Lords Sitting of 22 November 1978

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

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what response has been made to the proposals made by three elected members of the Urban Council of Hong Kong that democracy should be extended in the colony by (a) the inclusion of elected members in the Legislature; (b) adult franchise for long-stay residents; (c) the phasing out of appointed members on the Urban Council, and (d) an extension of the jurisdiction of the Urban Council to include housing, education, social welfare and town planning.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the three councillors were told that Her Majesty's Government naturally desire to see progress towards a more representative system of government in Hong Kong at the right time and always bearing in mind the paramount need to maintain the stability and prosperity of the territory.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that these are very moderate proposals?—only the suggestion of one-third of the Legislature being elected and the phasing-out of the appointed members of the Urban Council. Is not the Urban Council capable of dealing with these local issues like other authorities?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the reforms which my noble friend has mentioned are, I can assure
974
him and the House, continuously under consideration by my right honourable friend and the Governor of Hong Kong. There is no objection in principle to the attainment, in appropriate stages and at the right time, of more representative government in this territory. We have an obligation—I am sure my noble friend would agree with me here—always to bear in mind the very special circumstances in which this territory is, and has been, as a dependency of this country. Subject to that, we are in agreement with the long-term objectives of my noble friend and others.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask this: is there not a danger that the growing demand in Hong Kong itself for democracy may lead to an explosive situation? Is the Minister aware, for example, that these three councillors topped the poll, on a percentage basis, in the recent elections for the Urban Council and that they included Elsie Elliot, who began the exposure of corruption? Would my noble friend not agree that it would be of great advantage that, when the lease from China ends, we should show an example of democracy in Hong Kong itself?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am very glad to join my noble friend in paying tribute to the repute and capacity of the three councillors—and there are others—who have written to us about these matters. I do so again from this Box. They represent constructive views, but they are not, of course, the only views expressed in Hong Kong which we consider very carefully indeed.
As to my noble friend's reference to corruption, I am sure he will join with me in paying tribute to the independent commission for the tremendous results which, under Mr. Cater, it has achieved in the last two to three years. A real impression has been made by that commission upon the dreadful problem of corruption in the territory. My noble friend referred to Hong Kong as moving towards democracy. It has in fact made very great strides. It has a free Press, which not every country which describes itself as a democracy—people's or otherwise—can lay claim to. Comment is free: indeed, on the occasions when I have visited the territory it has been very free

975
indeed, especially as addressed to me! As I have said, people of great capacity and repute have advanced these ideas, and there are others who have argued against them.
We shall continue to examine these matters carefully and continuously, always bearing in mind that Hong Kong is perhaps sui generis and that its assured future depends on this country and its own Government keeping always in mind its need for stability and prosperity.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, notwithstanding the fact that there are these special circumstances to which the Minister has referred, why should those special circumstances make it appropriate for the people of Hong Kong to enjoy a far smaller degree of control over their own affairs than, for example, the people of the Solomon Islands, to whom we have just given independence?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Because, my Lords, as I have said, the circumstances in Kong Hong are not those which apply to any other territory. I have described it as being sui generis. Hong Kong is not the Solomons; nor are the Solomons Hong Kong; and it is, if I may say so with great respect to the noble Lord, very misleading to draw comparisons between one territory and another. They vary very much indeed in history, in persisting circumstances and certainly in need.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend inform the House as to whether the authorities of the People's Republic of China are consulted before any constitutional changes are made in Hong Kong? In view of the excellent relations existing between Hong Kong and the mainland, would they look favourably upon any extension of democracy in the Colony?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there is, of course, no such consultation. Consultation is always between the Government of Hong Kong and the Government of the United Kingdom. But between us and the People's Republic there are very good relations, which many would think are improving at the present moment. Therefore, in our policy we
976
have regard for external relations, but I repeat that there is no question of consultation.

NATIONAL INSURANCE AND PENSION REGULATIONS
2.43 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: 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 why they considered it expedient not to seek the advice of the National Insurance Advisory Committee before the Secretary of State for Social Services made and brought into operation the Social Security (Non-Contributory Invalidity Pension) Amendment Regulations 1978 (S.I. 1340 of 1978).
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if the draft amending regulations had been referred to the National Insurance Advisory Committee for consideration and advice, a period of at least three months would have elapsed before the regulation could have been made. Meanwhile, the adjudicating authorities would have had to apply the original regulation in accordance with the interpretation placed upon it by the Tribunal of National Insurance Commissioners in a decision given on 8th September, 1978. This showed that the original regulation had not achieved its intended effect. A considerable increase in benefit expenditure, for which the Department had no financial provision at all, would have resulted.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, does that not mean that the National Insurance Commissioners' decision gave considerable help to a number of housewives, who were at least partially disabled and in considerable need? Before interfering with such a decision by the highest adjudicating authority in the National Insurance system, should not the Secretary of State have consulted in the usual way the National Insurance Advisory Committee?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, there are two points here. On the first point, the noble Lord is perfectly right.

977
Had the Department implemented the interpretation put upon the 1977 regulation when the Tribunal reported, then it would have brought into the scheme a considerable number of extra women, for whom the Department certainly had no money whatsoever. The noble Lord, as a former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, will know the difficulty which the Department would have been in, in trying to find money that it did not have. It was for that reason that it sought, as I said, to place these regulations, with a view to getting back to the interpretation of 1977. This is perfectly proper because, as the noble Lord will know, the Secretary of State has power under the Act not to consult the National Insurance Advisory Committee, if it is expedient not to do so. I would point out that it was the National Insurance Advisory Committee which approved the wording of the 1977 regulation.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: Then, my Lords, is the noble Lord saying that the decision was taken not on the merits of a very important social security provision, as interpreted by the highest interpreting authority, but simply because the Department had failed to provide adequate finance in the Estimates? In those circumstances, will the noble Lord agree, even now, to take the view of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, in order to see whether they approve of that decision?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it was not a case of the Department failing to provide adequate money in its Estimates. It provided adequate money, and it got that money dependent upon the interpretation of the 1977 regulation. When this new decision came in, it was impossible to do it and the result was that, if we had referred it to the NIAC, it would have taken three months. Other people would have been brought into the scheme, if the money had been available, only perhaps to be excluded at a later date when the Department felt that it was right that it should go back to the 1977 interpretation. For the benefit of your Lordships, may I say that the difference is one of interpretation. The Department takes the view that a housewife must be substantially unable to carry out her duties, whereas the Tribunal of National Insurance Commissioners took the view
978
that "substantial" did not mean what I always thought it to mean. "Substantial" could be anything less than 50 per cent.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the question about the National Insurance Advisory Committee, and referring it to them now?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that I cannot give a categorical Yes or No. But I will obviously see my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and bring his attention to what the noble Lord has said.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how much money was saved by not referring this matter to the Commissioners?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Not without notice, my Lords, and I do not think that I ought to guess.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether he accepts that the case shows up a great weakness in the consultation procedures, if one cannot consult because it takes three months? Can the noble Lord say why it would have taken three months to consult with this advisory committee?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, there is not a weakness in the consultative procedure. What I am saying is that the 1977 regulations were approved by the National Insurance Advisory Committee. It is true that we could have gone back to the National Insurance Advisory Committee and said, "In the light of the decision of the National Insurance Commissioners, we are in some difficulty. What do you think about it?", and they would have considered the matter. But that would have meant a delay while the consideration was going on and the question of placing new regulations, if and when that became necessary, would have meant a considerable delay.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many people think that it is wrong in principle that a disabled married woman should have to pass a stricter qualifying test for this benefit

979
than other disabled people? Is there not a case for abolishing the additional test, instead of making it more stringent?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have no doubt in my own mind that a very strong case could probably be made out for abolishing it altogether. However, a considerable sum of money—probably in excess of £100 million—would then be needed to bring into the scheme everybody who would then qualify. When this was introduced we spent a good deal of time upon doing some research into the matter. We anticipated that about 40,000 housewives would qualify. In point of fact, the number turned to be about 40,000, so our research was fairly accurate. May I remind noble Lords that this was an entirely new benefit which had never before been introduced, along with a number of other new benefits, at a time when we were facing a real financial crisis in this country. As it was non-contributory, it seemed right that there should be, as we felt, the condition that this benefit should go only to housewives who were substantially unable to perform their household duties.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, in order to clarify the matter, when the advisory committee was consulted on the question of what "substantially" meant—I am speaking about the 1977 regulations—could the noble Lord say whether they were specifically consulted as to what "substantially" meant and whether they agreed to the interpretation which the Government proposed to put upon that word?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I can only say that we knew what we meant by the word "substantially". When it was referred to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, they agreed with us. This is why, as I say, there was no difficulty at all. While I am on my feet, I should like to say how indebted I am to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for asking this Question, because it is a matter which we need to air.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether I am right—
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I think that we have had a good run on this Question. I feel it is right that the House should be concerned about it, but we have been on this Question for over a quarter of an hour.

BAC 1–11 PURCHASES BY BRITISH AIRWAYS
2.53 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what stage negotiations have reached between British Airways and British Aerospace on the intended purchase of BAC 1–11s, how many aircraft are to be ordered and when is the expected date for the aircraft to come into service.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, British Airways and British Aerospace have not yet reached any agreement on this matter. The aircraft could be taken into service in 1980, but I cannot yet say how many will be ordered.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, while I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, may I ask her whether she can indicate at this stage whether the present negotiations are likely to be finalised in the next few weeks? If these negotiations break down, can the noble Baroness indicate whether the Secretary of State would intervene as an arbitrator? Lastly, in view of the importance of this order for British Aerospace, may I ask the noble Baroness whether it is known now how many aircraft are to be ordered by British Airways, in view of the precise figures that they gave so far as the American order was concerned?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the information at the moment is that British Airways are negotiating for three to six BAC 1–11s. So far as we know, negotiations are still continuing concerning price and numbers, but I am quite certain that I can give the assurance that, should there be any breakdown or any deadlock

981
in the negotiations, both of my right honourable friends will be willing to step in to try to help out.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there is a clause in the contract for the sale of these BAC1–11s to British Airways relating to British Aerospace and saying that at the end of a certain period of time they will buy them back if British Airways do not like them? So why are British Airways delaying? Surely it must be British Airways' fault, not that of British Aerospace?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, at this stage I cannot confirm or deny what the noble Lord has said. This is a matter for negotiation between British Airways and British Aerospace.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, is the noble Baroness able to say how long it is proposed that the BAC 1–11s will continue to be manufactured? The chairman gave a very encouraging statement some time ago. Can the noble Baroness make it more definite and say for how many years it is proposed that the production of BAC 1–11s will continue?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, my Lords, but the BAC 1–11 is a very good aircraft and we expect it to remain in production for many years yet.

KIDNEY DONOR CARDS
2.55 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: 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 arrange for kidney donor cards bearing the message: "Your kidneys could help someone to live after your death", to be sent with driving licences rather than, unsolicited, with first provisional licences as at present.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I well remember the discussion which we had on this subject earlier in the year when I said that I was willing to help in identifying potential kidney donors, but at that
982
time I felt there were real issues of principle and practice against using driving licences in this way. I still have some doubts on that score, but I hope that the research commissioned by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will shortly be available and will give us new information about public attitudes to kidney donation—and, indeed, to the donation of other organs—and about possible ways of identifying the potential donors. Should the results suggest that driving licences do hold the key to this, then we would certainly be willing to review the position.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness for her Answer, I must make it clear that I fully support a very wide system of kidney donors and that I have no objection to the card going with driving licences. But is it wise to confront 17-year-olds, many of whom will never have taken a car out on the road before, with this grim message? Some of them are bound to be extremely nervous. Might not this simply add to the hazards of learner drivers on the roads?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I accept that some learner drivers probably are rather horrified when they receive a notice asking whether they are willing to donate their kidneys or any other organs. It is possible to send out these cards only with provisional driving licences, but we now have the switch to the "until 70" licensing, which means that most drivers will not be renewing their full licences until they reach their seventieth birthday. When a person receives his provisional licence he receives also a great deal of literature from the Department, including a copy of the Highway Code and a kidney donor card. Research is taking place. We anticipate that the results will be presented to the Secretary of State for Social Services next month. If the Secretary of State then approaches the Department of Transport and says, "We think that this is the best way to do it", we shall co-operate in every way possible.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, bearing in mind the kind of drivers whom we as pedestrians so frequently meet, may I say that perhaps pedestrians would be more at risk in carrying this card.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether the Government would consider sending a reminder to people that their eyes and other organs might be useful as well?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, arising out of the research that is being conducted at the moment, if that suggestion is made we shall certainly carry it out. However, anybody can carry with him a handwirtten note saying that he is prepared to give all or some of his organs, and this will be accepted as legal and binding in the case of an accident.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that it would be satisfactory simply to add the words, "and any other parts of my body", to the kidney donor card?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords, that is correct, but all noble Lords have not yet got a kidney donor card.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that there is a better prospect of obtaining a supply of kidneys from holders of provisional licences, especially if this message is unsolicited, than from holders of the regular driving licence?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I should not like to comment upon that question or to make any supposedly informed comment. These organs are necessary; they are desperately needed in all kinds of ways by all hospitals. Anything that can be done to make available more organs for hospitals to save other people's lives my Department will do, and it will co-operate with them.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that my Question is concerned solely with timing? Can the noble Baroness explain why this card cannot be sent with the licence which has to be sent to the driver at some point when he or she has passed the test? Is the noble Baroness also aware that, in the case of eyes, which I have recently had to deal with as an executor, they cannot be used after three hours?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the point which the noble Lord raises—that
984
the card might be sent with the full rather than the provisional licence—is one which I shall take up with my Secretary of State. So far as eyes are concerned, there are problems, but there are still occasions when they might be used.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, is not this a proper case for contracting out rather than contracting in, so that the card states "all organs of the body"? That could be confined by the holder, if he chose to do so.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, that is a very complicated position and I should not like to comment upon it this afternoon.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I amended my donor card to say exactly what he requested?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am delighted to see that so many noble Lords have with them this afternoon their kidney donor cards. When there are accidents, the trouble is that most people do not have with them their driving licence or kidney donor card.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I am wondering whether your Lordships' livers would be acceptable!

HYBRID INSTRUMENTS
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, together with the Chairman of Committees and any one Lord of Appeal, be named of the Select Committee on Hybrid Instruments:—

Bacon, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cawley, L.

Clwyd, L.

Collison, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Fletcher, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

985

Reay, L.

Stamp, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Teviot, L.

Wise, L.

—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BILLS)
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders be appointed; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

Aylestone, L.

Brentford, V.

Cawley, L.

Derwent, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Gordon-Walker, L.

McNair, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That pursuant to Standing Order No. 48, the Lords following be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills:—

Airedale, L.

Fraser of Tullybelton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Janner, L.

Keith of Kinkel, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Lyell, L.

Meston, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Nathan, L.

Selkirk, E.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman; and that a message be sent to the Commons to propose that the Joint Committee do meet on Wednesday next at half-past Four o'clock in Committee Room No. 4.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

POETS AND POETRY
3.1 p.m.
Lord WILLIS Lord WILLIS rose to call attention to the conditions of poets and poetry in Britain; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move my Motion for Papers. We move now, as it were, from kidneys and Statutory Instruments through to matters of the soul. As your Lordships know, this is a short debate and I am enormously encouraged by the number of noble Lords who have put down their names to speak on this subject, but I have been threatened by the Whips with drastic action if noble Lords do not keep their speeches down to nine or 10 minutes—that is excepting the opener of the debate and, of course, the Government speaker. Seriously, if noble Lords would bear in mind that there are a number of speakers and would try to keep their speeches to a reasonable length, I am sure that would help everybody.
Although I cannot be quite sure, I believe this is the first time that poetry and poets have been the subject of a full debate in Parliament. In another place, of course, they cannot debate the subject because they are allowed to debate only those matters which come within the prerogative of the Government, and, thank Heavens! poetry does not yet come within those boundaries. In your Lordships' House we are not so restricted, but, although from time to time we have debated the arts in general, we have never specifically discussed poets and poetry. I have made a cursory search, although not a thorough one, and I can find no record, for example, of Lord Alfred Tennyson speaking on the subject nor of Lord Byron doing so; but I have wondered sometimes whether Tennyson was thinking of the first formal introduction

987
to the Lords of Peers when he wrote those marvellous lines in The Lotus Eaters:
"In the afternoon they came unto a land
In which it seemed always afternoon".
Or was he thinking perhaps of the people on the two Front Benches after a long debate when he wrote:
"Now sleeps the crimson petal, now the white".
Which side of the House, I wonder, was Lord Byron thinking of when he wrote—and I am quoting from memory:
"You can't believe a word they utter.
Besides, they always smell of bread of butter".
I am delighted to say that the tradition of Lords who write poetry still continues. The noble Lord, Lord Moyne, wrote to apologise for his unavoidable absence from this debate and told me not only that he has published verse but that he still writes it. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, who is speaking today, has published poetry and I think and hope that he still writes it. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Parry, and the noble Lord, Lord Hale, also have published poetry, and there must be others. I hope they may reveal themselves this afternoon. It is not something to be ashamed of. Again, Lord Byron summed it up for all of us:
"Lords, too, are bards.
Such things at times befall,
And 'tis some praise in peers
To write at all".
I have to confess that my own interest in poetry is that of a consumer rather than a creator. I have written, though never published, some verse, perhaps because I lack that streak of divine madness which I think marks off the really great poet from just the versifier. And I was warned off very early when I had a dangerous experience with poetry, which taught me that verse, like virginity, must be approached with caution. I had the temerity to write and send some poems of immoderate passion to the girl who later became my wife. Unluckily, she was away at the time and the letter was opened by her mother. It became rather confusing and almost wrecked my chances. She thought that her daughter had either taken up with a madman, or that I was approaching her.
But, more seriously, I want first to place on record my own personal sense
988
of gratitude to poets, past and present. I find it almost impossible to put into words what poetry has meant in my life. It has given me immense pleasure, of course, but that is an inadequate description. Perhaps "delight" is the word I am looking for. I had the great fortune when I was a small child at an ordinary State school in Tottenham to have an English mistress called Miss Haas who saw something in me, I hope, and so we spent hours after school reading poetry aloud to each other. I got tremendous pleasure out of it, and it at least gave birth in me to a love of words and a love of poetry that has stayed with me all my life. When I am at home my greatest relaxation comes from listening to something from my collection of recorded verse. For poetry should be heard as well as read—a point I want to come back to in a moment. When I travel I take with me one of three poetry books which I should like to recommend to your Lordships because they have given me such pleasure. They are, first, Other Men's Flowers—a marvellous anthology compiled by the late Field Marshal Lord Wavell. Secondly, a book that needs no introduction to anybody, Palgrave's Golden Treasury, and, thirdly, The Penguin Collection of Modern Poetry.
These and many other volumes and individual poems have given me delight—and I stress the word "delight". That is surely so rare a thing that we cannot afford to turn our backs upon it. And of course it goes beyond delight. There are times when the poet's vision is unique, when he sees farther and deeper than the politician and the businessman or the sociologist. At his best the poet is, in a sense, an engineer of the human soul, expressing in words that we should like to use but cannot think of, our fears and hopes, our pleasures and our tragedies in a way that sometimes makes the heart throb like a drum. Perhaps because it is so difficult to put into words what I am trying to say I may try to illustrate what I mean by one or two examples. Suppose I were to say to your Lordships something like this:
"The aging process will, of course, affect these men and women in much the same way as it affects other men and women. But in a different sense and for special reasons it will not do so. Memory-wise, they will remain in an on-going situation".
If I said that to your Lordships you could be forgiven for thinking that I was

