HL Deb 03 December 1981 vol 425 cc1174-95

6.33 p.m.

Lord Windlesham rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what comments have been received on the report of the Home Office study entitled Direct Broadcasting by Satellite and when they intend to decide upon a policy towards satellite broadcasting.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in putting the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper to the Government this evening I should declare a personal interest. I have worked in independent television for many years, and I am, until the end of this year, chairman of one of the ITV programme companies. But I am not here to speak for any outside interest. I speak on the subject of direct broadcasting by satellite entirely for myself.

The Question before us refers to the report of the Home Office study, Direct Broadcasting by Satellite, abbreviated to DBS, which was published in May of this year. I think all those of your Lordships who have read it will agree it is a most thorough and comprehensive document. It provides a detailed and a welcome introduction to a particularly complex subject, and one furthermore that it is easy to generalise about. To my mind, the report is a model of its kind, and shows what the Civil Service can do at its best.

On the first page it starts with an introduction by the Home Secretary phrased in characteristic language and identifying five "strategic options": Option A: a full and early start (for example, five new DBS services starting in, say, 1987); Option B: a full but later start (in, say, 1990); Option C: a modest but early start (one possibility would be two new DBS services starting perhaps in 1986); Option D: a modest later start (in, say, 1990); and Option E: no DBS at all, at any rate in the foreseeable future".

Anyone with experience of decision-taking in Whitehall or elsewhere will have no difficulty in identifying out of this list of five possibilities the middle one, Option C, as the front runner.

One question, however, that must be asked before the Government reach any final decision is whether the framework for the public policy which is beginning to emerge—it is now in the preliminary stages—is too narrow. The report affirms that so far as the programme operations go—that is, the use that is made of satellites—DBS should be contained within the existing broadcasting arrangements and institutions (those are the words used in the report). What this means in practice is the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority.

The reason given is that the existing rules and conventions which have grown up so laboriously over many years covering impartiality in the reporting of news and standards of taste and public decency would be perpetuated. On the face of it, it may seem a reasonable assertion. But I am not sure this assumption should be accepted without being tested by argument.

Last week there was a satellite broadcasting conference in Vienna. It was organised by the Economist in association with the International Institute of Communications. The institutional structure of satellite broadcasting was debated—and it was particularly interesting to hear a bold and far from self-serving view expressed by a senior spokesman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority. While affirming the desire of the IBA to be in the advance guard of technological progress, the speaker went on to refer to programme regulation. I quote his actual words: It may be that the national interest is to be better served by the creation of a fresh institution to serve fresh goals. The original institutions can then be left to serve the former goals for as long as the nation, through its Parliament, decrees. In short, we may need to ask ourselves whether satellite broadcasting is simply a variation of forms familiar to us over many years or whether it brings in new elements which should radically alter our thinking and which perhaps call for fresh minds uninhibited by traditional ways of thought or unhampered by obligations incurred over the years to conflicting interests". The Home Office was represented at the conference, and I hope that the Minister's officials will give careful thought to this opinion, coming, as it did, not from those who sometimes suffer from regulation, but from a representative of one of the regulatory bodies itself.

Even as we speak, in Geneva the European Broadcasting Union has today responded positively to an offer from the European Space Agency. The offer was for the free experimental use of one of the transponders on L-Sat for the provision of a broadcasting service. What is envisaged is a pan-European broadcasting experiment broadcast from the ESA's L-Sat and co-ordinated by the European Broadcasting Union. Already 15 European broadcasting organisations, including the United Kingdom, have stated an interest in taking part. It is difficult, however, to see how a European initiative of this sort effectively could be regulated by any national broadcasting institution.

It seems to me, my Lords, that concentration on the institutional forms, on the most appropriate type of broadcasting institution, is more relevant and important than debating the possibility of a departmental shift of responsibility for broadcasting away from the Home Office to the Department of Industry. Despite the advocacy to the contrary of the Economist, I believe that a change of this sort would be regretted by most broadcasters. The Department of Industry is of course an interested party, bearing in mind the industrial aspects of space and the provision of the hardware. But I should prefer to see the broader social policy aspects left as the concern of a separate department not exclusively concerned with the industrial dimension.

There is a dilemma now facing Government and we should be frank about it. On the one hand, there is an export potential for satellite equipment and for the technology which exists in this country, largely in British Aerospace, but elsewhere as well. If we do not go ahead, Britain may find itself excluded from the new markets which are so important both for reasons of trade and maintaining employment. On the other hand, there is no real demand for new broad casting services beyond those extensions which have already, after prolonged debate, been authorised; namely, the introduction of the fourth channel next year and breakfast television in 1984. Moreover, DBS—direct broadcasting from satellites—could be disruptive of the existing systems of independent television and the BBC and the standards which have grown up over many years.

We can all agree, my Lords, that there are large issues of policy here, not just of industrial policy, possibly clashing with cultural standards, but questions of finance and regulation, as well as protection and freedom. It is important not to lose sight of these fundamental principles in reaching a decision. I hope the Government will move ahead boldly and imaginatively in adopting a policy. I trust they will not delay much longer, and that in reaching a decision they will be helped by the opinions expressed in the House this evening.

6.44 p.m.

