I hope that they will soon be in a position to promulgate it. I hope they will also be in a position to hold consultations on the scheme with local authority representatives as well.
The Government believe that the scheme could prove to be very helpful. Of course, it will not be suitable for everyone, but it should be extremely useful for many first-time purchasers—it would have the effect of reducing the net mortgage outgoings in the first year of a 25-year repayment mortgage at 11 per cent. by about one fifth.
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull suggested that the Government might
1566
sponsor a fund—I think he suggested £100 million—lending money at a preferential rate of interest to help to finance low-start mortgages. This would involve extra public expenditure and a new subsidy for owner occupation. However, it is only right to recognise that mortgagors can get substantial assistance through tax relief on mortgage interest or the option mortgage subsidy. This has the effect of reducing mortgage interest rates by about 30 per cent. Moreover—as is often pointed out in discussions of the position of mortgagors—a house-owner does not pay capital gains tax on any increase in the value of his house. My noble friend Lord Ridley mentioned the increased rate of option mortgage subsidy. This would mean another extra subsidy for owner-occupiers, to which I have referred in principle before. The proposed scheme has been criticised on the grounds that it would add substantially to the mortgagor's debt. But this consequence of the scheme can be exaggerated. We believe that most mortgagors would be able to clear the extra debt without much difficulty on sale or in the later years of a mortgage. And clearly the Council of the Association—which represent most building societies—would not have been prepared to support the scheme unless they thought it was both prudent and reasonable from the point of view of both lenders and borrowers.
I think it is true to say that both the Government and the Opposition want everyone who prefers to own his own home to be able to do so one day. But this raises a number of fundamental and formidable questions which are of immediate concern to the way in which building societies operate. We can climb upwards, my Lords, towards Utopia; but it still lies some way off!
The Government are not so complacent or shortsighted as to believe that no further thought should be given to the problems facing building societies in the private housing market. The longer-term problems are complex. The solutions are neither obvious nor simple. I therefore agree with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that all concerned with the future role of building societies could well consider propositions which may seem radical, but which may be worth close examination.
My Lords, if I may trespass on your patience for a few more moments, I

1567
should like to give you such examples of what such ideas might be. Building societies obtain their funds chiefly from personal, small, short-term savings. But given that the amount of such savings is limited in the short-run, there may be a limit on the proportion and the total of these savings that societies can attract. My noble friend Lord Kinnoull said that he thought it was a pity that they were limited to no more than £10,000. I think another noble Lord pointed out that where there was a husband and wife, in that case of course it would be £20,000.
In these circumstances, is there some way in which societies can offer more attractive terms for larger longer-term deposits? The noble Lord, Lord Hill, and the noble Lord, Lord Royle, were both interested in this point particularly. Building societies already offer special terms to a limited extent. Is there any advantage in pushing this practice further? Is there perhaps a case for attempting to attract institutional investment in building societies? Is there perhaps, my Lords, a case for exploring new forms of investment in building societies? I note with interest that the Building Societies Association have floated the idea of deposits which would be revalued by linking them with the movement of an index. One or two commercial firms are also exploring the idea of equity mortgages, under which the mortgagee recovers a share of any capital appreciation on a house in return for providing a loan at a reduced rate of interest. These are interesting possibilities which I am sure it is right to explore.
My Lords, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hill, that all house purchasers, like everyone else, will benefit, of course, if we can beat inflation. That is the common theme that runs through all this Government's economic policies. I think I cannot emphasise that too strongly, and I think it is well known to your Lordships.
1568
Noble Lords will not expect me to offer a Government view on these longer-term possibilities to-day. They raise larger issues which demand and justify much fuller consideration. I would only say that we should all keep an open mind about the path which it would be right to take in the future, but that care should be taken not to choose the wrong path. Many people have cause to be grateful for the way they have been helped by building societies to own their own homes; and I have no doubt that the community will continue to need the services of a thriving building society movement.