989
quoting from the pages of New Society, and you would certainly not remember a single word of it. But put the same thought in the mind of the poet and you get something that millions of people will never forget:
"They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them".
Or, taking a similar theme, if I were to say:
"These fat war profiteers and their fatuous women sitting comfortably in the theatre and applauding every jingoistic sentiment appall and disgust me. I'd like them to see and feel the awful reality of war",
you would feel, quite rightly, that I was angry about profiteering in World War I and that I wanted to express my indignation, but the words are hardly memorable. Siegfried Sassoon said it in about ten words:
"I'd like to see a tank come thundering down the stalls".
That expresses it all, and I hope I have made the point. If it needs any reinforcement, coming right up to date I recommend that you read Roger Woddis in the New Statesman each week. He puts into a few lines of verse thoughts, ideas and emotions which, in the hands of our political columnists, would take column after column, page after page.
I should like to add one further point before coming to more practical thoughts. If you wish to know which way the wind is blowing in Britain, if you wish to know how our young people think and feel, then buy, read and listen to the work of our young modern poets. You may not like the style, you may think it awkward and exaggerated, not at all what you expect of poetry. Indeed, some of it is rubbish. But the best of the poets writing today have a true vision, and we should do well to listen to their voices. What is more, my Lords, if we dare to sit in this House or in another place, we have a duty to listen to their voices.
My Lords, the most interesting feature of the scene at the moment, and in the last few years, has been the development of poets taking their work to audiences of every kind. Few contemporary poets sit in ivory towers, though many of them do
990
still sit in attics. Most of them go out to audiences and read and discuss their work. Apart from anything else, it helps them to make a small living. There are many poets who manage to do that today. There were, in 1977, 171 regular poetry groups in Britain, and hundreds of other less regular meetings in pubs and clubs. One of the most exciting developments is a scheme operated by the Poetry Society, and which, to their eternal credit, is funded by W. H. Smith and Son, called Poets in Schools. Under this scheme, 15 to 20 poets visit schools and work with children. Some Regional Arts Associations fund similar schemes. But the demand from the schools—and this is interesting—far exceeds the funds available.
This to my mind, is one of the keys to the future of poetry in Britain—this work in the schools. For example, there are no proper facilities for training English teachers to deal with the teaching of poetry. The Poetry Society wants to establish short courses for such teachers, but at the moment it has no financial resources for this important work. Another key issue is the question of publishing. Very little contemporary poetry is available to the public through the mass media or through mass publication. It is mainly published by the small presses which are not widely distributed. The scope may again be seen by the 1977 figures. It may astonish your Lordships to know that there were 906 new collections of poetry published in that year, but they were published by no fewer than 304 publishers, all or most of them very small presses. Poetry, with the exception of works by people like Betjeman, is not commercially viable, and it will not become so unless we can start with the children in the schools and teach them that the understanding of contemporary poetry is as important as the understanding of the classics, and if we all realise how important and fundamental poetry is to our society.
Today, my Lords, we have an opportunity which was denied to the poets who wrote a century or more ago. We do have the means to record poetry and to record poets reading their works. I should like to see the establishment of a British Library of Recorded Verse, and I know this is one of the dreams of the Poetry

991
Society. It could be housed at the National Poetry Centre, and it would cost about £50,000 a year to initiate. This is not a large sum, and surely it is at least as important to preserve the best poetry of today and the voices of its creators as it is to save, say, a valuable picture for the nation. If we were living in an age when we had Tennyson and Byron, would we not all like to hear their voices on a recording or even to see them on a videotape? That seems a very small sum of money to achieve something for the nation.
Finally, my Lords, I come to the Poetry Society itself, which has done, and is doing, so much invaluable work not only on behalf of poetry, but on behalf of us all. Much of the stimulation given to poets, public readings, and publishing comes from the Society. It offers a wide range of facilities: a library, a bookshop, printing facilities, an information service, an education department, and it houses the National Poetry Secretariat. The Poetry Society does all this and more on a grant of £60,000 per annum from the Arts Council, plus a small income from membership fees and other activities. Once again, that is a tiny pittance in comparison with the amounts devoted to the other arts, like opera and the theatre.
I know that some noble Lords who are to speak in the debate will tell us a little more about what the Arts Council does for poets and poetry, and I do not deny that it does an enormous amount. I am not among those who wish to attack the Arts Council, though I do have certain criticisms of the way it operates. But it is true that each year the Government gives the Arts Council enough money to clothe one small child and then expects it to buy outfits for several adults. I have the greatest sympathy for its administrators, who have to make painful value judgments and weigh the value of every penny.
Having said that, I think that it should take another look at the amount it gives to literature. In the year 1976–77 the total expenditure in this field was £461,000, about 1¼ per cent. of its total budget for that year. By comparison, music and drama alone received £9½ million, and I am excluding from that the huge sums paid to the Royal Opera, the National
992
Theatre and other national organisations. I think the balance is wrong and I hope the Arts Council will do something about it. I hope, too, that private and industrial sponsors may be persuaded to come forward and provide sponsorship. Why should not companies like EMI, to name just one, or some of the great television companies, help provide both funds and facilities for the creation of a National Library of Recorded Verse? Why do not the TUC and the CBI establish funds which would encourage poets in industry?
My Lords, I have left a great deal of ground uncovered, partly because I know it will be covered in the debate and partly because of the time factor, I hope other speakers will fill some of the gaps I have left. But I hope at least I have said enough to convince your Lordships that the poet is as important to our society as the engineer, the carpenter or indeed the politician. Take a roll call of the greatest names in our history and the poets lead it ten-fold. And it is an interesting thought that if there had been no such thing as the expiry of copyright the amount of royalties we would have earned simply from the export of Shakespeare's plays would have paid off our National Debt. That is where poets come in our society.
There can be few of us who do not feel depressed at times when we look at modern society. It seems to me, certainly on occasions, that we are living, as Keith Waterhouse the journalist once put it, in a junk age, an age when there is a lot of noise but nothing happens, when jobs are manufactured but not products, when politics is no longer the art of the possible but the craft of survival, when the ideas advanced by our leaders are so devoid of vision that crackpot theories and "weirdo" sects can seize hold of the minds of millions. Where is the vision for the year 2000? I have two grandchildren. I want to know, what kind of world is it going to be like for them in the year 2000? But instead, what happens? We tinker, we do small things. We do need, surely, in Government and in politics, on all sides, a little more vision than a proposal to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory. Our poets cannot solve these problems; that is not their task. But they can help to show us what is wrong with the present and give us some penetrating

993
vision of tomorrow. And they can bring some delight to our lives.
I conclude once again by quoting a little poetry, from James Elroy Flecker's Hassan:
"Ah, if ever there shall arise a nation whose people have forgotten poetry or whose poets have forgotten the people, though they send their ships round Taprobane and their armies across the hills of Hindustan, though their cities be greater than Babylon of old, though they mine a league under the earth or mount to the stars on silver wings—what of them? They will be a dark patch on the world".
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, I had no idea what aspect of poetry the noble Lord, Lord Willis, would discuss and I must confess that the question which he has opened up, which seems to be that we have many good poets and all we have to do is to find better ways of making their work known, is not exactly my own view. As I listened to the noble Lord, I thought that anyone who cares very much about poetry must have a very special and individual view.
Speaking for myself, I cannot do without poetry. Ever since my mother read aloud to her children the verses of Robert Louis Stevenson, I have had to have poetry close at hand. As the years have passed, I think that my chief reflection is how very few great poets there have ever been. If one opens a comprehensive anthology—for example, one of the Oxford books—of English Verse, American Verse or French Verse one notes how very few names appear in the index and of those names how very few remain in one's mind forever. The anthologies also show us that good poets tend to come together within comparatively short periods alternating with periods, such as we are living through now, when very little good poetry is written.
For my part, I think that poetry is like grand opera. It is a form of art from which little or no pleasure can be derived where the work is second-class. It is only the best operas that are worth going to and it is only the best poems that live to be read generation after generation. On the other hand, second-class novels, plays, popular music and much painting and drawing continually give pleasure although they are clearly not in the first
994
rank. I do not find that to be the case with poetry and I suppose that that is because of the complex bundle of qualities that are required by a great poem. It must have a structure; it must use words which mean something and which evoke responses beyond the intellect, and words which make music. All that is extremely difficult to do in one piece of writing if the reader is to feel himself in contact with life at a depth that he cannot discover by himself.
I know I shall be told that one can enjoy a limerick for its wit and humour and one can enjoy a lyric for the sound of the words, whatever they may mean. But very few poems achieve the aesthetic and rational whole that makes them compulsory reading over and over again. Therefore, it is rather extraordinary that such an enormous number of people try their hand at poetry and want to get it published. When the Arts Council advertised for poems from which to select an anthology of the previous year's work, would your Lordships believe how many poems were submitted?—42,000. It took a whole summer to go through them all and I wonder how many of them would have ever been read twice had they appeared on the printed page.
We are going through a bad patch with the poets today. Let us consider the recent death roll: Robert Frost, Wallace Stevens, Ezra Pound, Yeats, Eliot, Sylvia Plath, Wystan Auden, Cavafy and Seferis. They all died within the last 25 years. Who are their successors? Whose next book of poems do we look forward to with excited impatience? Philip Larkin's, perhaps; but who else?
The situation is very different now from what it was 50 years ago. I had just gone up to Oxford when the Hogarth Press published Tom Eliot's The Waste Land at half-a-crown in blue wrappers. It is now worth more than £100 if one has a clean copy. For weeks after that poem came out we hardly talked about anything else. However, in the last 10 years how many poems have made a comparable impact or anything like it? If my noble friend Lord Gowrie, who knows much more about poetry than I do and who is to wind up the debate, will forgive me, I think that the answer is, not a single one. I doubt whether there is any

995
published poet in this country or America who can be expected to write a poem of similar importance.
Good poets are scarce and always have been and the scarcer they are the more we should be sure that no one with talent fails to be published. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, has mentioned a number of ways in which the modern poets are assisted in their publication and he looks forward, I think quite rightly, to recorded sound. I do not claim to have all the information by any means, but it seems to me that promising poets now receive more help in getting their work into print than ever before. Not only are there subsidies from the Arts Council—and I am sure that we all look forward to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, who knows much more about that than I do—but, the Editors of the small magazines, the weeklies and monthlies, are always on the lookout for good poetry. I suppose that there are at present an exceptional number of versifiers wanting to be published, but that does mean that their work is worth publishing. I should say that if a poem has quality someone will publish it, and if it does not have quality it should not be printed with the aid of public funds.
Of course, whether poets are paid enough for the poems that are published is quite another matter. The chances are that in an age of science and technology all labour-intensive work is relatively underpaid and will probably be more underpaid as time goes on. However, in my experience a poet who has any good work to his credit can earn his bread and butter by broadcasting, reviewing, lecturing, teaching or working in a library. I cannot believe that most of the poets who continue to be read with pleasure ever did earn a living by their poetry alone. Surely they needed the experience of the world which a job gives and surely today the media provide them with opportunities more abundant than were ever available before.
I am sorry to say that it appears that some modern poets do not want to earn a living other than by writing poetry. I have often been astonished at the number of artists and writers who appear to think that society owes them a living, irrespective of the quality of their work.
996
Supposing doctors used the same argument. What scorn we should pour on them! When I was in the Government it was often said that someone who was living the life of an artist or poet deserved to have a grant to keep him and his family going. That is a new attitude. I do not think that that attitude occurred much before the last 10 or 15 years. Of course, I am all in favour of experimental art, whether it is painting or literature, but its support is best left to the private patron who can take a chance and who can back an artist or a writer the quality of whose work is still in doubt.
On the aspect of backing poets, it would be a very good thing if more of us were to subscribe to the small magazines that do so much good. I was astonished at the number quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Willis. Five or six of the most important include, Agenda, New Poetry, the New Review, the London Magazine and Outpost, which is very good. I looked in your Lordships' Library and found that we subscribe to two of those. If your Lordships thought it right, I would suggest to the Librarian that we should subscribe to three or four others, because that would be one way of helping new poets get their works published. We do not have to back the man directly; there is an editor between us and the poet to select the poems. I should like to see those publications in the Library. However, I do not think that direct subsidies should be increased unless evidence of quality exists. As far as I know, public funds are now sufficient to get poems of reasonable quality published by someone.
I wonder whether the readership will ever grow. I suppose that it was much greater in Tudor times than it is now because, of course, there were not so many other activities in which people could take an interest. It might grow. I should like to conclude by trying to answer that question with a quotation from Wallace Stevens, who is my favourite American poet. He wrote to a friend that everyone should like poetry as children like snow; and that we would all like it that way if only poets wrote it well. Let us hope that the coming generation of poets will write well and will find a growing public for their art.
3.32 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I follow the noble Lords who have spoken with a certain diffidence which is foreign to my character. I am emboldened to speak on this admirable subject, proposed so ably and with such great courage by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, because of the attitude of my colleagues—who, happily, are sitting around me here—at the Party meeting at which we discussed poetry. When my noble Leader—to whom I yield to no one in my admiration—came to raise the matter he said, "God bless my soul, poets and poetry—do we have a poet?" All my noble colleagues, who are absolutely marvellous on the social services and other subjects—my noble friend Lady Seear knows more about the economy—said, "Good gracious, who do we have?" Eventually when no one spoke up—they all faltered—I said that I would speak, whereupon my noble Leader looked at me and I could see the thoughts passing through his mind: "Mackie is sound on agriculture and bearable on forestry, but poetry? God bless my soul what are we coming to!" However, with great English forbearance he said," Of course, George, if you want to speak, do speak". He looked round wildly for support from his colleagues who all hung their heads in shame, wondering what the devil was going to come when Mackie rose to speak about poetry.
The point I seek to make is that my English colleagues in particular—we did not have a Welshman present—think that poetry is a very different thing and does not belong to ordinary life. As the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said, one appreciated it 50 years ago when one was young, but now, 50 years later, one looks at the cost and deplores the fact that there is no poet worth hearing. I am afraid that that is the attitude which prevails throughout most of your Lordships' House. People believe that poetry is a thing apart. Eventually at our meeting someone had an inspiration and said, "Viscount Barrington is a real poet". Looking at me in a scathing way he said, "We will get him to speak".
I want to speak because I think that poetry should be for many people—people of action, people who are great men in other spheres. Everyone should be interested in poetry and gain pleasure
998
from it, as everyone really has. It is only as they get older that they appear to cultivate gravitas or something and forget about the pleasure that they have had from poetry in the past. I believe that England suffers more from this than other places. I went to China in a delegation with the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, and I was astonished to find that Chairman Mao's poetry was widely published and widely read. Indeed, I was even more astonished to find that I read it myself and gained a great deal of pleasure, particularly from his early poems on the Long March; many of them were absolutely beautiful. When he became old and became the Head of State in 1961 he looked at the Women's Militia and in his book he said:
"How bright and brave they look shouldering five foot rifles on the parade ground, lit up by the first gleams of day; China's daughters of high aspiring minds, they love their battle array not silks and satins".
When he said that I thought that perhaps even Chairman Mao's poetry was deteriorating under the heaviness of the cares of State and that his early poetry was very much better. It was rather like our Prime Minister producing poetry today which would run something like:
"Against inflation I am steely,
And if I'm not, then so is Healey".
Nevertheless, in China poetry obviously had an enormous influence on all the people, and it was practised and enjoyed by leading people as a part of life.
I think that on this occasion I am entitled to say something about Scotland. I do not know any other nation whose national day is to celebrate their national poet. Burns Night means more to Scotsmen than probably anything else. I admit that it is strongly mixed with a desire to enjoy strong drink, but Burns allowed this when he said that
"Freedom and whisky gang the gither".
What I am afraid of, and why I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for initiating this debate, is that that genuine love of poetry is declining. At one time in Scotland one could go to the smallest village and if you were proposing the Immortal Memory, you had to be absolutely sure that you were on the ball. If you were slipshod or did not prepare, you could be certain that five or six people in that audience would pull you up and tear you to pieces thereafter.

999
Burns permeated the thinking of Scotland. He certainly permeated the political thinking. Much of the democratic spirit of Scotland is certainly due to the poetry of Burns. I should like to see it extend much further. I well remember a friend of mine in my own village who was a sergeant of police. He was a very good poet and knew acres of poetry, if I can put it that way, in agricultural fashion. He did not confine himself to Burns, but genuinely appreciated poetry. Up in far Dunbeath and Caithness I know a man called Joe Sutherland, the bard of Dunbeath. He writes excellent and amusing poetry; some of it is perhaps at not a very high level; but it is all in line and is the poetry of the people. The same is true on my own farm; poetry is appreciated by most of my men. But we need to do more to help it. That is why I think that, by the attendance of noble Lords and the number speaking in this debate, this House is doing a great service. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and I hope that all noble Lords will help to rescue poetry and poets from the position of "apartheid" which they hold at present.
3.40 p.m.
Lord HUTCHINSON of LULLINGTON: My Lords, as a newcomer to your Lordships' House it did not take me long to learn that the most alarming characteristic of the proceedings here is the depth and extent of the knowledge of those who take part in debates, as exemplified, if I may say so, by the last noble Lord to speak. As a mere advocate in the courts, I found myself very soon surrounded here by noble Lords—some learned, some friends—whose knowledge of the law of course far exceeded anything that ever emerges from the Central Criminal Court, so that when the noble Lord, Lord Willis, put down this Motion on poetry I must say that I breathed a sigh of relief that at last here in this House was a subject in the understanding of which knowledge really plays little part. So with due humility I felt perhaps that I might make an equal contribution.
I suppose that poetry is the manifestation of this nation's greatest and most particular genius. Poets are still honoured here, if only when they are doddering or dead. Naturally I thought that it would
1000
be appropriate to raid the great storehouse of British poetry for a relevant quotation. These words which I have found reflect correctly my own situation today:
"Lord Heygate had a troubled face,
His furniture was commonplace,
The sort of Peer who well might pass
For someone of the middle class.
I don't think you will want to hear
Much from this unimportant Peer".
But some importance has been thrust upon me, and I can declare an interest. It has not taken me very long in this House to appreciate that the phrase "declaring an interest" is really a polite way of saying, "I know very much more about this subject than anyone else who is going to take part in the debate." But my declaration, which I trust does not contravene the Official Secrets Act because it is in fact in relation to a QUANGO appointment, is that I happen to be Vice-Chairman of the Arts Council of—and I emphasise still—Great Britain.
I can assure your Lordships that poetry, which means poets, received very substantial support indeed in many imaginative ways from the Arts Council in England, Scotland and Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, mentioned a figure from the Arts Council budget devoted to literature. If I might bring that figure more up-to-date, I think in all three countries the figure is nearer £900,000 spent last year on literature, which is a little over 2 per cent. of the total budget. But I do not think that percentages are perhaps a sensible way of looking on this kind of division of money, when your Lordships appreciate that before one actor goes on to the stage in the National Theatre, or one customer goes through the doors, over £1 million has to be found to open those doors for that audience. It costs very much less to keep a poet warm.
In fact, of that amount about half a million pounds is spent in the furtherance of poets and poetry by the Arts Council in England, although it is difficult of course to extract exactly the amount which goes towards poetry rather than other forms of literature. How does that come about? There are a large number of headings, and I shall go through them quickly in order to assist your Lordships to have some idea of what the Council is doing for poetry. Poets come off better than novelists and other writers so far as the Arts Council is concerned.