Lord Winstanley

My Lords, in rising at this point I am very conscious of two matters. The first is that owing to another public engagement it is possible that I might have to leave before the end of the debate, but if I do so I hope it will be understood that no discourtesy is intended to those who follow me, and shall read every word with the greatest possible interest, though I shall stay as long as I can. Secondly, I am conscious of the fact that this is an Unstarred Question rather than a debate. For those two reasons I shall make a very short speech.

I put down my name to speak tonight merely to underline the extreme importance which my noble friends on these Benches attach to this Question, which was put so clearly and fairly by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. I put down my name to speak because I wish also to underline what we on these Benches believe to be the extreme urgency of the Government providing appropriate answers to the kinds of questions which have been posed today.

If I wanted to go more deeply into the subject I would perhaps do no more than quote from speeches already made in your Lordships' House, and no useful purpose would be served by simply repeating them. For example, we see that on 24th July 1980 at col. 588 of Hansard the noble Lord, Lord Willis, made an admirable speech in which he covered all the new technological developments, going far beyond satellites, which will have and indeed are already having a profound effect on broadcasting. It would be immensely helpful if Ministers and others interested in the subject took the trouble to go back to that debate and read the clear exposition of what is happening in this field, admirably expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, on that earlier occasion, and no useful purpose would be served by me repeating it.

At col. 609 of Hansard for that debate was another admirable speech, made by the noble Earl, Lord de La Warr, in which he summarised many of the technical matters which are crucial, and it would be inappropriate for me to quote from that speech because, as the noble Earl is to speak later, he may wish to make that speech again, and if he does I will say, "A jolly good thing too" because it was an excellent speech.

In that speech the noble Earl dealt very much with a subject in which I have always had a great interest, pay television. I have tended to believe that if we give more opportunities for people to choose the kind of things they would like to view or listen to and actually pay for it, then, provided we can create the machinery whereby that can be done, minority interests can perhaps be much better catered for than they have been in the past, though I am bound to say that it is sometimes rather difficult to know what a minority interest is. Something which starts as a minority interest can soon become a majority interest.

I remember about 15 years ago, when I had the honour and pleasure of serving for some years as a member of the BBC General Advisory Committee—I served until such time as the BBC came to the conclusion that they preferred advice of a somewhat different character than that which they regularly received from me—I strongly urged the BBC to think about televising snooker. I was told that was rubbish because it was a minority interest and nobody would want to watch it. It just goes to show that some minority interests become majority ones.

The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in putting this Question forward, has alerted us once again to the fact that major changes are already taking place, changes which can have a profound impact on television, for those who provide it, for those who initiate and prepare programmes and for all those who receive programmes, enjoy them or otherwise. I believe that the new developments can all prove to be thoroughly beneficial provided we take the necessary steps in time, and that means now. The new developments can be beneficial purely financially, and in commercial terms new technology brings new opportunities which do not now exist. They can be beneficial to broadcasters themselves, and the creative people in that industry, by providing more opportunities and outlets. I also believe that at the end of the day the new opportunities, arising in part from satellites as well as other new forms of technology, can provide viewers with a much greater degree of choice. All those are matters to be welcomed.

But here are also problems. There are already problems with regard to copyright and daily infringements of copyright which are occurring, with people making video tape recordings of programmes and reissuing them and so on. There are many problems on the horizon with regard to the general balance of television and broadcasting. In Parliament, with the BBC Charter and the independent television Act, we have always taken great care to distance Parliament from the control of broadcasting. We have required other authorities to see that the balance is preserved overall, rather than specifically within individual programmes. But I have always tended to believe that the only real answer to the question of fairness and balance is for the maximum number of individual creative people to have the maximum number of opportunities and the maximum amount of personal freedom and autonomy. Then one has variety and genuinely has choice.

With these latest developments we are on the brink of a new, wide-ranging choice for viewers, but we are also on the brink of the total demolition of the elaborate arrangements that we have erected in order to control what people watch and what is presented by various organisations. These are all matters that will have to be thought about.

I said that I would make a short speech, and I see that it is already longer than I meant it to be. All I want to add is that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has raised a matter of immense importance. There are many crucial problems. I could outline them and list them, but I am sure that other noble Lords will do so, and I appreciate that the noble Lord himself listed many. They were also referred to in the earlier debate in your Lordships' House. But I say that if we are to derive full benefit from these developments without any corresponding or counter-balancing drawbacks, decisions really must be taken now on a whole range of matters. Therefore, it is with great interest that I look forward to hearing the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. When I have heard him reply to previous debates I have tended to feel that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has a gift for finding a difficulty in regard to every solution. If he will forgive me, I must say that on this occasion it really is important to all concerned that we hear some actual answers and positive statements of what the Government are now doing and intend to do on a matter of extreme urgency.

6.53 p.m.

Lord Aylestone

My Lords, the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for tabling this Question. This is a fascinating subject, which has been made easier for us to understand by the very thorough study that the Home Office has undertaken and has published for us to read. Even those of us who are not technically-minded are able to understand at least part of it. But it leaves a number of questions unanswered, and if the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, can answer some of them tonight he might help both us and the country.

I think I am right in saying that there are still areas of this country without any television at all. There are areas which have been left with only black and white television—without colour—following the change in line definition from 625 to 405. Therefore, my first question is: If, and when, we have direct broadcasting by satellite into the home, will it cover more easily all those areas where we have not been able to get a signal on what is known as the terrestrial system? That is my first question. I am in favour of DBS; I think we have to go ahead. My second question is: Do the Government foresee replacing the existing three channels, plus the fourth channel and breakfast time television, with five channels from a satellite, or do they think in terms of five channels in addition to those that we already have? If the latter is the case, are all the channels really necessary?