1001
There are direct grants which enable poets to buy time to complete a work or task which they have.
I do not know why, but there is a view that poets should live on what they earn like other people, but the trouble is that they do not earn enough to live on and in a civilised society they have surely to be helped. There are the small presses, to which the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has already referred; £34,000 went to eight of them last year. They are the most enterprising lot of publishers. They may publish anything from two to 12 volumes in the year, volumes of poetry which no commercial publisher would think of publishing. There are the magazines; 12 of them last year supported to the extent of something over £80,000, and four of them entirely devoted to poetry.
There is the Poetry Society, to which the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has already referred—a very substantial sum of £60,000; some people would think too much. This remains to be seen, because that Society, as your Lordships will probably appreciate on what is supposed to be a non-controversial subject, was rent with internal dissensions over the years. Indeed, their headquarters are in Earl's Court Square, and rumour had it that one of the reasons why the Motor Show moved from Earls Court to Birmingham was that they could not put up with the noise which emerged from Earl's Court Square. But of that £60,000 no less than £20,000 is earmarked for public readings by poets up and down the country—this, too, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has referred to—in all sorts of places such as public houses, halls, and so on. They publish their own periodical, The Poetry Review, and they have a print shop in which any poet, if he so desires, can go and print a volume of his own works at cost price.
There are the creative writing fellowships. Last year no fewer than a dozen colleges and polytechnics received grants from the Council in order to employ writers—and of course some of them were poets—entirely on their own terms to lecture, to give seminars, to meet and help young people who are interested in poetry and literature. Something like £63,000 went towards that endeavour. Two schemes backed by the Council were
1002
Writers on Tour and Writers in Schools. Under the first, Writers on Tour, four or five authors may get together and go to some area in the country and spend a week in it giving lectures, going to meetings, going to schools, going to art centres. For Writers in Schools there is a long list of writers and authors. This is sent to schools, which then, of their own initiative, ask those writers whether they are prepared to come and talk to the schools.
Grants are made to the established publishers to asist them to publish works which they would not otherwise be able commercially to do. There is the Poetry Book Society, with 1,000 members, which guarantees that four times a year 1,000 copies of a new volume of poetry will be bought; and any noble Lords who would like an exercise in rejuvenation might be prepared to join that society. There is the Arts Council's annual poetry anthology, referred to by the noble Viscount, for which, as he said, no fewer than 42,000 entries were received last year. There is the poetry library at the Arts Council, the best library in the country for poetry from which anyone can take out any work, for nothing. Then there is the new venture which the Arts Council has been backing, the non-profit distributing bookshops, of which 10 or 12 have been opened in the last two years, and which afford yet another outlet for poets and writers.
That is the list setting out what the Council is doing for poetry. The Council's chartered duty is to develop and improve the knowledge and understanding and practice of the arts and to increase their accessibility to the public. I do not think noble Lords will disgaree with me when I say that that list shows without doubt that much is being done to develop and improve the knowledge and understanding of poetry and the accessibility of poetry to the public. Whether it can or ever will improve the practice of the art is, of course, a controversial question, and I appreciate that is an area on which I must not trespass today.
I end by saying that artists need help. Their lives are based on hard and disciplined work with, on the whole, very little personal reward. Of course, there is always the danger of the subsidised poet—of the literary lounger, of the intellectual charlatan who takes the bureaucrat for a

1003
spurious ride; but the Council are a hard headed lot, the staff is increasingly expert at the tender art of evaluation, and I sincerely hope they will always continue to dare much and make mistakes and sometimes fall flat on their faces because to stretch out to the edge of endeavour is never possible unless one sometines goes over that edge. Public debate such as we are having today is of inestimable value for the poet, for the public and for those who administer public funds on behalf of the arts. It is wholly appropriate that the first debate such as this in this House should be centred on our greatest art—that of poetry.
3.54 p.m.
Lord MILFORD: My Lords, I wish at the outset to thank the Government Whip and those who have given me the wonderful job of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, on his maiden speech. It was a speech full of hope, a positive speech, and I hope we shall hear very often from him in this House because he is such a civilising agent.
I also wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for bringing this matter before the House because we are discussing what in my view is one of the most important assets we have in Britain; we are debating part of the potential wealth of this country and we ask the Government to find a sum of money to help produce something that could last forever as part of the British treasure. We are asking for a sum which is absolutely minute compared with, for example, the vast sums we spend on arms, which are soon out of date and of which we already have enough to blow up the whole of humanity.
For me, there are two main approaches to this debate. The first is how to help poets who are struggling to live to go on with their work and help them feel they are producing something which the community wants. It must be so despairing to produce and put away in a folder sheet after sheet of paper on which one has put down one's deepest and intimate thoughts, experiences and dreams, which one hopes will be illuminating for other people though one can find no way to reach those people.
1004
It must lead to the most terrible frustration.
The visual arts are subsidised and visual artists can get jobs, part-time, teaching, and then have some time in which to do their own work; it may not be satisfactory and it may be frustrating, but it allows them to earn money and to get on with their work. Why can that not happen to writers and poets? Why can we not have poets and writers on the campus at universities in the way they do in America? At our older universities there are no live poets on the campus to give to, and receive from, students and staff. Why can we not have teaching careers for writers at art and technical colleges and universities? If they were allowed to be on the campus as writers teaching writing and poetry, it would be valuable for them to receive from the students and be able to give to the students, so creating a wonderful two-way traffic.
I come to my second hobby-horse, about which I have talked before in this House, though the remarks of Lord Hutchinson make mine sound rather gloomy because he is so positive about what is being done. I want to know how to get more people wanting to read, to listen to and to understand what poetry is about. I want them to know why it can be so enriching. How does one build a bridge between other craftsmen—builders, mechanics, engineers, carpenters and metal workers—and poets, who are craftsmen too? To many people in this country poets are not ordinary human beings. If you are asked in a pub, "What do you do, mate?" and you reply, "I'm a poet", the conversation will probably not last very long. That is a situation that I want to break down; that poets and writers are human beings doing a job like anybody else. We must subsidise the poet so that he can work at his art, but somehow we must also get the public to appreciate his work and be hungry for his produce.
Every child loves drawing, painting, playing some form of musical instrument and making up rhymes and verse. But what happens at about the age of 12? Does not education switch too much from the enriching humanities towards making young people useful for jobs in this commodities society in the future? Surely the balance of emphasis must be altered.

1005
We are moving into an era of shorter working hours, a shorter working week, more unemployment, and increased leisure time, and this leisure must be channelled into creativeness. The mass media must be more positive in showing what poetry, literature, and drama are about.
I welcome the Arts Council's appointment of an education liaison officer. It is a tremendous step forward to liaise between organisations providing the arts and organisations of education at all levels. At last the bridge may be built. The first major step should be to develop and improve knowledge, understanding and practice of the arts, and to co-operate with any other body in achieving this wonderful aim. It is tremendously important to encourage closer integration between the providers of education and the providers of the arts. It is especially important to do this for poetry and poets, and to break down the image of the preciousness and the unreality of poets, which is so widespread among ordinary people, in the tide of alienation which is fragmenting society. This is a job for the Minister for Education, and for any Minister for the Arts; and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, will have much to say on this point this afternoon.
Why is it that in Britain poets and artists appear to be on the other side of the fence, and not in the same field as the rest of the workers? I recall being in Chile a few years ago, and there was Neruda reading his poetry down the mines, and those listening were enthralled. Why should that differ so much from what happens here? If one went at lunch time into a factory, got on to a platform and read poetry while the workers were all eating, would it, or would it not, go down well? I should like to try such a thing. During the war, for instance, we used to go around speaking in factories on all kinds of subjects while the workers were eating, and they listened. I remember on one occasion a jazz band visiting a factory. We were all singing songs, and people listened. Why can that not be done with poetry?
In 1977 the Arts Council ran the first ever conference on adult education and the arts, as I discovered in a report I read today, and the places for the conference were over-subscribed. There were equal
1006
places for both the art providers and the adult education providers. This year and next year there are to be similar conferences all over the country, embracing schools, colleges and universities. This is a tremendous beginning—
Baroness WHITE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to suggest that he comes back to Wales and attends our local Eisteddfod as well as the national one. There he will hear plenty of Welsh poetry.
4.5 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, there is hope for Britain. I cannot see any other assembly in the world devoting its time to what some people would consider an esoteric subject, such as the destiny of poetry and how we are to help poets. How little do people know that the spring of creation itself came from the proper use of the word! One opens Genesis and one sees that first there was the word—the miracle of semantics. This is the great secret of the poet. It is the poet who has moved nations to greatness. We do not want to look only to the intellectual, who is concerned with thinking; God help him if he cannot feel as well! Essentially the best poet can balance intellectuality with tactility or feeling; and that is the greatness of poetry. I see that I am to be honoured by being followed in the debate by a poet, the noble Viscount, Lord Barrington, who may, in his own philosophical way, have a few words to add on this subject. First, as a matter of courtesy, I wish to thank the maiden speaker for an informative, constructive, and vital speech that will be of great use to the House and to the nation. I thank the noble Lord for digging into the caverns of bureaucracy, where he has shed some light, even if only from a sixpenny flashlight. We need more of this.
Swinburne, talking of the living world, said:
"Change in a trice
The lilies and languors of virtue
For the raptures and roses of vice".
That is the kind of world in which we are living at the moment. I also wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for having the genius to raise this subject for debate; and he has a touch of the great divine spark too. God help me if

1007
I am to keep my speech to about 10 minutes because this is a brilliant subject, dealing with the conditions of poetry and poets in Britain.
When I was a child we were forced to use our memory, to learn poetry by heart and by rote, and this proved so valuable as one grew older. The philosophy of Shakespeare meant very little to me when I had to analyse it in English. It bored me, and sometimes when I was a little child it made me cry because I did not get the right moods or the right strength. No one speaks now of weak and strong verbs in the English language. I have books all around me, and sometimes at night I open a page of one of them and see a work of Shakespeare's that I learned when I was nine, 10 or 12 years old. It contains a whole gamut of human activity and human philosophy.
One of the tragedies today seems to be that Her Majesty's Inspectors of schools—I know this from my own lecturing and teaching days—seem to think that it is not right for children to learn to recite verses of poetry in chorus. I recall listening to children at one time in a Welsh school in wild Cardiganshire. They were in a little classroom in the hills—I can see it now. They recited for instance: "Under the spreading chestnut tree…" Oh, the rhythm of it! There would be 40 little brats reciting. Their eyes were alight. I can remember the joy of seeing a windmill brought to life:
"Behold, here I stand, the windmill, and with my jaws I grind …"
et cetera. They were great experiences, and life was colourful, even if you did not have a penny in your pocket.
It is no good thinking only about intellectuals when you come to poetry. What of the quarrymen, the colliers, the fishermen? What of the fishermen of Scotland, those around Mull? I recall once going to a fisherman's funeral there. Those great strong men ooze with poetry, and they are not ashamed to admit that they love the rhythm of their language, as well as the effect of their speech on their motive forces. We must do something about it; it is part of Britain's inheritance.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, made a great point when he reminded us that,
1008
had there been royalties on the reproduction of Shakespeare these last 300 years, they would have paid the National Debt. He is probably right. Virgil, in one of his great phrases uttered the words, "lacrimae rerum"—the tears of things. It is a strong and noble phrase, covering man's passage from his cowering in prehistoric caves to the height of his greatness or his achievement in technical and communication systems, and to the utmost depth of his folly in an oil-polluted, warfaring world, capable of destroying what was supposed to be God's greatest achievement—man. Wordsworth spoke of,
"the still, sad music of humanity".
It is not now so still; and certainly, with its cacophony and the barbaric warp which it pitches over the world, not so musical.
We are apt to forget that massive inventiveness in producing the machines of war and destruction—or, for that matter, great ingenuity in producing wonderful labour-saving tools like computers, laser beams and now, for the lazy schoolboy, cheap calculators to do his tables and his sums—is not necessarily the measure of the strength and level of our culture, or of our civilisation. We now have the means to produce enough for mankind to live in moderate comfort; and yet fear, mistrust and the dark hood of tragedy are probably more widespread now than at any time. The fact that, this week, somewhere in the world, 400 people have committed suicide as a result of some kink in their mental set-up, some kink in the dark black magic of their religous belief, hardly moves the people of Britain that much. It is accepted through the massive media of modern times as a speck on the motion of mankind towards either his destiny or his death. To people like myself, it is just amazing. One wonders: Why is it? What is happening? Those are the tears of things that Virgil talked about, and they are now flowing more freely than ever.
There was a flowering of learning—of literature, music and poetry—during the Elizabethan period, but let us not forget that there were only four million people on this little island in those days. The lovely loneliness that mankind desires—solitude—was there. If you had a pair of strong legs, you could get to it in

1009
five minutes. Now the wen of our great cities, the raucous noise of our engines and our machines, is making man more neurotic than a March hare. He is not able to sit still. Today I drove in one of man's machines from Golders Green to Westminster, and people were grinding their teeth, making signs to each other, going round the bend faster than Davies was coming to this noble House. This is what is happening to man, and he thinks he is doing well. Then he swanks to his neighbour while he wipes and washes his little machine on a Sunday instead of bothering to meditate and think why he has been put upon this earth. It is no good, because he is destined to finish himself, anyway.
My Lords, one other thing. The English Renaissance was fed by many streams of literature, poetry and science; they were all there in the time of Queen Elizabeth I. Shakespeare's first known poem was Venus and Adonis, and was dedicated to his patron, the Earl of Southampton. It was Ben Jonson who contemporaneously said of Shakespeare:
"He was not for an age, but for all time".
What patronage will you get today? asked the noble Lord from the other Bench. The possibility of winning a prize on Littlewoods Pools is the height of most people's amibition today; and they go crazy every Sunday or Saturday night, seeing what they have drawn. Then they utter a great meteororic phrase if they win one-third of a million, and it is three words long: "Spend, spend, spend!" In that kind of world we need more poetry. Man must have time to stand and stare. It was a tramp, not an intellectual, who wrote the beautiful lines:
"The rainbow and a cuckoo's song
May never come together again;
May never come
This side of the tomb.
What is this life if, full of care,
We have no time to stand and stare".
What are we missing? If, in its own small way, this debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, makes only a few hundred people in Britain think about these things when Hansard is published, it will add some grains to the rock of British greatness.
In the past many of the poets, dramatists and writers depended on patronage. Those days are finished. We do not want patronage; we do not want to be
1010
subservient. The nation as such can do what it is doing, as was pointed out by our maiden speaker; but we need more. If we sold only one of our jet planes it would subsidise what we are aiming at for quite a generation. I was going to mention some of the organisations like the Society for Poetry, but I notice the time—twelve minutes. The time has gone very quickly; it has whistled by. There are papers like Penguin New Writing—and I want to pay a tribute to Penguin. Oh! if I had the opportunity to quote some of the Welsh verse from The Penguin Book of Welsh Verse. I congratulate Penguin on getting them together. There they are—colliers, intellectuals, judges, doctors, lawyers, ploughmen, who have contributed to the thinking of Wales. If only, in modern civilisation, it was as simple to produce an improved type of poet as it is to produce a laser beam, a television set or a tank, what a world it would be! That is just a cry from my heart.
The advance of technology, our conquest of space and so on—none of these things has given us a new Shakespeare. Can a new type like that come again? I should like to ask the Government how they are further enlarging (this is information which I did not know before, but which has now been given to us) the channels through which new and well-known poets can experiment. I deprecate the tendency that has grown up in our schools—and I hope the Ministry of Education will do something about it—to clamp down on learning passages of great literature by heart, by memory or by rote, whichever you want to say. The schools are thereby taking away some of the best of the British heritage—Welsh, English and Scotch. In the schoolrooms and in those lower schools kids can learn reams of stuff". I could keep your Lordships here by quoting from Penny Poets, dated 1896. In my study I have Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained, Thomson's Seasons. They are all there, and they cost a penny. I guarantee they are worth about five guineas each now, those little booklets. They were published in their thousands in the 1900s. People then believed in something beyond just bare material things.
My Lords, it is nearly time to finish, and I want to quote Sir Isaac Foot. There is none of the great Foot family

1011
in the House today; but I have copies of The Listener right back to 1934, and I remembered the right honourable Sir Isaac Foot—and the Lords Spritual will appreciate this—speaking on the 400th anniversary of the production of the English Bible. If you look at The Listener for 30th March 1938, you will see that it contains a marvellous speech by Sir Isaac Foot, and I shall finish with this out of sympathy for noble Lords listening.
Before the war, the right honourable Sir Issac Foot gave out his basic belief that the loss of the English Bible would mean—and do not let me pose as a great devout Christian; I am an ordinary type of guy who is trying to do his best—that we would no longer be the same people. He praised, on the 400th anniversary of the printing of the Bible and its translation into English, the simplicity, strength and beauty of the language; and then he quoted a trade union leader of the Tolpuddle Martyrs, George Loveless. The leader of the Tolpuddle Martyrs was sentenced to transportation. If your Lordships take the trouble to look up the trade union report of the Tolpuddle Martyrs, published some years ago, to read the letters of Loveless or his defence speech in the dock, you would be astonished. Sir Issac Foot wrote:
"Where did this village labourer get his style? Where did he get the noble simplicity of his diction and the majesty of his phrase? The answer is simple. This unschooled peasant was a devout student of his Bible".
We should know, too, that the Bible was put into English at the price of men's blood: Tyndale, Cranmer, Frith, Rogers were all roasted at the stake in that mad world which had the same craziness about religious differences. This beautiful and noble language, through the blood of man now put into English, was in jeopardy. This miracle is one which is forgotten. It is worth, even if a man is an agnostic, to know the beautiful flow of it.
In 1536, when English was forced on to the Welsh people, we had the translation of the Welsh Bible. The language is beautiful. Here I will finish with this question. How many people get a small pension who are poets? What help is there for the National Eisteddfod? There should be something. One of the great heroes who won the Chair at the National Eisteddfod in Birkenhead in 1917 was
1012
killed on the Western Front six weeks before the award; and he was remembered and is still remembered. Fortunately, for many years the Welsh Eisteddfod has encouraged the Chairing of the Poet. I never reached those heights myself, but in my grammar school I got second place. I pinched three-quarters of a poem, I admit. We were not forced, but encouraged, to do all we could to write.
Finally, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and to the maiden speaker, and I hope that although this may not set England aflame for poetry, at least the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has set alight a sparklet that will encourage the poets of Britain today.
4.24 p.m.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, I have often been embarrassed in this House when rising to speak when I had no notes and did not know what to say. I would like to begin by three messages of thanks. It is a great privilege, as always, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. I have done it before. He said so much better than I could have done many of the things that I should have liked to have said, and said it at such length and with such brilliance that he got me a little confused at one point.
I entirely agreed with him as to what he said about Man's position here, and I jotted down a note about,
"Man, proud man,
Dressed in a little brief authority".
And I noticed with an unconscious Spoonerism that I had turned "Man" into Adam, and dressed him in a "brittle, leaf authority."
As we have only a short time to speak, I should like next to thank the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for introducing the subject particularly so appropriately on St. Cecilia's Day. Whether that was deliberate I do not know. Whether St. Cecilia is the patron Saint of poets—well, the words about "Voice and Verse" we all know. If she is not, then I suppose that St. John is; because the noble Lord who has just spoken attributed to Genesis some words at the beginning of St. John's Gospel:
"In the beginning was the Word …".
I feel that if we can now come down to the subject of "words", and if I can then

1013
sit down as quickly as possible, I will help this debate in the only way I can.
I am also embarrassed because the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, whose speech I followed with great interest and agreement, made one remark I should like to contradict. He said that I was a poet. I am not a poet; I have never been one, much as I should like to be. That brings me to the only point that I can possibly contribute to this debate.
No mention has been made here as to the subject which took up Professor Housman's lecture on "The Name and Nature of Poetry", a long time ago—the difference between Poetry and Verse. He made a very clear distinction, and I believe that it would help; especially because the only point I want to make (in agreement with everyone else) is that all of this is a question of hearing, and of getting into one's memory. We know all about
"the poet's eye in a fine frenzy of rolling".
We have all heard of
"the voice of the Bard who present, past and future sees",
but most poetry and verse are matters of hearing (because they both began before writing was invented) and, above all, of memory.
I believe that it is necessary for people now to realise that there is a distinction between these. The only distinction I can make is that you can have verse which is not poetry, verse which is poetry, poetry which is not verse, and something that is not poetry and not verse. I do not know if I can make that any clearer, except by saying that most people recognise that a limerick is verse but not necessarily poetry; and it can be bad verse or good verse. Many limericks are brilliant. To take two examples of limericks which are deliberately bad, one refers to
"… the young man of Japan
Who wrote verses that no one could scan.
When they said that 'the thing
Doesn't go with a swing',
He replied, 'No, my object is to get as many syllables as possible into the last line as I conceivably can'."
Most people would realise that that rather breaks the form of a limerick. Another one, written, I think, by the same writer, who was a brilliant versifier, W. S. Gilbert, runs as follows:
1014
"There was a young man of St. Bees
Who was stung in the arm by a wasp.
When they said, 'Does it hurt?'
He replied, 'No, it doesn't.
I'm so glad it wasn't a hornet'."
One of them was perfectly right on metre and the other perfectly right on rhyme. But poetry does not necessarily mean metre or rhyme; although for all of us who were brought up on Palgrave's Golden Treasury or anything up to the Oxford Book of English Verse, or anything up to the beginning of the First World War—when poetry took a new line—it meant to us, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, said:
"Beneath the spreading chestnut tree
De dum, de dum, de dum …"
As an example of something which is both poetry and verse, I will not quote the whole of the Ode to the West Wind by Shelley. It is in a complicated metre, it ryhmes completely, and I do not think anyone would say that it is not poetry. It also has one of the few things that poetry has in common with verse. Most people remember the last line:
"If winter comes can Spring be far behind?",
which is really what we are talking about in this debate.
If one wants an example of something that is poetry but not verse, although it may have been verse in the original Hebrew, like any of the Psalms, I suggest a passage like:
"Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them".
These are words which "vibrate in the memory", just as, to pick another quotation:
"Music when soft voices die
Vibrates in the memory".
Very few people can forget these things, though there is no rhyme, nor metre. That is poetry without being verse.
If one wants an example of neither verse nor poetry, I suppose one could have taken a railway timetable, which at one time was useful—perhaps more useful that it is now. Instructions on a railway are not meant to be verse, and are not meant to be poetry. It is only accidental if you get: "No smoking after Woking."
The point I should like to come to is how can one help poets as opposed to versifiers? My feeling is that, although

1015
all the other arts can be helped by money, poetry is one that cannot. A poet, as distinct from a versifier, is essentially not a professional but an amateur. That fits in with what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, said about it being the most human of the arts. You can be a professional musician without being necessarily a very good musician. You can be a professional potter, you can be a professional at all the other arts; but I do not believe that it is possible to be a professional poet.
In the days of the Second World War there was a regrettable lyric about trees:
"Poems are made by fools like me;
But only God can make a tree".
On the lines that "God helps those who help themselves" one can adapt this to say:
"Poetry helps some fools who know it;
But only God can help a poet".
Only He can. Poetry is one of the things that either comes or goes, like the rainbow. All encouragement should be given to it; and great encouragement is given by this debate to the fact that it should be heard as well as seen.
The reason why poetry is the most difficult of the arts is that a poet is trying to do so many things at the same time. He is trying to compress time and eternity together. My Lords, I have already been speaking for 10 minutes, without saying much that I wanted to say. That is far too long. I do not know whether your Lordships will remember this:
"To see a world in a grain of sand;
And heaven in a wild flower;
To hold infinity in the palm of your hand;
And eternity in an hour".
That is what poetry is trying to do. "The lunatic, the lover and the poet" are all classified together by Shakespeare. The Peer is not included. But Peers have been classified together with lunatics and poets, and I think that we should help the noble Lord, Lord Willis, in every way.
Lastly, I want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. I was studying law at the same time as he was and, in order to get through the examinations, I remember putting into verse the case of Lasky v. Maloney. It was a verse of only eight lines, but I can still remember it. Verse is easy to memorise,
1016
poetry is not. Poetry goes deeper down, but is more important.
4.35 p.m.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for introducing this debate. I am a member of the union of which he is president. He is a very effective president. I cannot help feeling that the Prime Minister must wish that the presidents of all the other unions were as amenable and effective as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, is. He has been particularly silent about the important part of the Queen's Speech regarding the introduction of the public lending right. We hope that during this Session of Parliament this immensely important step forward regarding the recognition of the rights of writers, including poets, will take place. We are particularly obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for that Bill.
I join with other speakers in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, on his maiden speech. It was particularly helpful and it eroded a large part of what I had prepared to say about what the Arts Council is doing. We also count on him, now that he has joined us, to get us all off the various charges which might be preferred against us in the future.
I should like to raise a number of crucial points. I am somewhat disappointed in what the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said about the present state of poetry. I was brought up to believe that for 600 years a distinguished, if not great, lyric poet has been writing in English. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, the belief that the chief glory of this country lies in its poetry. I cannot believe that after 600 years for some sudden unexpected reason the wells of poetry have run dry. If it seems to people as cultivated and sympathetic as the noble Viscount that poetry which is now being written is not as distinguished as the poetry that he was brought up to enjoy, there may be a number of reasons for that.
One reason has been admirably covered by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson: there has not been sufficient patronage given to poets. It is a myth that in the past poets did not get a living wage. A large number of poets throughout our history have been paid in one form of

1017
another, either for their production or they have been subsidised by wealthy people, colleges or whatever it may be. That is something which is very important and should be continued by the Arts Council. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Willis, the hope that industry and the trade unions will extend their beneficence in this direction. The educational institutions—certainly those to which I have been attached—are already doing so, as has been mentioned.
There are two other points which are important. First, there can be little doubt that the audience for poetry is diminishing. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, made a very important point when he referred to the way in which the enjoyment of rhythm in speech, by ordinary people and by cultivated people, is declining in this generation as compared with generations that have preceded this one. I cannot help feeling that that has something to do with the educational system, and, in particular, with the way that English is now taught in our schools. There has been a revolution in the teaching of English, a revolution which is to be welcomed in many respects because it is concerned with the cultivation of the moral values, the sense of moral values, through the medium of creative literature in the classroom. But in the process of encouraging children to express themselves and, through expressing themselves, to understand the diversity, width and breadth of moral expression, the ordinary learning of verse and how verse is constructed has diminished.
One of the reasons why people are less interested now in rhyme, in rhythm and in the way in which English is actually spoken is the very simple fact that as a result of this pedagogical revolution in our schools, poetry is no longer taught or learned as it has been for hundreds of years in all four countries of the United Kingdom. Obviously, I would not wish to go back to the old styles of teaching method, but I would hope very much that as the pedagogical progress takes place there will be some attempt to recapture the sense of the value of spoken English and, in particular, the rhythms of our enormously rich language. I know that in this I have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, with his very great experience.
1018
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, also raised another point which is really the second major point I want to make this afternoon; that is, that an enormous amount of pressure in modern society in the official classes exists in fact to kill the sense of English as a living, vital language which goes right back to the time of Chaucer and before. The noble Viscount, Lord Barrington, quoted:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God".
Those of us who have the misfortune to continue to go to the Church of England every Sunday and listen to Series 3, which is of course utterly different from the prayers with which your Lordships' House begins its daily considerations, will know that that magic phrase has been abolished by the Church of England. Whereas the clergyman used to read out:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God",
he now reads out:
"When all things began the Word already was. The Word dwelt with God, and what God was the Word was".
This is a classic example of the total destruction of any sense of meaning of phrase or rhythm in the very, very first words of the foundation of the Christian faith as we have been brought up to believe it.
Several noble Lords: Hear! hear!
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, we can go right through the whole of Series 3 and in particular that atrocious production, The New English Bible, and see what has happened to English. That is why, in my view, the sense of understanding of poetry as an ordinary living thing is being killed. No incipient Tolpuddle martyr could now go to any church and hear any kind of English that is actually worth listening to. Take, for example, the very simple phrase, "and with Thy spirit". In the modern church, they now say, "and also with you". If people cannot sense the difference between what one phrase is drawing upon and what the other phrase is drawing upon, then in fact the sense of English language has disappeared, and it is not at all surprising that the sense of poetry has also disappeared.
The MINISTER of STATE DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My

1019
Lords, the noble Lord is not doing quite justice to the Church. Series 3 is voluntarily adopted in some parishes and is in no sense universal. I am glad to say that in my parish we have the old system still existing.
Lord VAIZEY: It is always wise, my Lords, to go to church with the noble Lord because he, like other eminent people, seems to be able to have an influence on the vicar. It is certainly not true, I am afraid, of the churches which I attend.
Several noble Lords: Hear, Hear!
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, take for example, one other shift that has been made. The Te Deum has been changed from:
"We praise Thee, O God. We acknowledge Thee to be the Lord"
to
"You are God, we praise You".
If God does not know he is God, I cannot imagine what He is doing. We used to say:
"O, Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world".
This has been changed to:
"Lamb of God, You take away the sins of the world".
I could go on, if time permitted, to give many more examples of the way in which the Church of England and other official institutions have simply radically destroyed the language, the historic language, which takes us right back to the original foundations of English. When you do that, what you do is to destroy utterly the sense and meaning of the greatest part of English literature. You make it literally impossible for children to understand what our great poets have written about. Therefore, for example, in the past when people could go to the theatre and see Sir Henry Irving in Shakespeare, the Shakespeare which they were hearing on the stage bore a very real resemblance to the Shakespeare which they were hearing in church on Sunday and, indeed, in the streets. Now, the language which they are hearing in the Royal Shakespeare Theatre—perhaps the greatest productions that there have been in the theatre for many generations—is, for them, not connected to any ordinary experience in ordinary daily life.
1020
It is for that reason that I hope the noble Lord the Minister for the Arts, and other noble Lords who have influence in their parishes—perhaps the noble Lord the Minister for the Arts represents rectors of parishes: I hope he does—will represent people who believe in the old form of service. I hope also that the schools will once more return to attempting to teach the great traditions of English spoken poetry.
4.46 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, like everyone else who has spoken, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for having given us this opportunity, which I think is a remarkable thing, to debate this subject, so that in the moment of our dismay and decline, as people keep on reminding us, we ought also to remind ourselves that we have a concealed, if not invisible, asset in the form of our poets and our literature. This is something which is very important. I claim no virtue as a poet. Your Lordships will be glad to know that any attempts at poetry I ever made—which were very good!—were lost in the London blitz. No one has been examined on them, or suffered from them. The only other claim I can make is that I was a chairman of the Metrication Board and I ought to have known about conversion into metres but I never quite got around to it in poetry. I also want to thank, as we have all done, the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, for his maiden speech. It was not only fascinating, as we always condescend to say of maiden speeches, but explored the facts and was full of information and real encouragement.
This occasion—I think we have all said it—is unique. We very rarely get around to looking at our meaningfulness. We discuss all the things that are affecting our means of existence but we never get around to discussing the meaningfulness of that existence. This is true of this moment of our existence when we are trying very hard to achieve material satisfaction for everyone. I should like to remind your Lordships that one of the winners of the Newdegate Prize for Poetry was Julian Huxley, who, a propos of the Welfare State, said:
"After the Welfare State, the fulfilment state".
If we are going to acquire any merit or durable sense in the course of history we

1021
have to transform the Welfare State into the Fulfilment State and the people we have to release for fulfilment are, in fact, those with natural talents and practical aptitudes and skills, whom we want more than anything else to vitalise our way of life. Beyond everything else, I believe we have to release the natural genius of our people.
I am not saying that every one of us is a poet: what they have to discover is that they have within themselves the resources to find meanings that other people do not find in life. Otherwise, we are going to finish up with total cultural bankruptcy. We are going to have a cultural monochrome and everyone will simply be accepting the standards of everybody else. We have to find a way of releasing this quality, which is the discrimination of one personality from another, without rejecting but adding up to a totality. We have got a cultured society in that sense, but each one must find some way within his own nature and capacities a contribution which makes him, in his own terms, unique.
We have discussed how you encourage poetry. I have my own scruples, like many others, about how far you can ultimately feather-bed poets and artists without lulling their genius into fashion-ability. But there are certain things you can do. One of the great problems which is implicit in our discussion today is the frustration of poets—and I know many poets—and the fact that they cannot see themselves in print. We have been told that there are all kinds of opportunities, but the fact is that you can write poetry and then put it in the deep freeze. But, mainly, a poet wants somehow to communicate that poetry. We have the printed word, which is limited in the sense of access, or distribution of the talent of poets. I was thinking of the poets with whom I grew up. This is not boasting, but I was included among their friends. But what would have happened if we had not had the BBC at the time when Louis MacNeice and W. H. Auden were trying to break through? They found their way into the media at that time.
One of the biggest contributions that the BBC has made is in the fact that it gave a living to people like Louis McNeice and Dylan Thomas. I still remember the Stag and the Hounds, and the discussions between Dylan Thomas and Louis
1022
MacNeice as to how they were going to get their next week's rent, which they usually got from the BBC. There must be some encouragement. I am not asking for automatic grants with which to provide poets; there is no such thing. You cannot buy creativity; you can only release it. Therefore, if you are to do any good you must provide the springs by which this inspirational source, which I believe to be in all of us, can find an outlet and a community of concern.
This is something which the Government—I am not laying any burden upon the Government—can encourage, together with the Arts Council and everybody else. We must invent something in this country which will take into account not only the archival resources which we have, in terms of the poets of our past. As has been said, if we gathered the royalties of Shakespeare, we would not have a national debt. If we could collect the royalties of Robert Burns in the USSR, we would not need North Sea oil. What is it that is recognised there? There is a commitment to the universal values of our national bard. But how did it happen that "My love is like a red, red rose" is printed in 100 languages? How did it happen that the sales of Robert Burns in the USSR are so great, and not just because it is a big country. His work is being printed in the original which the aesthetes, the selected few, will be reading, but it is also printed in Russian translation in the USSR.
What is the secret? It is that there is a carrier wave of poetry. That is the programme wave into which you tune and discover something. They have discovered, "A man's a man for a' that". That was the carrier wave of Robert Burns' poetry. How can we find ways to release these capacities? I shall not criticise our educational system. I want only to say that we need a greater input into our educational system of the recognition that each and every child has the possible spark of an aptitude, which may be music, poetry or something else. But you should never have to wait until you grow up to discover that.
In science, we say that science is asking why; the everlasting question. Every child asks why, and every teacher says, in effect, "You cannot understand that, until you know all about kinetics and

1023
dynamics". The moment you have rejected that curiosity, you have dulled that child's appreciation, and it is happening similarly and all the time in our poetry, in our literature and so on. We have been told that you have to understand something, before you can appreciate its significance. It is not like that at all. What you have to do is to provide the means by which a child without feeling obligated and without having the set pieces that we had, can discover poetry. Of course, we woke up in the night, just as my noble friend Lord Davies did, and picked up Shakespeare and looked at the passages that we were compelled to learn. But how often have we thought of those passages in relation to anything we did in our lifetime? The point is that it has to be spontaneous. All I am asking for, beyond the Welfare State, is the Fulfilment State.
4.56 p.m.
Lord KILMARNOCK: My Lords, I suspect that the most commonly-held view of poetry is that it should be left to fend for itself; that it requires only inspiration, pen and paper, and that if it is any good it will emerge mysteriously in some way or other. That may well be our loss. I here declare an interest, like the noble Lord, Lord Willis, as a consumer. I read very little except poetry for pleasure. When I have done my duty by the papers, Hansard, papers for the sub-committee on which I sit and other homework consisting of more or less jargon-laden reports, I simply cannot stomach any more prose, even good prose. I read no novels, unless they are by friends. The marvellous quality of good poetry is that it compresses a great deal into relatively few words, and yet is never so hermetic or esoteric as to be impenetrable, though sometimes one may have to tussle with it a little. But that is no bad thing.
I believe that the pattern of modern life would lead a great many more people to turn to contemporary poetry for refreshment and stimulus, if it were more widely current, more readily available and more generally in evidence. I know that there are prizes, anthologies, poetry reviews and satirical verses in intellectual weeklies, some of which we have heard about this afternoon, but not much of this spills over into the average person's life.
1024
Poetry remains a distraction of the cultural élite. This is not its proper role. What has gone wrong?
First, we must look at the poet himself. If he is rejected by his fellows, as an idle babbler on the banks of the mainstream of industrial life, is it not to be expected that he will give himself up to introspection and private fantasy? Of course, it is a chicken-and-egg question, because the more pronounced his withdrawal the less he will be needed, and the less he is needed the further he will withdraw, until a point is reached when there seems to be no possibility of his ever returning to the market place, where story tellers and ballad makers flourished before the age of literacy. What does this matter, some may ask. We are all literate now. Bards were for simple folk in the past. We do not need them any more. My Lords—I speak soberly and without hyperbole—we need them quite desperately.
One of the most important functions of poetry is to return meaning to language. Our language is being eroded daily by widely accepted variants, such as UN-English, Euro-English and the type of English used in many international organisations. However free his associations, or however gnomic his utterance, no poet abuses language in the way that not only bureaucrats but the rest of us do constantly all the time. The true poet aims at accuracy greater than that of a machine tool, at a breathtaking approximation to experience. His role is therefore quite vital. He is not, or ought not to be, just a fringe figure catering for addicts of the slim volume such as myself. He is an important member of society. When language becomes or turns into abstract gobbledygook, our capacity for clear, honest thought will simply disappear. With his intense concern for language, the poet stands between us and this appalling threat.
We need him no less than he needs us. So where shall we meet? This really is the point of this debate, for which we are so indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Willis. We have heard something about the forums and meeting places. We have heard the record of the Arts Council, ably presented by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, whom I should very much like to congratulate on his speech. I should like to add two more