These are the kind of questions that people are hound to ask when they consider the cost involved in the whole exercise. It would probably take about five years before we could get the satellite in the air, and it would probably cost £300 to £400 to each household that hoped to receive a direct signal from the satellite. The second figure is made up by a module to receive the signal from the satellite, plus an additional aerial of a different type—a dish aerial, as it is generally known as. But of course the main cost will not be to the householder. The main cost will be to either the Government, who might wish to fund the project, or private industry that was interested in funding it. They would have to find many millions of pounds to construct the satellite and then to launch it.

We know that these things can be done. The world authority has given us the opportunity to go ahead with the L-Sat, the large satellite, with five channels, if we so wish, and it is for the Government to decide. But before that is done, we ought to consider the cost and how it is proposed to pay for the project. One suggestion is that the five channels, if they are all used—and there is no real need to use them all at once—could be paid for by some form of subscription television; that is, paying for the programmes that one receives. That, too, is a possibility. It would need on the receiver an additional device in the form of a descrambler to descramble the transmission from the particular channel of the satellite; otherwise everyone with a dish aerial could receive a programme that other people were paying for. That is another little problem that will have to be considered. But in this country we have not yet proved that what is known as subscription, pay, or cable television is financially viable. It probably will be in the fullness of time. Whether it would be in regard to the satellite, one does not know.

As I have already said, at the moment we have three channels. We shall have a fourth channel next year, and then there will be breakfast time television in a few years' time. If DBS (direct broadcast by satellite) is to be successful, it must somehow be covered—I mean financially covered—and I am not quite clear how this is to be done.

There is another point I should like to ask the Government about. Is it their view that the BBC and the IBA, both with considerable technical knowledge, should undertake the ground work; that is, the transmission from the ground to the satellite? Is it the view that the existing engineering sections of the two authorities should do that? These are a few questions arising from the report that I feel need answering, if the Government can answer them at the present moment. I should hate the Government at some point in the near future to say that in view of a number of queries and problems we had better set up a commission to look at the whole thing once again. That would mean putting it to bed for five years by which time both France and Germany would be undertaking direct broadcasting by satellite. I think that we have all the information we need. What we need more than anything else at the moment is a decision from the Government. I am in favour of going ahead, even if only slowly.

I remember, as do most of us, the discussions that we have had about Concorde. It has been a very costly development of a quite wonderful aircraft, but we can never measure accurately the spin-off in technology and knowledge that has come to us through building Concorde. I think that the same will apply to direct broadcasting by satellite. I hope that the Government will go ahead, perhaps slowly, and that in the fullness of time those areas that have not been easy to cover by the present system of terrestrial broadcasts can be covered by direct broadcasting by satellite.

6.59 p.m.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, I appreciate the opportunity given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, to air this matter. I have an approach that I think is rather different from that of some other speakers. I do not share the sense of urgency that I hear expressed around the Chamber in regard to this issue. Before I explain why I do not share that sense of urgency, I should like to touch on one subject which the noble Lord raised in introducing the debate; namely, the question of governmental control of broadcasting. We have indeed moved a very long way since the days of Lord Reith, but even from those days until now I have never taken the view that the Home Office was really the right department to look after broadcasting. Broadcasting never has been a home affair. We have always controlled it with quite a light hand, happily, through the Home Office, but it has always seemed to me that this is really the wrong department.

I have always felt that, with the present division of the whole of this area—for example, broadcasting under the Home Office, films partly under Trade and partly under Arts, sports under the Environment and museums partly under Environment and partly under Arts—there is a tremendous confusion; and I believe that this confusion would be solved if we were once and for all to make up our minds to create a Ministry of the Arts, Communications, Entertainment and Sport. That, together, would make up a viable Ministry and would be a department which was wholly concerned with the whole area. I think we shall probably not get a coherent policy in any of these fields until such time as ministerial and departmental responsibility is centralised under the control of one Minister.

The BBC, when it first set up as a broadcasting organisation, had over its portals—and it still has—the words, "Nation shall speak unto nation". What it does not say, of course, is, "Nation shall listen to nation". There has been an awful lot of international broadcasting but relatively little international listening, and, indeed, surprisingly little international communication of any sort.

I take leave to doubt whether in fact television is really an international medium. I rather suspect that it is in fact a national development, and that to some extent the nature of television reflects the nature of the society within which it exists. This, I think, is particularly true of our own system. Rather unusually on our side of the House, I was always in favour of breaking the BBC's monopoly. On the whole, we on this side of the House, I think, saw the BBC, a public corporation, as being all good, and rather thought that Lord Reith had something to do with that—and of course he had. His idea of television and of broadcasting generally was a very different one from the modern idea. He saw it as an instrument of education rather than one of entertainment and enjoyment.

As far as I was personally concerned, I was delighted when ITA came along. I was rather worried by the fact that it was financed by advertising; but I thought we got the best of both worlds when we set up the IBA so that we had the advantage of the finance coming from advertising and yet kept it under a reasonable degree of control. In that way we did not slide into the disastrous situation into which they have got themselves in the United States, where television is simply not worth looking at because the interruption by advertising is so constant that it totally prevents one getting any kind of cohesive or continuous enjoyment of the programme, which is mainly, I think, why people do not look at the television so much in the United States as they do here.