1025
suggestions. First, I turn to Spain, where poets were highly valued literary craftsmen with a recognised place in society from the Middle Ages until 1939, when General Franco's victory obliged them to carry their lamps and their fuel into exile.
One of their most important outlets was the local Press. Antonio Machado—in my estimation one of the three greatest poets writing in the Spanish language in this century—contributed for years to El Porvenir Castellano, which was one of six papers, no less, serving the provincial capital of Soria, which had a population of under 6,000. Later, when events began to build up towards the Civil War, his work appeared regularly in the Diario de Madrid, and from November 1935 regularly in El Sol until the outbreak of war, when he put his pen and his life at the service of the Republic. This is as if T. S. Eliot or W. H. Auden had been allotted substantial regular—not occasional but regular—space in a national daily tabloid.
Returning to this country, poets are not likely to get much out of public lending right, although I sympathise with the Bill which will shortly be back for a third time in your Lordships' House, but I do not see why their associations or writers' cooperatives should not sound out local newspaper editors. And when the paper is resistant, is not this when the local body responsible for stimulating the arts—the Regional Arts Association or the local council—might properly intervene to buy space, regular space, and thus create a regional forum for poets? This might be more effective—it would certainly achieve wider circulation at less cost—than the little magazines. The idea might also be applicable to sound radio.
When a poet has published a number of poems in the Press or in reviews, it is natural that he should want to issue a collection. Unfortunately, the slim volumes we used to know have largely disappeared. I have been looking through some of the Faber and Cape editions of the 1930s and 1940s and they are almost perfect containers for their wares; in the most practical sense they are easier to handle than a paper in trains or on the Underground. I think that this is an area of publishing where further support by the Arts Council should be seriously considered. A further point is that it
1026
could be beneficial to those emerging from polytechnics with diplomas in graphic design and typography seeking desperately where to apply their skills.
Finally—I have been asked to be brief—I repeat my conviction that a language which is not thoroughly irrigated by poetry will become so desiccated, so much a prey to shorthand formulae and jargon, that a threat will arise to meaning itself, with all the dangers that this would unleash for our daily social and political life.
5.2 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, we are going to go at a bit of a lick, so if Hansard will fasten their seatbelts I will help them out later on. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, caught the eye of the Muses and drew lucky in the ballot for today's short debate. I would also add my congratulations to the maiden speaker for one of the best informed maiden speeches that I have heard in this House.
It is a particular pleasure for me to take part in the debate, as my favourite types of literature are poetry and the modern detective novel: a combination which, for some odd reason or another, I think is shared by many people. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, is a distinguished practitioner of the latter form. However, to go from the sublime to the ridiculous, I should declare an interest, as I have a book of verse—and I stress that word—in print which brings me in royalties of about £14 a year. That royalty gives me more pleasure than anything else I earn, but I have to say that it did once occasion the most spectacular embarrassment I have ever suffered. The book was published when we on this side of the House were in Government and I had to submit it for vetting by the Cabinet Office. It is one thing to bare your soul to public and critical view, but it is quite another to have the same soul scrutinised for sources of potential political embarrassment.
I, at least, fared a little better than the late right honourable gentleman Mr. John Strachey, who was refused permission to publish a poem during the Attlee Government's period in Office. When he incredulously asked why, the Prime Minister rang him up and gave a characteristically terse answer: "Rotten poem. Doesn't rhyme

1027
and doesn't scan". I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, as Minister for the Arts in the present Government, when he comes to reply will give absolutely cast iron assurances to the Lords in Waiting on his own side of the House that if they wish to break into verse they will do so without such scrutiny.
As other noble Lords have pointed out, this House is no inappropriate forum for the debate. We have fielded two sublime poets, Byron and Tennyson, and a cluster of good ones. I am sorry to say that the noble Lord, Lord Byron, was no Conservative. Remembering his Lines on Castlereagh, I shudder to think what he would say about a modern conservative statesman of comparable world authority—Dr. Kissinger, for instance. The ancestor of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, I would say was first rate but unfortunately his best poems are unparliamentary in language. Lord Tennyson's name suggests that the Prime Minister should be ennobling more contemporary poets because they could certainly use the attendance allowance. If the later Hugh McDiarmid had been elevated, we would have had another Scottish Nationalist in the House to join my (until recently) noble friend Lord Belhelvie and Stenton, not to say another Communist to join the noble Lord, Lord Milford. If Mr. Basil Bunting, whom I would say is, with Mr. Graves and Mr. Larkin, our foremost poet today, came here, we would have a great and needed voice from Northumberland; and if we had Mr. Larkin we might even, I dare say, have yet another Tory in our midst.
When I tried to get briefing for this debate from organisations interested in the problems facing poets in this country, I was asked whether the debate would proceed along Party political lines. Of course, I answered, rather shocked, that it would not. On reflection, I think that this is perhaps a pity, as we know that the great problem facing contemporary poets is lack of patronage. In former times, they were on occasions quite well reimbursed for using their skills to attack or defend a political régime. Dryden's Absalom and Achitophel was instrumental in Shaftesbury's downfall—the only time that I can think of when a poem has brought down a Government. Byron's Don Juan, allied to his huge international
1028
following, which was comparable only with the rock stars of today, certainly did great harm to the Tories' foreign policy. Incidentally, Byron earned £12,000 in 1812 for that particular poem, which I think today would drive him into fiscal rather than sexual exile. Milton and Marvell held high office under Cromwell. Marvell wrote one of the subtlest and greatest political poems in the language, the Cromwell Ode, and assisted at The Lord Protector's funeral in the Abbey. Two years later, he was a Member of Parliament in the Restoration Parliament that voted to dishonour Cromwell by digging up his body and beheading it. But such political covering of bets did not stop him from being, in my opinion, a sublime poet. Milton faced the scaffold for a time after the Restoration, but in the end Charles II wanted him back working for the Administration of the day. Milton's wife urged him to do so but he replied, "You, Madam, would ride in your coach, but I will live and die an honest man". It would be pleasant, therefore, if we could debate poets and poetry occasionally in political terms. Our greatest poets certainly were not shy of doing so. Two recent poets of greatness, T. S. Eliot and W. H. Auden, were in the High Anglican, High Tory tradition which I try to serve politically, as were Swift and Pope before them. While on that subject, may I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, on a magnificent speech. I may not always follow him on incomes policies when we debate economic affairs, but on the liturgy he is terrific.
When I read great radical poets like Hugh McDiarmid and Pablo Neruda, it is often with fear as well as admiration. On the all-important issue of financial support for poets, the ill-fated Allende Government in Chile sent Neruda as Ambassador to Paris. The Greek Government of the day sent George Seferis to London. It might be a good idea for the Foreign Office, jointly with the British Council, to offer British poets of distinction not Ambassadorships, perhaps, but periods of paid attachment to foreign embassies. There is a sound diplomatic argument. Poets have considerable standing overseas. They are, in a way, alternative ambassadors. Both Yevtushenko and my old, dear and daily missed friend the late Robert Lowell exerted considerable goodwill for Russia and America at a time when

1029
both countries were being condemned for their foreign policies—and condemned, I may say, by the poets I mentioned themselves.
It would, as I have said, have been pleasant to debate poetry in political terms, but it is time to come back to the plain prose of money. The lesson of today's debate surely is that if we value our poets we must see that they get more money. I take the point of my noble friend Lord Eccles, but I would say to him that it is not simply a matter of subsidising indifferent poets. It is a matter of getting more substantial sums of money into the hands of good poets. I think the belief that poets flourish in poverty dies hard and is something of a romantic fallacy. We pay the interpreters of art—opera singers, actors and musicians—not well enough, may be, but well enough by comparison with most poets. Despite the excellence of much contemporary British poetry and despite the sad but inevitable need for State patronage in an age unsympathetic to private wealth (and I wonder where the poet Pope would have been without the ancestor of my noble friend Lord Bathurst), support for British poetry is rather pathetic. As the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, it receives a great deal less than 1 per cent. of the total Arts Council grant and we really must do better. We should increase the number of poets in residence at universities and schools, and we should make it easier for bodies like the Poetry Society—and I declare an interest here as a member of its general council—to improve the distribution of books and poetry. The Poetry Society has an excellent scheme to this end and I would commend it to the noble Lord the Minister of the Arts by sending him the papers on it, if necessary.
In an age of competing and corrupting "sociologese" as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, reminded us; in an age of Lord Willis's "ongoing situations"; in an age when the BBC's Home Service is rechristened "Radio Four UK", we badly need good poets. Like others, I should like to end with a brief quotation. It is from the poem which Auden wrote to Louis MacNeice after the latter's death:
"… After all, it's rather a privilege amid the affluent traffic
to serve this unpopular art which cannot be turned into background noise for study
or hung as a status trophy by rising executives, cannot be 'done' like Venice
1030
or abridged like Tolstoy, but stubbornly still insists upon being read or ignored: …"
My Lords, in our own way we are trying to serve that art this afternoon. We ignore it at peril.
5.12 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, it has been a fascinating and, I think to all of us, a most unusual afternoon; and the success of it is shown by the agreeably short time allowed to me to sum up. So with an easy conscience I shall be able to leave out a lot of what I had prepared to say and, without going quite so fast as the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, to have a look at this debate rather than to cap quotations in the way the Persians used to do so happily with one another.
Despite what my noble friend Lord Vaizey said, poetry has nearly always been the least profitable of the arts. There have indeed been periods in history when poets were properly valued but in general I think they are few and far between. Hafiz is still the best known name in Iran and the Persians' delight in poetry has not died with the impact of new modern methods. The golden age of classical Rome was a good time for poets, when Horace sipped Falernian wine in his garden and Virgil was more admired by the great than any Poet Laureate. It was nice that my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek quoted Virgil this afternoon because he has not been quoted in this House in my hearing for quite a time; "lacrimae rerum" was what I think he quoted.
The Victorian times were good for poets, but since then poets have found it harder and harder to make a living and fewer and fewer of them have done so from poetry alone. The only great poet I have ever known was Walter de la Mare, whom I loved and admired. In fact, I was staying as his guest once when his house caught fire, which made rather a bond. But, though he made a modest living, I should think the main earner was his prose rather than his poetry. And of course he worked for a good many years not at all happily in an office before he could keep himself as a writer. Our present Poet Laureate is an immensely popular poet, but I doubt whether he could live at the standard he is accustomed to on the proceeds of his poems alone.

1031
Yet as somebody said earlier the obstacles to writing poetry are less than in any other art. A pencil, a piece of paper—no studio, no paints, no musical instruments to bring complaints from the neighbours, no dissatisfied clients, no overheads. In fact, all that is needed is the one thing that is so often lacking, which is inspiration.
I meant to give the House some account of what the Government, through the medium of the Arts Council, are doing for poetry, but this has been done so clearly by the Council's vice-chairman, my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington in his admirable maiden speech, that I need say no more, and that will save nearly three-quarters of a page, your Lordships will be glad to hear! It is indeed a help to have the vice-chairman here to help me in my perennial defence of Government policy. We can maintain a strong front against all criticism, I by saying that it is for the Arts Council and not the Government to decide, and he by saying that the Government do not give the Council enough money. Between us I am sure we shall be able to silence all captious criticism. Anyway, I add my sincere congratulations to those already bestowed on my noble friend.
I think we must say—and I do not believe that any noble Lord has yet said this—that poets and poetry are not without honour in the community. The choice of the Poet Laureate or of the Professor of Poetry at Oxford University is always a matter of great national interest. The Queen's Gold Medal for Poetry has been awarded for nearly half a century. The Poet's Year Book for 1978 lists nearly 100 poetry prizes to be won, together with 26 sources of fellowships and bursaries. Every year new poets come to the fore and fresh activities take place.
I should like to mention one particular organisation which has not been mentioned, which is the Arvon Foundation, whose Devon base I visited in 1976. It was the brain child 10 years ago of two writers, John Moat and John Fairfax, and was set up to provide creative writing centres where parties of students could live side by side with distinguished poets and writers; and then Ted Hughes, a very distinguished poet himself, has set up an equivalent branch of that in his native Yorkshire. That is something quite useful.
1032
But there are some grounds for concern. During my lifetime the familiar metres and rhymes with which every schoolboy was conversant have been discarded and the traditional framework of prosody has been challenged. Furthermore, the great changes in society and the world during this century have rightly found both mirror and expression in poetry; but paradoxically as poetry has become allegedly more relevant, more political, more vernacular, it has ceased to command the wide audience it had in the Victorian era. This must be due to the fact that so much modern poetry is hard to understand, even obscure, and here I have to say that I am rather on the side of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles.
I should like to quote one small piece from the Popularisation of Modern Poetry by Jim Mulligan, which is entirely devoted to a study—and an affectionate study—of modern poetry; but he quotes a critic called Nigel Firth, who says,
"The whole concept of poetry nowadays is as something esoteric, intellectual, involved and élitist".
I am not saying that I agree with that, but I find a lot of it extremely difficult to read and I think others do. On the other hand, I find exactly the same thing with a lot of modern music and modern pictures, so one really need not make too much fuss about it. The thing we must be absolutely certain about is that it is not the Government who are going to say which poets deserve support. This must be done in the sort of way it is being done now, although perhaps there must be more of it. But, on the whole, I think the Arts Council are not far wrong in both the amount they spend on this not very large public and also in the way they select the people to get it. I think the most profitable way in which they can assist poets is by helping them to be published. I thought the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, of taking space in ordinary papers was a very interesting one, which will be looked into.
My noble friend Lord Willis pleased me very much because the first quotation he gave was from a translation of the Hebrew. It was Bible prose which to me is the greatest prose and the greatest poetry we have in this country. I am not a great reader of poetry, but I do read the Bible occasionally for pleasure and not only for religion. The discussion that my

1033
noble friend Lord Vaizey started was one I am not going to pursue, because I agree with him personally but I do not think I want to see anybody telling parishes what to do. I agree with the Church of England's perfectly clear view that the local people make their own decisions, and this is our policy throughout.
I have only another couple of minutes because I must leave Lord Willis a minute to sum up, but I must take up another point he raised: the importance of getting a record of poets' voices. Let me tell the House that my Department's support of the British Institute of Recorded Sound has enabled it to have, I am absolutely certain, the best poetry archive in the world. It goes back to Browning's voice in 1888; it includes Tennyson; it includes Kipling reading the only poem he ever recorded; and it includes the entire BBC collection from 1934. The whole archive amounts to thousands of records and tapes. Very few people go and ask to hear them, but I do suggest this is something that people who are interested in poetry will find available here. It is your money as taxpayers which I and my predecessors have used to support this very energetic and effective body. Their cataloguing is not yet finished; you may have some difficulty in finding what you want in 10 minutes, but the material is there. More than that, there are 40 LPs of Mexican poets and 20 of Dutch poets reading their own work, Tolstoy reading on four records in English, French, Russian and German from records of 1906, and a collection from the United States continuous from the 'twenties to the present day.
I must stop. It is a pity because I should have liked to talk a great deal longer. I must mention one or two points. I spoke of Hafiz as the most famous name in Persia today. I think Burns is the most famous name in Scotland, and I should think Shakespeare is the most famous name in England, so I do not feel we need bow too much in that way. But whereas we are told by the noble Lord that the Scots will sit round and listen to Burns being quoted, and the Persians are constantly doing this, I do not think it is a factory floor job at the moment in the English factories, particularly in the southern English factories. I think there is a long way to go. I think
1034
the reason we do not do this—it was the noble Lord, Lord Milford, who raised the point—is because people do not want it, and that is as far as we can get until they do. It is up to us to try and spread the doctrine.
My noble friend Lord Davies raised the question of learning and reciting by heart. My noble friend's speeches on subjects of this kind are pure poems themselves which we all enjoy thoroughly. It is thanks to him I have so little time; I am very grateful to him. It really was a splendid speech. One thing he said was that he thought we should continue learning and reciting by heart. I have quite a lot of information here about education which I am not going to give you, because I think you all want to hear the opener to whom we owe so much for a most brilliant and amusing and witty introduction. I think the best thing I can do is to hand over to him with a lot of my finest gems unrevealed.
5.27 p.m.
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in what I think has been a fascinating debate. I want to thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, for his maiden speech and for the very fine contribution and information that he gave, although I thought I detected a tiny note of complacency. I just want to select two or three points from the debate. I should like to thank all speakers individually, but I am sure they will forgive me if I do not. The first point that was brought out in the debate—by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie—was this question of the way in which English is being ruined. If I may speak on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, about the English Bible, which is no concern of mine, may I put it this way: I do not think he was complaining that people have a choice, that it is up to people in the parish whether they have this version or that; what he was complaining about was that somebody should have had the temerity to attempt to do it at all and what was wrong with the St. James's Version that we should not have kept it. I must say I absolutely confirm and agree with that. I go on from that to this question of the schools. I think my noble friend Lord Donaldson was absolutely right; there has been a kind of

1035
diminishing attention to poetry in schools, largely because some modern poetry is difficult to understand—not all of it—and that the appreciation of the rhythms and so on of the old poetry has gone. Some essence of discipline has perhaps gone. I think we need to look at that, too.
If I may make two final points, I have never understood—and I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, on this—the attitude of people who suggest that poets have no right to a livelihood, that it is an amateur thing that you just do on the side. Nobody would ever say that of a miner, or an engineer, or anybody else in our society. I thought the whole point of this debate was that we were all agreeing that poets were enormously important to our society and sometimes made a greater contribution than the professions I have just mentioned. In many other countries they give established poets State pensions at a very young age so that they can continue to write. I am not suggesting that, because I know we are in a time of economic stringency. What I do want to see is more put into the field, so that more poets can grow or at least more poets can have an opportunity to earn more money. In other words, the very admirable things that the Arts Council is doing, and in particular the Poetry Society is doing with Arts Council support, ought to be extended. I should like to see much more of that done, so that poets can find an audience either through the printed word or by people listening.
I should like, finally, to pay a tribute which I forgot, but I have been reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder. We owe an inestimable debt of gratitude to the BBC for what they have done over the last decade or more to promote the idea of poetry, to popularise it and to give a voice to new young poets. They have done a marvellous job. It only emphasises the point I keep making; if the Government want a BBC they have to give them a licence fee; and it is no good tinkering round giving them two or three pounds. You have got to give them a whacking great increase.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, that is a Home Office matter.
Lord WILLIS: Yes, my Lords, I said the Government. I think we are going to have the same thing as last year where they get a couple of quid increase, and the same problems will arise. One day, in the next two or three years, we arc going to have a great crisis in this great national institution. My Lords, our revels are over. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

AIRCRAFT PURCHASING POLICY IN EUROPE
5.29 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY The Earl of KIMBERLEY rose to call attention to the desirability, in view of our membership of the EEC, of European airlines buying European and not American aircraft, if the standards and configuration arc similar; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Not being a great poet I thought I might start off by saying:
"For years people wanted to fly
And aircraft now fill all the sky
But can't Government see
We are now in the EEC
So we should not fill Yank banks so high".
My Lords, in spite of very many difficulties the civil side of British Aerospace has at last successfully negotiated itself into Europe. This is a great step forward. The Anglo-French Concorde probably paved the way for this and for what could be a very substantial benefit, not only to the United Kingdom but also to the European Aerospace industry. However, there is an "if" and it is a very big "if", and the "if" is this: if we do not pursue the various projects with great speed then once again we shall miss the bus.
Two and a half years ago I raised on several occasions in your Lordships' House the development of the then BAC 1–11 as well as the joint European transport. These aircraft could, if not be flying now, have been flying in the very near future; but we dithered so alas they are not. Anyway, that is past history. However, when it comes to our air industry we seem very reluctant to learn from past history, so let us try to look at the present and the future and see whether we can learn something from them.
First, I should like briefly to give some comparisions between the EEC and the United States of America. The total population of the EEC is 260 million and that of the United States is 210 million. However, the landmass of the EEC is only 16 per cent. of that of the United States and therefore the EEC domestic routes—intra European—are of much shorter range than their American equivalents. There are 10 principal EEC airlines, as against 26 in the United States. The total revenue of passenger kilometers for 1977 was, for Europe, 115·7 billion and for the United States, 345·2 billion—and by "billion" I mean the modern equivalent which is a thousand million. If any noble Lord is puzzled let me explain that the figures for total revenue of passenger kilometers are worked out by multiplying the number of fare paying passengers by the number of kilometers flown. So, in Europe, the figure is roughly one-third of that for the United States.
British Aerospace forecasts that there will be a 6·3 per cent. annual rise for Europe as against 5·2 per cent. for the United States, up to 1995. That means a three-fold increase in Europe and only just over double for America.
Currently there are 819 jets in the EEC, of which 580, or 70 per cent., are short/medium haul—that is, within Europe or North Africa. The current value of the European fleet is £29 billion of which 55 per cent. is invested in the short/medium haul equipment.
At present the United States almost totally dominates the long haul market subsonically. It has 90 per cent. of the market and we really have no European contender at present. However, the short/medium haul fleet in Europe is today valued at £13.4 billion and 49 per cent. of that is of European origin. So, the world forecast for new aircraft by 1995, excluding spares and ancillary equipment, is enormous. Even if we omit the long haul subsonic figures—which we must because, as I have said, we really have no development to compete with the Americans—the amount of aircraft that will be required is still prodigious.
However, in the supersonic transport market the story is very different. The United States and Russia have abandoned their SST's, at any rate for the moment.
1038
Indeed, perhaps it is fitting to say this evening in your Lordships' House that today is a very memorable day: it is the birthday of Concorde's first passenger flight to New York which took place last year. During the last year it has carried over 62,000 passengers with something like a 90 per cent. plus occupancy.
We have spent £1,000 million on Concorde, so why do we not capitalise on our investment? Why do we not continue with its development? For a comparatively small sum of money, after the initial £1,000 million, we could improve the existing power plants in the aircraft which would make the noise considerably less and that could be done comparatively easily. If any noble Lord would like to ask me about this matter later I shall happily go into it in great detail. Furthermore, by this improvement there will be no loss of thrust and in consequence there will be no problems about take-off noise. I have been informed already that the jigs which manufacture these aeroplanes are being removed from Filton, Wey-bridge and Herne. However, so far as I know the people of this country have not been informed of that fact.
Two and a half years ago I begged the Government to get together with the French Government and lease Concorde, but nothing happened. I ask the noble Baroness how can we expect airlines to buy or lease Concorde if the Government appear to show so little confidence in it? Even the chairman of British Airways ran it down in the annual report for British Airways, but since then its Chief Executive, Mr. Ross Stainton, seems to have changed his posture and his mind completely about the aeroplane. Indeed, even a senior civil servant from the Treasury has admitted that they were wrong about Concorde. British Airways' figures of over 90 per cent. payload across the Atlantic prove that they were wrong and that Concorde is right. To go further, I believe that Rolls-Royce has a new engine for an SST which, if given the go ahead, could be being flight-tested within two years. Can we not get together with the French and Germans and get a second generation SST in the air—and if not, why not?
Reverting to the short/medium haul subsonic aircraft, I point out that by 1995 the United States will spend £22.7 billion;

1039
Europe £13 billion and the rest of the world £35.3 billion. Europe will want 1,000 short/medium haul aircraft valued at £1,300 million at today's prices. Those aircraft will be required in four types of seating arrangement. The EEC airframe manufacturers are at present in a position to supply three of those categories. Nevertheless, I believe that Europe could produce an aircraft for the fourth category—the 140 to 190 seater—if there were no further delay and the project was initiated and led by British Aerospace.
While on the subject of replacement aircraft, what, may I ask, will replace the RAF VC.l0s in Support Command which, very often even today have to rely largely on aircraft built for the civil market? It should and it must be possible for the EEC airframe manufacturers, with wholehearted support from their Governments, to obtain at least 30 per cent. of the European market in short/medium haul aircraft. This small, and I think grossly deplorable figure, would give a saving of imports in the next 18 years to the EEC of £4,000 million. If the great American aircraft manufacturers thought that they could only get 30 per cent. of their home market they would not laugh—they would pack up and shut up shop. We should set our sights on getting 100 per cent. of the European market and not 30 per cent.
I point out that all that I have said so far refers only to the major European airline market. I have left out the turboprop requirements, as other than the Queen's Flight their contribution and value is very small. However, in addition to the 10 EEC airlines which are members of the Association of European Airlines, there are 14 other scheduled Western European carriers and eight non-scheduled Western European airlines in the short/medium haul category.
We have had a nationalised air industry for nearly two years. We have cancelled the X11 which was on the point of getting orders. We have not given the go ahead for JET and we have not developed Concorde's potential. On the plus side we are building the 146 which I think will be a superb aeroplane but which at present I do not think has any orders. I do not in any way blame British Aerospace. I firmly believe that in the past it has not had anything like the support from the Government that it so richly deserves.
I maintain that now is the time for the Prime Minister to squash once and for all the anti-Market sentiments of the extreme Left of the Labour Party and, simultaneously, for the Leader of the Opposition to do the same with certain Right Wing elements in her Party. Therefore, I should like to propose that the Nine EEC Ministers, backed up by their Prime Ministers and Presidents, should get together and make a coherent and positive plan whereby Europe buys European aircraft. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and, lastly, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, will agree with me. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.40 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, although as always I am very grateful—as all noble Lords will be—to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for introducing this short debate today, I am not sure that I can agree with him, as he invites me to do. However, I shall do my best. If one reads between the lines—and I hope that I am not misinterpreting the noble Earl—the basic question posed by the noble Earl's Motion, is whether we should insist that British Airways buys British or European aircraft when these aircraft in any way meet its requirements, or whether we should allow British Airways a totally unfettered choice to buy whatever aircraft it may think best, regardless of the social and economic consequences that its decisions may bring to the European industry.
I fear that that is not a question which I can answer definitively tonight, but I can perhaps put up some pointers as to the way in which my thinking at least is going on the matter. Recently, British Airways made two important decisions in this field. First, at the end of July, it announced that it intended to purchase a number of Boeing 737 aircraft, and not the same or a similar number of BAC 1–11 aircraft, to meet a fairly recent requirement caused by the accelerated retirement of the Trident fleet.
As your Lordships will recall, the Trident fleet, or part of it at least, suffered some unfortunate problems in recent years and, although these problems have not proved fatal to the aircraft in

1041
question, they have meant that some of them will have to be retired earlier than was originally anticipated. Thus, British Airways was obliged to purchase additional aircraft to meet this unforeseen shortfall in its capacity, and it chose the Boeing 737. I must confess that I am not persuaded that that was the right decision. However, I must make it clear that in that matter at least I would not wish to prevent British Airways from exercising what, in its considered opinion, was the right course to adopt.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to what I think were some of the problems created by that decision, which I hope British Airways took fully into account. The first cost of the Boeing 737 fleet will be higher than the first cost of a BAC 1–11 fleet. Furthermore, that first cost will have to be met in foreign currency. No doubt, British Airways will say: "Yes, but we shall raise some of that money in the United States and repay those loans from revenue earned in the United States". No doubt that is true, but, of course, that is money which would otherwise have been remitted to the United Kingdom.
British Airways claimed that the resale value of the 737s was better than that of the 1–11s; but British Aerospace announced publicly that it was prepared to repurchase the 1–11s if necessary at an agreed price. British Airways maintains that the seat-mile costs of the 737 are superior to those of the 1–11; in other words, they are less. I agree that that may well be so, but that is caused principally by the fact that the 737 is a larger aircraft and carries more passengers than the 1–11. But, of course, the advantageous seat-mile costs which British Airways is hoping to achieve with the 737 depend upon the aircraft being flown full or nearly so, and I do not believe that British Airways is necessarily able to achieve that on all the routes over which it intends to use the aircraft. British Airways has not commented on the aircraft mile costs of the two types, but I do not think it would argue that the aircraft mile costs of the 1–11 are superior.
Another point which I have not seen aired publicly was that with the demise of the Trident fleet, or part of it, British Airways will find itself with a great number of spare engines not required for the Trident fleet, which, at minimal cost, could
1042
be converted for use in the 1–11s. I believe that this would make quite a significant difference to the operating costs of the 1–11, and I do not think that British Airways has, publicly at least, announced what that saving would amount to.
All these factors suggest to me that the "737/1–11 decision" if I can call it that, was more finely balanced than British Airways would care to admit, and I look forward to hearing from British Airways or from elsewhere exactly how it was that British Airways arrived at the decision that it did. I want to say quite clearly that the BAC 1–11 is a magnificent aeroplane and I do not think that British Airways has given it full credit. British Airways already operates a considerable number of the type and I think that it would have achieved greater economies of scale by adopting that aeroplane than perhaps it has given credit for. However, I want to make it clear that there is no question—in the future, anyway—of reviewing decisions that British Airways has taken in the past and which have had Government approval.
A little after the 1–11 decision, British Airways announced that it was to buy a fleet of Boeing 757 aircraft instead of a variant of the European Airbus, the A–300. I am not certain which of the variants of the A–300 found greatest favour with British Airways; clearly, none of them found complete favour. But, again, I am not certain that British Airways has, publicly at least, given full credit for some of the advantages that would have accrued from a decision to buy a European aeroplane.
Perhaps it would be fairer for me to point out what I think to be the disadvantages of the decision which it took to buy the American machine. The 757 is a newish aeroplane, although not completely new because the fuselage, we are told, is very much dependent for its design and detailed philosophy on the existing Boeing 707 fuselage, which has, of course, been in service for a good many years and of which at least 1,500 have already been built. The new aircraft—or the newish aircraft—is to be powered by a new variant of the famous RB.211 engine built by Rolls-Royce. Of course, I welcome the fact that British Airways has specified that engine in this aircraft.

1043
However, there are a few hurdles yet to be overcome. The 535 is not yet a running engine. Furthermore, for its fruition the project requires that Eastern Airlines also buys the Boeing 757 fitted with these self-same engines. Eastern Airlines has not yet finally ordered the aircraft, and I hear from my network of spies that it may well be that it will decide against the RB.211 engine. If that happens, British Airways will indeed be in a serious mess in this matter and will very likely have to go for the A–300—but at what a price of pride and, indeed, money for joining at this late stage!
The basic objection, though, to the 757 aeroplane is not the difficulties with the politics, but the fact that it is a narrow-bodied aircraft. When British Airways brings this aeroplane into service it will, if you can credit it, be the only major airline in Europe operating a narrow-bodied aircraft on major trunk routes. It will be the only airline operating on the major trunk routes an aircraft which cannot carry the standard freight containers. I find this incredible and surprising. It is contrary to what British Airways said was a requirement some years ago, but now it has apparently buried That requirement in order that it can order this aeroplane. I am extremely disturbed by that aspect at least of this decision.
British Airways apparently rejoices in the fact that this is to be a launch order. It seems to enjoy being the first customer for aeroplanes. It seems to think it has some merit, but it does not. The first customer for a new type of aeroplane always has problems when the aircraft comes into service. I do not think that British Airways needed to be the first customer for this aeroplane, and could have saved itself and the taxpayers a lot of money if it had been the second or third customer instead of the first customer, but we shall see. Certainly the engine to be fitted to this aeroplane has a fine ancestry, and that at least will work.
However, we must revert to the general point of how we decide on the difficulty of controlling British Airways in this matter. The fact is that, having appointed the directors of British Airways to run that Corporation, then we must allow them to get on with the job, and certainly not
1044
interfere with the day-to-day running of the Corporation. Where the day-to-day running ends and matters of major national importance begin I would not care to say; certainly not without much more careful consideration than I can give tonight. But I believe (and here I am speaking personally) that there are areas of major national importance—indeed matters that transcend national considerations but in this context could be considered Community considerations—where British Airways ought to be subject to some measure of control and some measure of direction.
Having said that, the decisions which I have commented on tonight are decisions which have now been taken by British Airways, have been endorsed by the Government of the day, and I can see no future in suggesting that the decisions ought now to be reviewed. But I do not think that that prevents us from criticising the decisions when they are taken, even if there is nothing now we can do about them. Finally, I say that British Airways can only be directed when the matter is of major national or international importance, and then only with the greatest care and circumspection.
5.53 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the thanks that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has given to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for moving this Motion with which I am, in general terms, in agreement. Really the guts of his Motion is in the words:
"… if the standards and configuration are similar …";
that is, if the aircraft which are European made are equal to those which come from America and which British Airways is buying. I think it depends on what aircraft is best for commercial success, in an increasingly competitive world, for British Airways to choose.
As the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said, the Board has been appointed to achieve maximum commercial efficiency in an increasingly competitive world where the low-fare passenger is going to provide the bulk of traffic over the next few years. If the Board's judgment is to be amended in any way in the interests of, as I think Lord Kimberley thought, the British aircraft

1045
industry, well and good, but that should have been written into the Act, because the Act lays down that British Airways should go for maximum commercial efficiency.
Until freedom of procurement is eroded, the British Airways Board must be allowed to decide its needs with untrammelled freedom. I think the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, agreed with that proposition, although he was at some pains to criticise nearly every decision which British Airways has been making. The remedy is in the hands of the Government, provided they can get Parliamentary support; namely, sack the Board. But do not interfere so long as the Board carries the responsibility for British Airways' success.
British Airways has to fade out the Trident aircraft by 1986. The Board decided, after very full examination of every British, European and American type, that to meet this low-fare passenger influx four types are needed in the future: the 747; the TriStar; the 737; and the 757. Those, British Airways maintain, will provide seating capacity ranging from 100 to 500, and cover ranges in flying distance from 100 to 5,500 miles. It considers that that is an adequate programme to meet the immediate needs of the next several years.
I think we are none of us qualified here, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, to have a sort of technical post-mortem of what British Airways' decisions mean and whether they are right or whether they are wrong. They are commercial decisions in fulfilment, I repeat, of the laid-down requirement for British Airways' maximum commercial efficiency and success. So while agreeing with the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, in his wish, if to fulfil it means putting British Airways at a commercial disadvantage for any reason, political or helping the British aircraft industry, then the responsibility for that must lie with the Government and not with the Board. If the Government wish to force European aircraft against British Airways' view that the ones it has chosen are the most efficient economically, well and good. Do not dispute Board decisions, but sack the Board and replace them. However, so long as we have that Board we must trust them in their technical judgment of what types are best for maximum efficiency.
5.58 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising this subject in your Lordships' House today, because debates such as these are most valuable since they provide us with an opportunity to stand back from the details of immediate events and allow us to take a proper stock of some of the more important developments which are now taking place around us. The present debate, although not acquiring quite so many speakers as did the one on poetry preceding it, has been no exception; and it has permitted us to try to put into perspective the recent important developments in the world of aerospace and civil aviation.
The Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, puts these developments into a European context, but since they involve the interests of three of our own most successful nationalised industries perhaps I ought to begin by summarising the recent events in the United Kingdom, some of which have been referred to directly and indirectly in the speeches of other noble Lords.
Perhaps I might also take this opportunity to seek forebearance if much of what I have to say refers to our own industries, since they provide the prime examples for discussion of the issue raised in the Motion and it is evident from the speeches we have heard that they are, understandably, at the forefront in the minds of noble Lords.
First, British Aerospace, with the support of the Government, have taken two important decisions. First, they have decided to proceed with the construction of the BAE 146 aircraft and to join the Airbus Industrie consortium as a full partner in the development of the A310 version of the Airbus. Secondly, British Airways has taken some vital decisions on aircraft procurement; they have received approval to order 19 Boeing 737s and 19 Boeing 757s and to enter into negotiations with British Aerospace on the purchase of three to six BAC 1–11s. Finally, Rolls Royce are to engage in a major new project, the development and manufacture of the RB 211–535 engine which is designed to power the new generation of civil aircraft now emerging and which will open up further world markets to this company.

1047
These are major decisions that will have a significant and continuing impact on the international role of the United Kingdom in all aspects of the manufacture and operation of civil aircraft. It is only right, therefore, that such decisions should have been taken with the approval of Her Majesty's Government. Indeed, the Government would have been failing in their responsibilities if they did not look most carefully at such decisons, taking into account the needs of the nationalised industries, the interests of their employees and of the travelling public and other broader economic implications which are involved. Having considered all these relevant factors, the Government have decided to back the commercial judgement of each of the nationalised industries involved, and this is a most important point to which I will return later.
It is clear from the speeches of some noble Lords that there are those who would argue for a different approach and perhaps hanker for total co-ordination of interests in the aerospace and aviation sectors. Some say that, since British Airways has decided to purchase the Boeing 757 and Rolls Royce is to build the engines for the aircraft, then British Aerospace should have entered into collaboration with Boeing rather than joining Airbus Industrie. Others see the problem completely the other way round and would suggest—as indeed the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, suggested—that British Airways and other European airlines should buy the A310 because it is built by Airbus Industrie which British Aerospace is to join.
I can understand both points of view and I can sympathise with the desire expressed in the Motion for an orderly world in which one nationalised or European industry builds what another nationalised or European industry buys, and vice versa. However, I cannot accept that this is the right approach when one looks more closely at the highly competitive international environment in which these particular industries operate, and I am led inevitably to the conclusion that this is one of those areas where what is good sauce for the goose may prove very different for the gander. To explain this conclusion, let us consider more carefully one of the decisions which British Airways has recently taken.
1048
On the basis of a detailed assessment of the merits of a number of aircraft, British Airways concluded that the Boeing 757, powered by Rolls Royce engines, better suited their requirements for a medium-range, medium-capacity aircraft, than others which could be regarded as broadly comparable, including the Airbus A310. They did not conclude that the Boeing 757 was automatically and inherently a better aircraft than any other. But they looked at the technical considerations which noble Lords would expect them to examine, and at the capital cost, the operating costs and the revenue which these aircraft might generate. All these calculations were not done in the abstract but were related to the needs of British Airways' own route network.
This last is a very important point about the appraisal which British Airways conducted and one that I would ask noble Lords to reflect upon most carefully. Different airlines serve different route networks and carry different mixes and numbers of passengers on those routes. It is essential that airlines should have the right aircraft for their own individual needs if they are to keep prices down and earn a satisfactory economic return.
That consideration becomes even more important when one takes into account the increasingly competitive nature of the international civil aviation market. I am sure many noble Lords will be aware of the recent comments by senior British Airways officials at the roll-out of the airline's first Lockheed TriStar-500s. They said they saw the process of deregulation of air fares continuing and the era of low-cost air travel stretching ahead into the foreseeable future. By 1986, they estimate that 82 per cent. of long-haul passengers and 75 per cent. of short-haul passengers will be travelling at reduced fares. They estimate that fares will fall, in real terms, by up to 25 per cent. on the longer routes.
That can only mean that competition will increase and that the airlines that will succeed in retaining their market-shares, be they European or otherwise, will be those that are most efficient in containing costs. There are many areas where British Airways, along with other airlines, will be looking to contain their costs, but an essential contribution will come from the ability to fly the right aircraft on the right routes, and failure to do so could