As far as the development of satellite broadcasting is concerned, I have not heard so far what the urgency is about. Who is going to benefit? What are the advantages to be? Why is it that we need this new development? It seems to me that where they have rather more channels than we have in this country, they have worse television. What is the use of choice if you have 12 stations, all of them broadcasting a B Western? You have a choice of station certainly, but in fact it is a bogus choice. If you go to Japan or if you go to the United States, you will find a wide range of channels but it is all the same thing.

The difficulty I see with regard to this development is the question that the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, touched upon, and that is: who is going to finance it? Where is the money coming from? Is it coming from the Government? The Government are going to tell us, "No". I am quite sure about that: that when the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, replies to the debate he will not stand up and say, "Yes, this is a matter in regard to which the Government are ready to put their hands deeply into their pocket, and they will finance the whole thing so as to make sure that we get the sort of television that we want".

It is as well to bear in mind, I think, so far as our own system is concerned, that the networks have always been within Government control. The programming, certainly, has been in separate hands, but the networking, the technology, has always been in the hands of Government. What are the Government going to do about this? Is the technology to be with IBA or the BBC, as the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, asked, or is the technology to be created from private sources; and, if it is to be created from private sources, where is the return on capital coming from? It can only come by the same kind of excessive concentration on advertising which I think has disfigured American television and which has disfigured so much television in some other countries.

So therefore I ask myself: What is the urgency that we see? Curiously enough, I take the same view about this as IBA have taken. They sent me a little piece of information about the attitude that the Independent Broadcasting Authority take on this subject, and they conclude with these words, with which I think, if I may, I, too, will conclude except for just one other short point. What they say is this: … in particular the industrial arguments for developing new technology must, in our view, go forward in parallel with the arguments for ensuring that programmes seen by the United Kingdom audience continue to be of the highest possible standard, and that the infrastructure for this (financial, creative, technical, organisational, and legal) is such as to preserve quality". This, my Lords, is the key question—"is such as to preserve quality". I think there is a very grave danger that we may get a technical advance arising from this development and, in doing so, destroy the key factor of the British television system, which is the concentration upon quality. If this means a development in which we get a greater technological advance, tele vision which is more easily received, that would be bought at too high a cost if the consequence of it was a deterioration not only in the form of television that we would be getting from outer space but a consequent deterioration, which I think can hardly be avoided, in the quality of our own terrestrial television broadcasts.

Finally, I would add just one other word. The Trades Union Congress has also considered this. Perhaps I ought to say before I sit down that my interest in this originally was at the time when broadcasting was at an earlier stage and I was working with British Actors' Equity Association. Therefore I came to this with the interests of the performers very much in mind. I am no longer connected with Equity except that I am an honorary member of that organisation. I am extremely proud to have that position of honorary membership—and it is a very rare distinction which I share with Lord Olivier, and I am delighted to enjoy it—but I would like to quote one word, if I may, from the TUC point of view.

What they say is that they would like to see satellite transmissions subject to firm regulatory control to protect broadcasting and United Kingdom autonomy over our national broadcasting transmissions". They would not like to see this country lose the degree of control which we already have over what happens in our own broadcasting transmissions. We have therefore come together. We have the Trades Union Congress and the Independent Broadcasting Authority speaking with a single voice in this matter, and asking that, whatever happens, quality should be upheld.

7.9 p.m.

Earl De La Warr

My Lords, too, should like to welcome the Question which has been asked by my noble friend Lord Windlesham. As he reminded us, this study came out in May; answers were required, and no doubt were in, by July; and so December seems to be a very timely moment for the Government to be asked this Question. I should like to say, on a lighter note, that although I can assure your Lordships there has been no collusion between us in any way except for a telephone call this morning, my noble friend Lord Windlesham and I can in a sense be called industrial cousins. Many years ago my noble friend Lord Windlesham was in Associated Rediffusion making programmes and I was in its first cousin, Rediffusion, making television sets. So that there has been a connection between us in broadcasting throughout many years.

I should like to go along with my noble friend in congratulating the Home Office on an excellent Paper. I am sure that it is not proper to mention the names of civil servants but those of us who are in touch know who wrote it; and I should like to offer him my very sincere congratulations. I think the reason for this is that it successfully covers the whole spectrum of this extremely complicated subject; it does not confine itself to programming. It deals with finance, with engineering and with what I call the industrial dimension, and it does so in a very fair way.

It seems to me that it provides a very solid base for planning—perhaps so solid that it has made it incumbent upon the Government to take some early decisions; because everything is in the Paper and the Government hardly can (and I am sure that they do not want to) escape. I hope tonight for a really positive response from my noble friend Lord Belstead which does its best to leave us in some considerably greater degree of certainty and knowledge than we are in at the moment. Like other speakers—and there seems to be very considerable agreement around the House here—I regard the decisions as urgent for reasons which I will adduce a little later; and, for reasons which also will adduce a little later, I am one of those who favour the earliest possible launch. In order that we may get to this as quickly as possible, I would suggest the simplest which, as I understand it, is the two-broadcasting-channel option.

We know that the French and the Germans have already decided, and probably decided a couple of years ago, to launch their satellite. We may expect them at the latest in 1984 and, probably, in 1983. So far as we are concerned, and on the sort of timing that elapses between a decision and the actuality in this business, if we take a decision now we are already talking about a launch in the middle of the decade and not before.