1049
make the difference between success or failure in the highly competitive airline market which will exist from here on.
The recent decision by British Airways to purchase the Boeing 757 illustrates very clearly the point about differences in the fleet requirements of individual airlines. Some airlines have decided that the structure of their routes is such that they would best be served by the acquisition of a wide-bodied aircraft with two aisles; they will have opted either for the Boeing 767 or the Airbus A310. British Airways, on the other hand, concluded that their own requirements would best be met, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, reminded us, by the purchase of a narrow-bodied single-aisle aircraft such as the Boeing 757. This is not to say that British Airways consider that the A310 is in some sense second-rate. Indeed, they have told the Government that, if, over and above the aircraft they have just ordered, needs were to be identified in the area of wide-bodied, medium range aircraft of 200 seats, comparisons they have made show that the A310 to be the aircraft which would best meet such new needs.
However, in case there are noble Lords who do not accept that there is such a distinction between wide-bodied and narrow-bodied aircraft, I would ask them to consider why it is that Boeing, the most successful aircraft company in the world, should have decided to develop both the 757 narrow body and the 767 wide body models, where one of the most significant differences between the two is in body width.
This broad argument about matching aircraft to route structures is just as true in the case of British Airways' proposal for Boeing 737s where the BAC 1–11 was a possible alternative. The airline was not saying that the 1–11 was a poor aircraft or that they must operate one aircraft rather than another because they already have 25 1–11s in their fleet. What they were saying was that in evaluating different mixes of aircraft against their route structure, the mix which included 737s projected the best results. By the same token, the best result for another airline might look quite different. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, reminded us, while we have a board at British Airways
1050
charged with responsibility for making a commercial success of the job, we cannot interfere in those decisions.
There have been references in the debate to the question of British Airways acquiring more 1–11 aircraft, and in particular Lord Trefgarne raised the complex subject of British Aerospace buying back aircraft from British Airways. I am afraid there is nothing I can add today to the replies I gave earlier at Question Time. These negotiations are a matter for the two corporations and each will be governed by its respective commercial judgment as regards price, delivery dates, the number of aircraft or any of the more detailed terms that may have been considered during the negotiations; and at this stage any speculation from me on such details would be quite inappropriate. I do not propose, nor am I qualified, to enter into detailed discussion of the technical aspects of alternative aircraft. The simple point that I am trying to establish is that any airline which hopes to compete effectively in world markets must have the right aircraft for the right job, and that it would therefore be totally inappropriate to fetter the commercial judgment of any European airline by insisting that it buys only European aircraft.
As regards similarity of standards and configurations with American, or any other aircraft, I hope that I have illustrated that the question cannot properly be considered in quite such simple terms, and that the circumstances of each of the airlines themselves dictate what will best suit them. If their judgment leads them to acquire European aircraft, then I need hardly add that such decisions will be welcomed by all of us but if it does not, let us try to remember that this is not a condemnation of the European aircraft industry, or a display of an inherent lack of patriotism. Rather, it reflects airlines trying to make the best possible choice to enable them to survive successfully the rigours of increased competition.
That is the position as it must be considered from the airline's point of view, but the word "competition" leads me to another most important aspect of this subject on a wider front. Noble Lords will have read that the world's airlines face the necessity to replace and re-equip their fleets over the next 10 years or more

1051
on a scale which represents the greatest potential market for the aerospace industry that has ever been known. A great proportion of that market lies in the United States, whose airlines have already announced some very large orders, but there are more to come, both there and throughout the remainder of the Western World.
I welcome the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, on Concorde. It is indeed a magnificent technological achievement, and I hope that it will find the route opportunities that will enable it to make a valuable economic return. However, as the noble Earl has said, the cost of developing Concorde was somewhat considerable, and if a second generation SST is to be built, it will be necessary for the manufacturers to look very carefully at the costs involved and at the market opportunities.
I should be very surprised indeed if any noble Lord were to suggest that this was other than a tremendous opportunity at this time for European aircraft and aeroengine manufacturers, or that those industries should be prevented from pursuing those opportunities to the best of their ability. However, if we were in any way to move towards a protectionist stance towards these European industries by seeking to provide a captive market for European airlines, then I am certain that our ability to compete effectively in these other markets would be impaired. Again, to take the example of the United States, noble Lords will be aware that there have been some very real successes for European manufacturers over the past year or so with Airbuses and Rolls-Royce engines both securing significant airline orders totally on their own merits and in free competition with United States manufacturers. This is a very significant breakthrough, and one which we can build upon. However, it is true to say that this development was less than popular in some quarters in the United States, and that there is a strong lobby watching closely to ensure that the freedom which the American airline market offers to foreign competition is reciprocated elsewhere in the world.
My Lords, the European aerospace industry is proving that it can compete in world markets, and the potential
1052
rewards if it can build on this are enormous. I would suggest that the industry's interests could only be harmed by any trend towards what I might call protectionist policies in international trade in aerospace products.
This brings me to a further point concerning the nature of that trade. The essential components of an aircraft are the airframe itself and the engines. To take first this simple breakdown, there are now an increasing number of instances where an airframe built in one country is powered by engines manufactured in another country. The success of Rolls-Royce engines in American built aircraft is perhaps the prime example of this, and since engines are a significant proportion of an aircraft's price—about 33⅓ per cent.—this is a factor to be weighed very carefully when talking of aircraft being made in this country or that.
The British Airways' order for Boeing 757s springs immediately to mind in this context because, although an American plane, it has been ordered with Rolls-Royce engines. Furthermore, the United States domestic airline Eastern has also ordered Rolls-Royce engines in joining British Airways to place the launch order for the 757. By this means Rolls-Royce have secured what is known as the lead engine on this new aircraft, thus placing the British company in a prime position to supply engines for further 757 orders for other airlines. Therefore, although a European airline has ordered an American aircraft, significant orders and advantages have also been secured for another European aerospace supplier in the process.
Such interdependence does not stop at aero-engines. There are thousands of small components which go to make up an aircraft, and a great many of these are sub-contracted by the major manufacturers. This is proving an increasing trend, particularly with American companies such as Boeing, who simply do not have the resources to cope themselves with the immense demand for their aircraft, and who are even contracting out significant parts of the airframes to foreign companies. European companies are already benefiting from these sub-contract arrangements, and I have no doubt that the volume of this work will increase as demand rises.
In this sense therefore it is misguided to think of the European aerospace

1053
industry merely in terms of the manufacture of European aircraft. In practice, today collaboration goes much wider than this, and the corollary is that the phrase "American aircraft" is similarly far too simple, because it fails to take account of the many foreign, including European, components in such aircraft.
I trust that your Lordships will appreciate that, while my remarks have tried to put these issues into a slightly different light and a greater perspective, I have no wish to take direct issue with the terms of this Motion. It is sensibly phrased, since it refers to the desirability of the course which the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, has advocated so ably, and the Government certainly have no wish to quarrel with that. There are, however, those who would go further and seek some mandatory force for such a policy, and it is to them that the considerations I have outlined are particularly addressed.
The European aircraft industry is now proving a most positive force in its own right in the world's aviation markets, and the Government welcome the fact that British Aerospace is soon to become a full partner in Airbus Industrie which is spearheading that success. However, the Government are also convinced that the most sound basis from which to build on that success is a truly free and competitive international market for all aerospace products. That is a policy from which our European industry has nothing to fear and everything to gain. I am sure that those concerned with British Airways and British Aerospace will take note of what has been said in your Lordships' House this evening, and will bear your Lordships' comments in mind.
6.18 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that very complete answer to many points. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that he thought that possibly my Question was directed more at British Airways than at other European airlines. In a way the noble Lord was right, but in a way he was wrong. It was directed at both; it was supposed to be right and left. Naturally I should prefer British Airways to buy Europe, and I can only hope that it has made the right decision. I have always
1054
been puzzled by the decision of British Airways about the 757, because when it ordered the 737 I remember saying in your Lordships' House that two years did not seem to be a very long time within which to order a new aircraft. The answer I got from British Airways was that two years was a perfectly reasonable time within which to order a new aeroplane. The answer I have never been able to get out of British Airways is to the question: If two years was sufficient in which to order the 737, why does it have to order the 757 five years before it can possibly have it? Could the Corporation not have waited a little longer to see what else was on the shelf? It would then have had a much bigger choice.
Earlier, and again this afternoon, the noble Baroness raised the matter, as did the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, of the British Airways' order for the 1–11. I remember saying in your Lordships' House about six months ago that British Aerospace were perfectly happy to accept a built-in clause whereby they would buy back these 1–11s, if necessary; and the second-hand value of a 1–11 is very high. I still cannot understand, if British Airways want to buy the 1–11, why it has taken so long to do this deal, because it has been floating around between the two companies for months and months.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said that in my Motion I refer to equal standards. Perhaps I should have worded it slightly differently and said "approximately", or "of the same quality". Of course I do not want a European airline or British Airways to buy the wrong aeroplane, but if these aircraft are vaguely similar in economics, performance and everything else, I still maintain that Europe should try to stick with Europe. I also entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, when he says that British Airways should have the maximum commercial efficiency, and that it should be allowed to decide its needs without being ordered about. I entirely concur with this; but one thing which worries me is that, from past history, some of its business decisions have not been that good. There is another point that the noble Lord brought up; that is, suppose British Airways should buy the 757, as it appears it is going to, and all the other airlines in Europe buy Europe.

1055
It may be that, once again, history will, sadly, be repeating itself. I hope not, though.
My Lords, the noble Baroness gave a complete answer. She obviously has a very good brief and she knows a lot about her subject, despite her claiming the other day that she did not. But there is one point I should like to raise again—and I have raised it before in your Lordships' House. No matter what Mr. Boeing says to Mr. Rolls-Royce by way of, "I want your engine in the 757", if the customer says he does not want a Rolls-Royce engine in it he will have the aeroplane with an American engine in it, and that is a fact. Boeing may say that they will sell 200, 400 or 1,000 757s. They may not. I still think, as I said before, that the 757 was a carrot for us; but, luckily, we did not swallow the whole thing, and if it does lead to the satisfactory development of the RB.211 535, then so be it, and I hope it will work.
I remember the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, once said in one of these debates that he would like to see more co-operation among British Airways, British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce. So would I. We have three vast, powerful, wonderful companies. They are all nationalised, but they very rarely seem to pull in the right direction at once; one wants to go one way, one another and one another. Surely it is possible in this day and age for them to sit round a table and decide where we as a country, Britain in Europe, want to go. The market for Europe, as I have said before, is vast—it is 1,000 aeroplanes—and I am very glad that British Airways says that it does not want to run down the A.310. It may be that in the future British Airways will decide that it wants it.
I should also like to say to the noble Baroness that I would not want the Ministers to insist that European airlines should buy Europe, but I should like them to do their best to encourage them to do so. I think the way they could encourage them to do this is to bolster up the whole of British Aerospace and the European aerospace industry so that, not in any way trying to "knock" the Americans through a cocked hat, we could at least hold our own and, by being in a position of strength, be able to negotiate better deals with the
1056
United States in the future. My Lords. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion which stands in my name.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ELECTRICITY FOR DOMESTIC HEATING
6.26 p.m.
Lord FERRIER Lord FERRIER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to take further steps to encourage the increased use of electricity for domestic space heating. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Unstarred Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. Your Lordships will see that I have used the word "further" in my Question. This is because, in debating and passing the Homes Insulation Bill, with its attendant grants, last July, a significant step was taken in conserving energy for space heating. All space heating, of course, is concerned with the matter of insulation. But it is about electricity for space heating, and especially the storage type heater consuming off-peak power, that I am particularly concerned, and your Lordships may well wonder why.
It happens that in the 'thirties and 'forties I had some experience of electricity supply, and 20 years ago it was clear that the off-peak storage heater was—as it still is—intrinsically a most efficient appliance. It is an appliance desirable, not only to the user, provided the tariff is low enough, but to the supply system, by taking power when other outlets are switched off—filling the valleys as they call it in the industry, in the load curve, both by night and in the middle of the day.
But there was a snag. Twenty years ago those appliances were not available to the domestic market. Why? It was because they would thus have become liable to purchase tax of 25 per cent., which made it a nonsense. By a process of speeches and Questions in your Lordships' House extending from March 1959 to somewhere in 1962 or 1963, we were able to get this appliance freed from purchase tax. The tax was removed, whereupon—I believe quite rightly, though they have been criticised since—the electricity authorities initiated an advertising campaign in order to build up their off-peak load. They pushed the advantage of this

1057
appliance, but little did they know—nor did I, nor did your Lordships—that the cost of fossil fuel was going to soar to the level it has reached today. The resultant inevitable rise in electricity tariffs was so severe a blow to consumers who had just invested capital sums in space heating equipment that many felt that they had been swindled, and said so. The efficient, almost everlasting, convenient, clean, safe appliance got a bad name, perhaps understandably but quite undeservedly.
No longer could the hitherto prodigal use of energy be contemplated—and never will be again. Whole housing schemes based on electricity for heating and cooking have become a problem in themselves and so on and so on. The manufacture of night storage heaters virtually ceased and some of the companies involved went into liquidation. My involvement with the whole thing has, therefore, given me almost a guilt complex. That is why I raised the matter in our debate on the Address and, as I said I would, put down this Unstarred Question today; because the winter is upon us. That is why I put it on the Paper as soon as I got the chance.
Something can well be done to dispel the doubts which still exist about electrical space heating where electricity is the only source of supply. This is very much the case in Scotland. My investigations suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in his reply to which I look forward with great interest, is going to dispel the anxieties which still exist. Talking of interest, I must declare one. I have five night storage heaters in my little house, and in Scotland, and they are of the original type; that is, requiring a midday or an "afternoon" boost. To get that, my tariff is slightly higher than the off-peak tariff which has not got the afternoon boost; but, so far as I am concerned, it is a balance which is worth while even at todays' tariffs.
It is not my intention to start developing the numerous technical details of tariffs and circuits, white meters and Economy 7s, monitoring gadgets, spring-loaded clocks and so on, all the adjuncts to an efficient use of off-peak electricity. Suffice it to say that the passage of time has compelled us to grasp that energy costs will never again be low and, as I said before, never again will we be prodigal in our use of
1058
heat—whether centuries ago it was through firewood or, in the last century, through coal. Thus, conservation, insulation and various economies are bringing the night store back into the picture again.
With respect, I feel that the Electricity Council misjudged the feeling of consumers when they launched the advertising campaign which they did at the beginning of this month, a capaign which called forth some criticism from the Electricity Consumers' Council and they, in a Press release dated 7th November, said:
"The Electricity Consumers' Council, with the 12 Area Electricity Consultative Councils in England and Wales, has been monitoring the Economy 7 campaign and its impact on consumers. It has evidence of considerable confusion amongst consumers as to whether or not they will benefit from changing to Economy 7".
Let us hope that this debate may go some way to resolving that confusion. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, in his seat. He is chairman of the North Western Electricity Consultative Council. I hope that it is possible that he may make some contributions to our considerations tonight.
As I have said, the technical complexities are immense because conditions vary so much from area to area. The problems in his area vary from ours in Scotland and vary very much from those in southern England. Tariffs vary accordingly. Scotland's approach to tariffs necessarily differs from England's. For instance, the much-discussed "Economy 7", which I have just been speaking about and which is being advertised today, does not apply in Scotland. In some places, fuel charges are superimposed upon the tariffs and, in others, the fuel charges, the surcharges, are absorbed in the tariffs themselves.
In general terms, my impression is that the Electricity Council are "on top of the job" but with many a problem still to overcome. The new Electricity Consumers' Council—and I cannot quite make out whether or not it is a QUANGO—is making its contribution. I am grateful to them for the help that I have had in preparing for this debate. But winter is upon us and while the experts are applying their minds to electrical matters, what about the social backgrounds? I feel that in this connection I should like to quote again from a Press release by the Electricity Consumers' Council where they say,

1059
quoting the Chairman, Mr. Barnes:
"'Fuel poverty' is not the responsibility of the industries, it is the Government's responsibility. If fuel prices rise above what certain sections of the community can afford, then the Government must step in to ease the situation".
These are his words.
"The Supplementary Benefits Commission clearly think, that the present arrangements are inadequate and, with fuel prices likely to double in real terms"—
I hope not! but that is what he says—
"by the year 2000, I am sure that they are right to advocate a national fuel rebate scheme".
This is complicated by the attractive and important contribution which gas makes to the nation's comfort—wherever it is available. And this is my point; it is not available everywhere. Where it is, it is unquestionably, at present rates, the most economical space heating medium for the ordinary domestic user. It follows from the fact that it is difficult to distribute, that gas is very largely an urban facility, at least confined to areas which are fairly densely populated. It is in the areas where there is no gas supply that hardship is arising because of the cost of electricity.
Thus, my Lords, I turn in conclusion to the social angle. Are the Government satisfied that everything possible is being done by the local authorities in whose hands lie the social and welfare services? Is the 25 per cent. rebate scheme, for instance, being developed adequately? The relaxation of disconnections for nonpayment which has been undertaken now is all very well; but a relaxation of disconnections may be only deferring the evil day. Government are helping by grants for insulation under the Act to which I referred earlier. Can they help further by grants for capital expenditure on heating units?
What about the expense involved in replacing the old units which will not be economic under Economy 7 because of the absence of the mid-day boost? One thing that worries me is this: do the really needy people, the poor people, know of the availability of facilities which exist? Are there still too many old folk who are too proud to say that they are cold? Can they be kept better advised of the opportunities which are open to them? In the other place the other day it was stated that millions of pounds, that are available for assistance, are not spent because the
1060
money is not claimed. Is it possible that more would have been claimed if more people had been aware that it was available?
One idea which I promulgated some time ago was that the profits from gas might be used to subsidise electricity tariffs. That appears to be a non-starter; it is not possible under the law. Well, can the law be altered? Is it, my Lords, altogether a non-starter? In saying that I turn to the Energy Commission of which the Minister for Energy is chairman. Are that Commission addressing themselves to the overall problem of domestic heat from whatever source? Can they evolve a national scheme such as the chairman of the ECC visualises?
There are all sorts of different ways in which electricity can be used: hot air circulation, under-floor heating tariffs, basic heating for blocks of flats with the provision of heat added to the rent; and there is the provision for heating of churches and halls. I was chairman of a company and we equipped the warehouse with off-peak heaters with great economy. It is worth stressing the value of this system when safety and cleanliness are important factors.
The Electricity Consumers' Council issued a Press release only yesterday which welcomed this debate. That is gratifying. It contains a background note which reads as follows:
"Night storage heaters, introduced as an economical form of heating, diminished in popularity when the price of electricity rose in relation to other fuels. There are some indications that many are either unused or being replaced by other forms of heating".
That may well be so. It would be ungracious of me if I did not acknowledge the assistance that I have received from the marketing adviser, Dr. Gronow, of the Electricity Council. Among the mass of information with which he has been good enough to provide me is the interesting fact that no matter how true it may be, as the ECC have suggested, that these heaters are not being used, the fact of the matter is that the midday valley in the typical load curve of today has vanished. He attributes the disappearance of that valley to the continued use of storage heaters with the midday boost.
I dined the other day with a neighbour, a Member of this House, and I saw that there were night storage heaters in the