My Lords, I must confess that my concern, despite everything in this document, is about the priorities that will obtain in the decision taking. This is a point on which I hope very much—and I have some confidence in it despite my concern—that the Minister can put our minds to rest. Over the years—and this has not been a political matter at all but has covered decades—the traditional attitude of Governments has been, as my noble friend Lord Windlesham has said, to seek orderly development programmes; and, so far, I must say that I think they have been absolutely right. It is because of that that I think it can rightly be said that we have probably the best broadcasting system with the best broadcasting content in the world.

The question is whether a direct broadcast satellite will fit into the same parameters that have been used in the past. I hope that your Lordships will not think it too fanciful if I go back a number of generations—and over a decade I have used this analogy—and remind your Lordships that up to late Elizabethan times it was illegal to own and operate a printing press without the consent of the Crown, so great was the fear that the people would gain too much knowledge. Well, public opinion and what was even then a considerable technological advance put an end to this; and one just wonders whether there is not some parallel to be drawn today.

My Lords, I have already said that the DBS (Direct Broadcasting Satellite) introduces some wholly new dimensions. One cannot deal with the whole spectrum but what I want to deal with tonight is the industrial dimension. I want to draw your Lordships' attention to the very big world market which exists for broadcasting and other forms of communication satellite. The European Space Agency has, I think, calculated (or guessed) that in the next 10 years or so there will he a market of £2,000 million.

It is surely absolutely essential in this country when our old industries are declining that we should go for the biggest slice we can get of this sort of business, business that covers the aerospace industry and a big slice of the electronics industry. It is exactly that that we need for the future of our industry. The French and the Germans are in the business already; the United States are in it. Somebody better qualified than I can say whether the Japanese are in it. If they are not, they jolly soon will be; you can bet your bottom dollar on that! This is the case for our getting into the business and it is going to need some extremely hard marketing in order to get our share of this world market.

British Aerospace, and, I have no doubt, other companies, believe passionately that it is going to be of enormous help to them to sell satellites round the world if one of the early satellites that go up is a British satellite, for this country, made by a manufacturer in this country. As somebody who has been in marketing for a large part of his life, I agree totally with this. It goes beyond the question of building satellites because the whole of the trade concerned with this business is involved. What is called at length the British Electronic Equipment Manufacturers' Association—which I have known as BEEMA for as long as I can remember—has drawn to the attention of the Home Office, and rightly, the possibilities that are open to them.

Let us remember that we shall have to make dishes and down leads. I do not want to get too technical; but I would remind your Lordships that the frequency of broadcasting up aloft will be at 12 GH and there is no way you can put 12 Giga Herz from a dish in a down lead to a television set without the picture becoming virtually unviewable and hopelessly noisy. People will need to have that piece of equipment inside the house and another piece of equipment which will have to change the polarity and the form of modulation and, finally, if it is to be pay TV you will have a descrambler. All of these are bits of equipment which our industry is well equipped to make for this country and for export.

Sets themselves will need to be re-designed because in due course it will be possible to put the right type of chip inside a set for a couple of pounds which will make the more expensive pieces of equipment irrelevant and unnecessary. Manufacturers are right to want an early decision on that. One can simply say that the opportunities here for export are matched pretty equally by the risks of import penetration from our competitors.

In 1977 the world conference set the scene so far as Europe is concerned and all parties are now ready. The BBC is ready with plans for renting channels. They have suggested that they will have one channel of pay TV and one channel of what they call the best of BBC. There will be some extra films here but by and large it does not mean very much new programming. The aerospace industries are ready, British Aerospace or Marconi, and they are most anxious to get into the detailed engineering. Probably the key to the whole thing lies in financing it; it usually does when the chips are down. I can give your Lordships an absolute assurance that private capital is available and anxious to go into this in order to pay for the launching of these satellites. Satellites, after all, are in the risk business and it therefore seems right that it should be private capital which should go into these new ventures.

Again, I say with the best will in the world that programming will be the sticky part if we allow it to be so. I believe strongly that we cannot afford—and nor is it necessary—to wait for the usual debates that take place on this subject that frequently take so long. I repeat that the French and Germans are putting up a satellite. They have not waited, they are just going to put it up; and none of their plans of programming, so far as I know, are well advanced.

My wish is to seek an act of faith on the part of the Government, the proof of which will only be an early decision to approve an early launch. I am quite sure that the Home Office is in very careful conference with the department of information and technology which exists now within the orbit of the Department of Industry because so near does all this bring us to the domain of that department that I believe that the new department cannot possibly be left out. So let us admit that the arrival of this new technology imposes on Government and industry an imperative which in the name of the future prosperity of this country we can neither delay nor duck. At our peril will we forget that in the field of video information the inexorable advance of technology—which we cannot stop even if we would—is forcing the old order to give place to the new; and, more particularly, in the field of governmental control. That this is so is likely to be well demonstrated in the matter of broadcasting satellites. That is one of the reasons why I believe that this Question tonight is so aptly timed.

7.25 p.m.

Lard Reay

My Lords, I should like to start with a quotation from a European Commission document to which a reference is made on page 80 of the fascinating Home Office study which, thanks to the initiative of my noble friend Lord Windlesham, we are discussing this evening. The Commission document entitled European Society Faced with the Challenge of New Information Technologies: A Community Response describes how the heads of state and Government of the Community at their conference in Bonn in July 1978: … recognised the need to identify new sources of growth and employment to offset the difficult adjustments that traditional industries such as coal, steel, shipbuilding and textiles are being forced to undergo. At Strasbourg they agreed that the dynamic complex of information industries based on the new electronic technologies offered a major source of such economic growth and social development and invited the Commission to report". In other words, the first Commission studies were founded on the perception that Europe had to re-locate its manufacturing strength in the industries of the future.

I believe that the British Government should adopt exactly the same priority. Whatever the difficult choices that have to be made, two-channel or five-channel satellites, cable or individual reception, methods of finance, methods of control, whatever the apparent obstacles in the way of an early start because the IBA have enough on their plate for the next few years or because of the reluctance to take a risk which may lead down to a dead end or a reluctance to find the finance required, I think that the Government should attack the question of a British DBS with the overriding aim of giving British industry from the earliest possible moment the chance to secure the maximum possible share of the world market in all its various sectors, such as were listed by my noble friend Lord De La Warr, in this extraordinary revolution in communications that is taking place. To achieve this I am sure that the Government need to take up as soon as possible the full options open to them under the 1977 agreement. If chances like these are not seized with enthusiasm, then none of us will ever live to see the recovery of Britain's manufacturing and social vitality.

The second point that I want to make—I make it as a delegate to the Assembly of the Council of Europe where this matter has received a considerable amount of attention—is that I find the international dimension of the study somewhat disappointing. The study concentrates on options involved in the organisation of British direct satellite broadcasting. There is a chapter entitled "European aspects of DBS" but I feel that too little attention is paid to events to which I think this country is only too likely to be subjected from outside.

The impression is given that this country will hardly be accessible to overspill from abroad; but I think that the authors may be exaggerating the effective distance of Luxembourg and other centres—or, to be more exact, the distance of their so-called "footprints". The tendency of overspill to grow as improvements are made in the means of powering satellite transmissions is not mentioned. The possibility of a deliberate commercial assault on the viewers of this country from outside is hardly alluded to. I agree with my noble friend Lord Windlesham in what lie said in his article today in The Times that the growth of cable television in this country has been unnecessarily and artificially restricted. I paraphrase his words, but I think those were his sentiments. With cable television, of course, the opportunities for penetration of one country by the programmes from another are vastly increased. Your Lordships may or may not be aware that in Amsterdam it is already possible to receive every night television programmes from Moscow.

I do not believe it is either possible or desirable to prevent reception of these external broadcasts as a general rule and the question arises: Can any international agreements relating to standards (perhaps to minimum standards) be reached or not? In the Steering Committee on the Mass Media in the Council of Europe, which meets at ministerial level, questions such as the possibility of agreeing on minimum advertising standards, problems of copyright, considerations of different national requirements in the field of morals, taste and advertising prohibitions, have been studied and, so far as I am aware, are still being studied. I should he grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Belstead—this is a question of which I have given prior notice—in his reply could tell us whether he believes that any useful agreement could come out of the Steering Committee on the Mass Media in the Council of Europe of an international kind, together with a procedure for complaints and redress. If this answer is in the affirmative, I should like to know where the committee has now got to in its deliberations.

My final point concerns the nature of the revolution itself—"the unstoppable tide", as my noble friend Lord Windlesham called it in his article today. It seems to me that what this revolution offers is the extension of choice. I therefore think that the Government, perhaps in a area they did not expect, will find themselves with more than an opportunity—with an obligation—to roll back the frontiers of the state. In theory it will be possible for Governments to control broadcasts that are relayed by cable, but in practice will it be desirable to prevent the mass audience re ceiving broadcasts on cable which a richer minority will be able to continue to receive on their own higher-powered individual antennae.

I can see foreign programmes being very much cherished by national or cultural minorities. These may come from the other side of the world. Will the Government wish to ban them? But how can they control them? Would it not be a temptation of a totalitarian kind to try to exclude foreign programmes because of the political matter they contain? Certainly that would be a very serious step to take. Are we in fact not reaching a situation where we have to apply the principle of a free press to the air waves? More and more, I am coming to the conclusion that that has to be our approach.

7.34 p.m.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, we on this side of the House would like to express our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for having raised this subject this evening. It is one of tremendous importance and indeed does merit a good deal more debate in this House, I think, than is in fact accorded by the very welcome Unstarred Question on which the discussion takes place.

The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, dealt particularly with the institutional aspects of the proposition and were very concerned as to how the whole matter should be organised, the various responsibilities and so on. In fact the speeches that have been made this evening have covered the ground so very well that it would be quite repetitive of me to endeavour to cover the same ground.

Somewhat strangely, I find myself in very considerable sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, who emphasised the urgency of the whole matter; and I must express my regret to my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney, who did not seem to think that the thing was quite so urgent. I think it is very urgent indeed, although I well appreciate the environmental considerations and the quality-of-life considerations which I am quite sure lay behind what my noble friend had to say.

We are living at a time when progress, we now know, is not made on a straight arithmetical line: it goes in geometric progression. Few of us know today what developments are going to happen in the next 10 years, or even in the next five years as a result of the developments of this further step forward into the transmission of pictures, of ideas and of sound, by whatever means it may be done. Here we have a position where a single satellite, I believe orbiting in a geostationary position some 36,000 kilometres above the earth, can be used in effect as a reflector to places which, as the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, pointed out, in some cases are inaccessible from the point of view of ordinary terrestrial broadcasts.