1061
rooms. I was told that they had not been used for years but served as an interesting piece of furniture on which to display the beautiful needlework that her Ladyship had sewn. My neighbour said: "It does not pay to use them". I wonder whether, as time goes on, my Lords, it will soon be worthwhile to make use of these attractive appliance. My Lords, I beg to ask the Question.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I am sure noble Lords are grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrier for asking this important technical Unstarred Question. He has been doing this for a number of years now and I gather that my noble friend made his maiden speech in this House on the subject of night storage heating. Annually, at this time of the year, he asks this Question in order that we all may keep our eyes on a very important type of heating. I congratulate him on once again raising this question and what he has said to the House this evening.
Of course, a number of factors are involved in this subject. My noble friend quite rightly drew attention to the fact that here is a type of heating that could bring warmth and comfort to the older generation. He also noted that winter is coming upon us. I felt a slight shiver going down my spine, and I was only too grateful to know that your Lordships' House now has a new type of heating. Unfortunately, it is not night storage heating; it is oil-fired. I do not think that the winter months in your Lordships' House will be as cold as my noble friend thinks it might be outside.
Night storage heating—or space heating as my noble friend has described it—came in a number of years ago. There was every reason and need for it. He mentioned that this was the latest type of heating. That drew my attention to one fact: the old-fashioned heating for beds was, I believe, a bed pan with red hot coals in it. I have a feeling that when I was a child a hot brick wrapped in a cloth was put in my bed. That was very warming. Night storage heating is a sophisticated type of unit containing bricks which are heated by electricity. It is based on the same principle of the bricks being heated and then gradually cooling.
The idea behind this was to economise on energy—quite rightly so—and to be
1062
able to use an energy-consuming machine for heating a house or offices at an off-peak period when no one else was using electricity. That was a sound idea. Equally, by doing so houses could be heated at a lower cost.
Those two factors were the important parts of night storage heating. Everybody welcomed the advertising and the electricity Board's way of putting it on to the market. The public took it up and were more than grateful for it. We had a number of these appliances in my old house. But if by chance this type of heating was installed in too small a room one could not cool it down. The appliance cools down over a number of hours. One could not use the room because it was too hot. Nevertheless, it was a good, sound idea of heating a building. The economy was such that the public liked the way that they were being charged for it.
The tragedy that happened, of course, was what my noble friend mentioned—that no one in the wide world knew at that moment, some 10 or 15 years ago, that there would be an explosion in the cost of fuel. The electricity Board having advertised and sold these appliances, quite rightly, found themselves pushed into a corner and faced with having to put up the cost of night storage heating. That was one thing by which the public were taken aback; they did not like it. None of us liked it. But they forgot that it was not the fault of the electricity Board. Unfortunately, I do not think that public relations got through quickly enough, and the public therefore blamed the electricity Board for pushing the prices up. They went as far as saying that it was a "con trick", and I seem to remember my noble friend saying something along those lines when he raised the question last year. It was a tragedy that the public should have been thinking in those terms.
The electricity authorities, as I say, were compelled to put up the price of this heating, but in so doing they tried to compromise over the hours; they tried to alter them. At that stage I had sold my last house, which had space heaters, so I do not know quite how the hours worked out. However, I have a strong feeling that the relevant period lasted from 11 or 12 o'clock at night to 7 o'clock the next morning. I am not absolutely certain of what happened there, but they tried to

1063
compromise on a few hours. Equally, they also tried to cut out the mid-day heating in some areas. That, again, I do not think disturbed the market too much. I believe that people still kept their units going, though my noble friend has said that he has met friends who have not used them since. I believe this is still the cheapest form of heating. As I say, a compromise was attempted by altering the hours so that we were all able to get up in the morning and be warm. In some areas they had a booster from mid-day to 3 or 4 o'clock.
Then came the other question. Those who had old units could do that, but those with modern units could not. Therefore, those who wanted to go into this type of heating found the modern super-units too expensive. So we are really back to square one. People either are not sure about this type of heating or cannot afford to use it. If the electricity authorities were given the chance again to advertise these units and, in so doing, were allowed to give grants and also allowed to make sure that new houses and new factories had this type of heating put in at the time when they were built, and not afterwards, I believe this market would come back. I think there is a great deal of reason for it to go on.
My noble friend has covered this subject from Scotland right down to the South of England, and I believe that each region has a different tariff in one way or another. I stand to be corrected on that, but I believe they all differ. My noble friend also mentioned that there are other types of heating. Yes, there are, but you cannot put gas into a small village where it would cost far too much to do so. You can put in a gas pipe only where you can be sure of getting your return. Oil is now too expensive, and so what I should like to see happen now is further investigation. Further experiments ought to be made to try to find the right unit. I think personally that this space heater is the right unit, but it ought to be improved and if it is too expensive the cost should be looked into. There might also be a scheme of grants or a scheme which would help people to be able to buy these units, where necessary.
The subject is technical enough; it is interesting enough. If we can bring
1064
compassion and warmth at a low cost to the old people, that is good. If we can encourage the Government to encourage the electricity authorities to come together on different schemes, I believe there is still a big market and a big hope for this particular type of space heating. I congratulate my noble friend once more on raising the subject again.
6.55 p.m.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, may I intervene briefly to make two small points? Every time there is refrigeration, heat is extracted and very often—more often than not—it is dissipated. It is now possible to get heat conversion units, and once more the farming industry seems to lead the field in this. For example, a farm dairy, where milk has to be cooled, has heat extracted and it is now possible to convert that heat and use it for heating water for washing cows or dairy utensils, and so on. Most houses have refrigerators and deep freezers. When these work they are putting out heat. The heat may not be very large, but I think that there should be further development done on this and further use made of such conversion units for the general and more economic use of electricity.
The other point is a more general one. Things may have changed, although I suspect they have not changed very much. When I was a county councillor I suggested that night storage heaters should be used in our schools. In those days it seemed to be largely a matter of the opinion of individual councillors as to what sort of heating should be installed. There seemed to be no professional advice which could be secured on a totally unbiased basis as to what sort of heat should be used in these cases. Some people favoured oil and others favoured electricity in one form or another. There were choices of oil, electricity, gas or even solid fuel, with variations in each sort of fuel. Indeed, there were numerous electrical gadgets, including night storage heaters. Each agency tried to sell its own commodity, and I am not aware of any method by which the average layman can get unbiased advice on what to use.
While appreciating that the situation may vary from year to year and from area to area, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, said, surely some general lead should be

1065
given by the Department of Energy. If such a guide is available, then it is important that the general public should be better informed as to where it is available. I think we have been told this evening about the old-age pensioners not being able to get this sort of advice. It should be available. If energy is to be conserved, it is also important that the most efficient fuel and the most efficient use of that fuel is adopted as widely as possible. There have been lengthy inquiries about the best methods of generating electricity and differing views have been expressed; but surely it is not difficult for experts to tell us—it should be a comparatively simple matter—whether or not night storage is a good thing for the consumer and the national energy policy. Instead of getting a lead from the Government, it seems that my noble friend has to bring up this matter time after time, and many of us have not got the expertise which my noble friend Lord Ferrier has in this matter. I do not seek any answer from the Minister tonight, but I do feel that these are matters which should be examined at Government level.
6.59 p.m.
Lord SWINFEN: My Lords, may I make a couple of points before the noble Lord replies. I spend my time trying to sell houses, and houses that are heated with electrical night storage heaters or other forms of storage heat are often difficult to sell. It is not only the cost that worries prospective purchasers. It is, to a large extent, the control of the heat output. When there is a winter with changeable weather, and there is a fine day following a cold spell, you will find that the houses are overheated because there is at present no real method of slowing down the output of that heat. Again, if there is a cold spell following a warm period, there is no method by which the house can be heated in a hurry without using other types of fuel or electric fires. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, can tell me when he replies—if he does not know the answer now, perhaps he can write to me later—whether there have been any improvements in the way in which the output of heat can now be controlled.
Another point that is worth mentioning is that when the weather gets cold, or at peak periods during the day, people still require electricity for heating. Are there
1066
any developments in the domestic storage of electricity, so that houses can take a supply of electricity and store it during off-peak periods, or even, on a longer scale, during the warmer months of the year, and use that electricity when required?
7.1 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Viscount, Lord Long, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, on once again raising this very important subject. It is one which he has made very much his own. I am very glad that he has returned to it again this evening, and I should like to say how much I appreciate the constructive approach of his speech. I am also very glad to see here my noble friend Lord Taylor of Blackburn. He tells me that he cannot take part in this debate, which he is of course well qualified to do, as he has not yet made his maiden speech. So that he is very properly reserving that for the full occasion. But I think I speak for all your Lordships when I say that I hope we shall have the pleasure of hearing from him soon.
This debate has raised many questions about the electricity supply industry's policy on off-peak tariffs, and the Government's position regarding the encouragement of greater use of electricity for domestic space heating. In general, the Government believe that, so long as the price of each fuel is sensibly related to the full cost of supply, consumers should have the freedom to decide which fuel best suits their particular circumstances. Consumers will naturally seek the best possible advice about likely price movements over the medium and longer term, but these will depend, in part, on the movement of prices in the world market. At the same time, the nationalised fuel industries should provide for the generation of funds for future investment.
The suggestion has been made that the gas industry should subsidise the sale of off-peak electricity. There are at present no statutory provisions which would permit the direct transfer of profits from one nationalised fuel industry to another. For the gas and electricity industries, future profit levels are largely determined by the future level of prices, and in discussing these with the industries the

1067
Government have in mind their general policy objectives, including considerations of social, and counter-inflation policy, and overall energy policy as well as the need to cover costs.
Within the overall level of prices, the industries should pay attention to the structure of prices and its relation to the structure of costs. Arbitrary cross-subsidisation between different groups of consumers should be avoided wherever possible. To ensure that this is happening, the Government must satisfy themselves that the main elements of an industry's price structure are sensibly related to the costs of supply and the market situation. Subject to this, the Government believe that it is mainly for each nationalised industry to work out the details of its prices with regard to its markets and its overall objectives, subject of course to the general considerations that I have mentioned.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, asked specifically whether the Government should use the profits of the gas industry to subsidise off-peak electricity prices. As I said, the first call on any profits made by the British Gas Corporation is reserve. The Government have no power to use them for other purposes. It may be asked why we cannot use Section 16 of the Gas Act to require them to pay over excess profits. I should like to put it on the record that Section 16 applies only to profits made directly from the British Gas Corporation's offshore operations—not to profits made from distributing gas—and because of high exploration and development costs the British Gas Corportion is not yet making significant profits from its offshore activities. It is, however, an interesting suggestion in the longer term, and it is not one to which the Government have a closed mind, by any means. I will bring what the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, with his great knowledge, has said to the notice of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, I said that at this moment it was a non-starter.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I appreciate that. Against this background, the electricity supply industry has for a long time sought to base its tariffs on the costs of supply, seeking to ensure that
1068
different classes of consumer, or consumers with different consumption patterns, pay charges that correspond to the differential cost of supplying them. Clearly, there must be a limit to the complexity of the tariffs that result from these considerations. At the extreme, every consumer's demand imposes different costs upon the system, as everybody's habits will vary, but it would be nonsensical to charge every consumer on an individual tariff. The structure of tariffs therefore reflects the general demand characteristics of groups of similar consumers in a workable way.
The relationship of one tariff to another depends to a great extent on the daily electricity load curve. If you happen to want electricity during the day, when most other consumers want it, you pay the rate associated with the amount of plant and the costs of running it applicable at that time. At night, demand is much lower, and much of the plant needed during the day is not generating. Reflecting the lower costs that a night-time demand makes on the system, night prices, at which supplies for night storage heaters can be taken, charge virtually only the running cost of the stations used at night: in other words, little more than the cost of fuel used to generate the consumer's electricity.
Off-peak tariffs for night storage heating were first introduced, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, said, in the early 1960s, when the cheapness of fuel enabled the Boards to offer low rates, which encouraged the increasing use of electricity for space heating. These original tariffs normally had a period of charge at night, together with an afternoon boost, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Burton. By the early 1970s, however, the introduction of new storage radiators that retained their heat better meant that the Boards could offer "White Meter" day/night tariffs that had a cheaper rate for the night-time hours only. This night rate was cheaper than the old restricted hour tariffs, because it approximated more closely to the deepest trough in demand when generating costs were at their lowest. Restricted hour tariffs were nevertheless retained for those who wished to remain on them, although they were no longer offered to new consumers.
The reason for the increase in off-peak rates that occurred between 1974 and

1069
1976 lay, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, conceded, in the steep increase in fossil fuel prices that occurred in those years. Off-peak rates reflected little more than the cost of fuel, and since that was the most steeply rising of all the industry's costs, off-peak rates suffered proportionately more than unrestricted rates. I must emphasise, however, that the pricing policy of the industry has not changed. The night rate in England and Wales is still only 50 per cent. under the White Meter tariff. Because of it being a rather longer night rate in Scotland, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and the noble Lord, Lord Burton, know, it is 44 per cent.
Both the electricity supply industry and the Government were and are aware of the burden that increases in electricity tariffs placed on consumers, particularly the less well off and those in all-electric accommodation. I shall come presently, if I may, to Government actions in this area, which were raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Long. However, I wish first to mention the latest tariff developments.
Area Boards in England and Wales announced in the summer that a completely new household tariff, to be called the Economy 7 tariff, would be introduced this autumn. It is a day/night tariff, with a 7-hour night time supply available at a night rate of 1.06 pence per unit. This price is about 20 per cent. below the night rate in existing 8-hour White Meter tariffs and has been made possible by cost savings relating to the deep night period as the industry gains more experience in operating its large generating sets. It is about 37 per cent. of the day rate compared with the 50 per cent. that I have just quoted.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, may I draw the noble Lord's attention to one point. If storage is economical, then it ought to be possible to give the consumer more than 20 per cent. at the off-peak time.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I note the point which has been made by the noble Lord. In this short debate I do not think that it is possible to go into the various very technical reasons why this is not possible. What I am seeking to say at present is that it is 20 per cent. below the night rate in existing 8-hour White Meter tariffs.
1070
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, said, rightly, that this Economy 7 tariff does not operate in Scotland. The reason is that the Scottish Boards already operate the White Meter tariffs which provide for day rates which are cheaper than those in Area Boards in England and Wales and for night rates which are available for eight hours in the North of Scotland Board's area and 8½ hours in the South of Scotland. The coldest winter conditions in Scotland would make a 7-hour tariff less advantageous for the consumer than in England and Wales.
It is expected that most consumers who are already on White Meter tariffs with a six or eight hour night availability will be able to transfer satisfactorily to the new tariff and achieve savings of about 10 per cent. on average from doing so. But comments have appeared in the Press on the fact that simultaneous reductions are not being made for those on restricted hour tariffs. These consumers purchase electricity at a rate substantially below the standard domestic rate of between 11 and 15 hours, depending on the particular tariff. The hours of supply at this rate normally include an afternoon boost which, if they were on a White Meter or Economy 7 tariff, they would pay for at the much higher day rate in those tariffs. The restricted hour consumers are generally those whose equipment requires a long charging period at night and a boost in the afternoon. However, their tariffs have not increased as much in the last few years as the standard domestic tariff. The position, therefore, is that all off-peak consumers are benefiting from the savings gained in periods of low demand. Individual circumstances and preferences differ so widely in this area that the sensible course for consumers who are not sure whether they can benefit from Economy 7 is to seek advice from their local electricity board. The industry's advertising, which has brought Economy 7 to the notice of consumers, has also encouraged them to seek this advice.
With your Lordships' permission, I will now turn to measures which the Government have taken to alleviate the problem of high heating costs which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and the noble Viscount, Lord Long. I think that both noble Lords

1071
asked whether the Government are satisfied with what we are doing. The Government are never satisfied, but do try to treat and approach this matter, in the words of the noble Viscount, with which I fully agree, with due consideration for people's difficulties and full sympathy.
In a situation where it is no longer possible for the Government to subsidise everyone's fuel bill, what we have done is to concentrate as much money as possible specifically on helping those in greatest need. First, since we took Office, we have ensured that pensions and other social security benefits more than keep pace with increases in the cost of living. To take one example, the total increase in retirement pensions from October 1973 to date was 151 per cent. for a single person and 149 per cent. for a married couple. By comparison, the increase in the general index of retail prices from October 1973 to date was 108 per cent. In addition, the earnings limit for retirement pensions—that is, the amount pensioners can earn before their pension is reduced—has been increased from £40 to £45 a week, and there is no earnings limit for women over 65 or for men over 70 years old.
Secondly, additional help has also been given in the last two winters to those likely to have the greatest difficulty in meeting their fuel bills, through the electricity discount scheme. The scheme is to operate again, I am glad to say, in the coming winter. This time the scope of the scheme has been widened to include the recipients of rent and rate rebates and rent allowances. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, referred to the number of people taking this up, and asked whether it was being sufficiently advertised. I can tell the noble Lord that it has been widely advertised, by leaflets and posters, in post offices, public libraries, citizens' advise bureaux, electricity shops and show rooms and the national and local Press. I cannot give the exact figures of those who have taken it up but I think that it is a large number, because in 1977–78 the money set aside for this scheme was £25 million and the money spent upon it was about £23½ million. From this it will be evident that a great many people are taking it up.
1072
Thirdly, another practical measure of longer-term help is the advice published by the Joint Working Party set up by the Government early last year to consider all matters relating to the efficient use of energy for domestic heating. The Working Party has been looking into the problem of electrically heated dwellings and has published two notes on electric heating. I am sure that these will be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I am very glad that he took part in the debate. One deals with selection criteria for electric space and water heating in new dwellings. The other includes broad guidelines for housing authorities with existing electrically heated buildings, and suggests practical remedies to enable households to achieve more acceptable running costs while ensuring adequate heating standards for the dwelling.
Fourthly, the Government are now implementing measures offering financial assistance towards the cost of insulation under which the elderly and those on low fixed income may benefit. Your Lordships will remember the Homes Insulation Act earlier this year. That provides for a scheme of grants to private householders in respect of specified basic insulation measures undertaken under the scheme. For the public sector, the Secretary of State for Energy announced in December last year that extra funding would be made to local authorities through the normal procedures. Local authorities are being asked to give priority initially to insulate dwellings occupied by elderly or disabled persons.
The noble Lord, Lord Burton, spoke about refrigeration and energy conversion. Experiments have been carried out on the development of "heat pumps". These work on principles like those of a refrigerator and claims have been made about their greater use in the future for space heating. The Electricity Council is aware of the long-term prospects in this field, and I think we had a useful discussion on this in the debate initiated earlier this year by my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, asked me about the slowing down of output. New types of heater provide for variation in the rate of output. The London Electricity Board have experimented with varying input when the weather changes.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, I would not dream of interrupting the noble Lord except that I am the bearer of red hot news in regard to the question put by my noble friend Lord Swinfen, to which the noble Lord is now replying. The South of Scotland Electricity Board is in the process of fitting in my house the latest possible gadget, which includes a thermostat on the outside of the house on the North wall so as to control the heat used on warm days. As a Scotsman I said, "Yes, do this. I should love to watch but I will not pay"!
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that. It proves once again, if proof were needed, how enterprising are the Scots. I think we have had a valuable debate on this subject and I am grateful for the opportunity it has provided to explain the measures which the electricity supply industry and the Government have taken in response to the increases in electricity prices over the last few years. The lower off-peak price offered in the new Economy 7 tariff should be of real benefit to many consumers who rely on electricity for space heating, and other off-peak users who take an afternoon boost are already benefiting from the cost savings that have enabled the industry to introduce the new tariff.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with Amendments.