The mind boggles as to where future developments emerging from that one will lead us over the next 10 years. It does not need a very considerable leap of the imagination to be able to visualise circumstances in which, as a result of the whole system of direct satellite broadcasting, instead of firms' executives having to fly by jet from one city to another all over the world, they may in fact within a comparatively short time be able, as a result of technical developments of this develop ment, to have their own screens and sets in their own offices and to have simultaneous conferences where they can all see and listen to each other in almost exactly the same way as if they were in one room. There are further technical and ordinary practical developments beyond that, but consider the implications for mankind if even that development took place.

I am pleased to refer to the emphasis which the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, gave to the spin-off. What would happen under those circumstances? What would happen to the airlines, for example, and what would be the repercussions on international transport, and so on? The spin-off effects of this development are likely to be considerable, and one hopes that they will be for the benefit of mankind. So I do believe that there is this question of urgency.

The only point, I think, on which I disagree with the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, was his optimism. He seemed to think that the capital would be readily available. I have perhaps only to refer him to the report itself for him to be persuaded that this is not the case. The report showed that there was a marked hesitancy on the part of private capital to invest in a project of this kind until very detailed market research had been done. As I say, the report referred with some hesitancy—

Earl De La Warr

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? He is being extremely helpful about this. I had not thought it proper to mention specific names of City institutions, but I assure the noble Lord that willingness has gone a great deal further since this report was written.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl. But I should like to place on record what the report actually said. Talking of the proposals to provide private capital for the direct broadcasting system, it said: However, this proposal is made subject to a satisfactory market survey of the likely public demand for DBS services. Other companies seem to be interested, too, but there is no certainty at the present time that private sector funds would be available and, if they were, on what terms and conditions The report continued: It is in this context that the question of long-term assurances from the broadcasters or the Government, or both, could become relevant and would raise a number of difficulties". What I cannot understand is that from the outset, and in the Home Secretary's introduction to the report, the Government have laid it down quite firmly that there is to be no Government financial assistance whatsoever to this project. Mr. Whitelaw said: We should also have to look for solutions to the problems of financing any new broadcasting services otherwise than by means of Government expenditure and without undermining our existing services", and so on. The report went out of its way to emphasise this. On page 3 of the report, in paragraph 1.4 of the introduction, we are informed that, Those consulted were advised not to assume that there would be any Government expenditure on a direct broadcasting satellite service or that programme services would be provided other than by or under the supervision of the existing broadcasting authorities". I ask the question: why? I think that the House ought to consider whether there is a connection between the fact that, in France and Germany, the plans for DBS are very well advanced indeed—as has already been indicated in the course of the debate—and that the German and French Governments have already given substantial financial assistance to the project, and the fact that they are in the field before we are. This ought, surely, to be a matter for some consideration in the United Kingdom. At one time, we had a reputation for being first in a whole number of fields—technical, mechanical, electrical, electronic or whatever it may be. Why, then, are we still envisaging the leisurely approach?

Any Government that really sees the possibilities of direct broadcasting by satellite—and I am now talking in terms of its immediate industrial effects, which were referred to so very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr—should he giving it all possible support, which it has been given in France and Germany, as well as in the United States, where the spin-off from the whole of the space programme has been very considerable in ensuring that the American system got into operation first, which, indeed, it has.

I cannot understand the obsession which the Government appear to have, that all development must, of necessity, be in private hands and be provided by private capital. I cannot understand this obsession that the whole thing must be left to the free enterprise system, operating without restraint, when all the signs around the Government are that the whole system is creaking and crumbling before our very eyes, as, indeed, is evidenced by the present disastrous circumstances in which the country finds itself.

The Government seem to assume that capital has no social responsibilities whatsoever. Capital, and the power that capital commands over the availability of the means of production, is free to go exactly where it likes, according to the free market, regardless of the consequences on the population of the country from which the capital originated and where the wealth which lies behind it was earned. I cannot understand, particularly in relation to a project of this kind, why there is an insistence, which is made implicit all the way through the document, that if there is to be any development public funds are not going into it anyway. I think that this is a fatal mistake.

Whatever the assurances which the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, is prepared to give to the House—and T accept that he gave them in perfectly good faith and I would not wish to cast any aspersions whatsoever on them—I am convinced on the basis of past performance that, if this very high risk area is left to capital which has shown itself so risk-shy over the last 20 years, there will be no perceptible development at all and we shall go on postponing the options for year after year. Meanwhile, the electronics manufacturers in Germany and France and, sooner or later, in Japan will rapidly be capturing the world market for this equipment, whether it be 90 centimetre antenna or 2 metre antenna; whether it be the converter boxes, the scramblers or whatever it may be.

The market is already in the process of creation and countries other than our own are preparing now to exploit it under our very noses, and they already have a two-year lead. Are the Government so preoccupied with the shires, and with those whose good fortune it is to till the land, that they fail to see how vitally necessary it is at this time to put forward an additional stimulus into that one branch of industry which is already begin ning to show signs of growth—and vigorous growth at that? Are they not prepared to do that, or are we to have the same degree of dithering that we had on the INMOS project, where it took an agonised Secretary of State for Industry one year while he wrestled with his conscience as to whether or not public funds were to be put up in support of the investment?

I have nothing, or practically nothing, to say in dissent from what any noble Lord has said about this paper, which I entirely agree is an admirable one. But what we want now is not to be passed off with statements such as, "The Government have this matter under careful review. They are leaving no stone unturned in order to ensure that at some future time a further inquiry will be held on an interdepartmental basis, subject to the approval of a senior Minister, which will report possibly in 12 months' or two years' time."

What industry in this country requires is this-and when I say "industry" I include, of course, the workers in industry who are a very important part of it. Indeed, without them there would not be any industry at all. At this time they are interested in seeing that industry, in some form or other, makes some progress in this country. The only way, in my view, in which this can be pressed forward is by the Government quitting its agonising as to where the money is coming from and making a sensible investment in it, as distinct from continually wasting money by increasing unemployment and having to pay out benefit; making some sensible investment, not on an ill-considered basis, because the mere provision of money by itself does nothing, but on the basis of the very excellent technical outline which is available to them and which is summarised in this report—and, indeed, on the basis of some of the very sensible suggestions which have been made this evening in your Lordships' House.

7.52 p.m.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Windlesham for this opportunity to debate this question. Indeed, this is the first opportunity, think, that either House of Parliament has had to debate direct broadcasting by satellite for some time, and certainly since the publication of the Home Office report. As he declared at the beginning of his speech, my noble friend has considerable experience of television and I am convinced that he is right to advise the House this evening that we need to lift our eyes to the opportunities as well as the problems of direct broadcasting by satellite. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Home Secretary's foreword to the Home Office report gave an indication of our positive approach to satellite broadcasting.

I was grateful also to my noble friend and to my noble friend Lord De La Warr, and other noble Lords, for their words of appreciation for the Home Office survey of the questions which direct broadcasting by satellite—DBS as we have come to call it—raise for the United Kingdom. The report examines the implications of a modest start, or a full start, or no start at all. It examines the question of timing—whether an early start or a late start—and it considers the strategic questions from a number of different points of view: broadcasting policy, industrial and commercial opportunities, the environment, copyright, international aspects—all these against the factual background of what satellite broadcasting can do and how much it would cost. I was interested in Lord Windlesham's brief reference to the merits of preserving the existing departmental responsibilities. At this point I should like to assure all noble Lords that the study was produced by close co-operation between several Government departments, including in particular, of course, the Department of Industry and the Department of Trade. One significant conclusion to be drawn from the study is that the question of direct broadcasting by satellite is not fundamentally a technical one. The technology exists, as many of your Lordships know much better than I do—at a price—and the questions which we face are primarily ones of industrial and broadcasting policy.

The industrial considerations are perhaps the clearer cut. As the study found, DBS can create important opportunities both at home and abroad for the aerospace and electronics industries. When the study was written it appeared to us that there was a willingness on the part of the private sector to make the investment which would be necessary to bring about direct broadcasting by satellite. Indeed, the comments which we have received in response to the study and the positive approach outlined in my right honourable friend's foreword to it have tended to confirm that impression; an impression which has been borne out again this evening by the speech of my noble friend Lord De La Warr. We have received proposals to provide a satellite system on a common carrier basis. I would just say to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that with reference to that part of his speech which dealt with why the Government are at present saying that they do not want to become involved financially in this with large sums of Government money, there is no lack of interest on behalf of the Government. Only very recently my honourable friend the Minister for Information Technology announced the allocation of some £77 million towards the development of the ELSAT satellite within the European Space Agency. Of course, the prime contractor for ELSAT is British Aerospace. In essence, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, asked: Why the hurry? Why is there a need to push on? My noble friend Lord De La Warr replied very clearly to this point. My noble friend very succinctly and very cogently showed the industrial opportunities both for aerospace and for our electronics industry. My noble friend also emphasised very clearly and graphically what sort of equipment the reception of DBS would require. My noble friend Lord De La Warr is quite right that early decisions on DBS are most important from the industrial point of view.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, perhaps the Minister would take this into consideration: that because one gets into the transmission business it does not necessarily mean that one also gets into the receiving business. So far as radio and television receivers are concerned, the failure of this country to benefit, by the relative failure of our private enterprise to match the standards put out by our broadcasting organisations, is lamentable. Our industry, on the production and receiving side, has let a situation develop in which many of the instruments we listen and view on are not made in this country at all, as the noble Lord is well aware.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, there must be many noble Lords in the House this evening who would wish to jump to their feet on hearing the noble Lord and say that it is precisely for the reason which the noble Lord has given that they want an early decision from the Government so that British technology shall be in a position to be able to perfect the receiving equipment which would be necessary for direct broadcasting by satellite. "As early a start as possible"—those, more or less, are the words used by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the foreword to the study—would mean that the United Kingdom would be up with the leaders in the field and would be able to take advantage of the commercial opportunities in terms of the sale of satellite and the associated electronic equipment in what could prove to be an extremely important world market.

An early United Kingdom start with DBS, probably in 1986, could be, I concede to your Lordships who would like to see an earlier start, a year or so behind the French and the Germans. But in certain respects we are not behind our European neighbours. In particular, we are not behind them in thinking about the broadcasting policy aspects of satellite broadcasting and the new uses to which the broadcasting channels might be put. There was general agreement in the comments which we received on the Home Office study that satellite channels which this country might have could not sensibly be used simply to rebroadcast the terrestrial services of the BBC and the IBA.

The noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, asked me whether direct broadcasting by satellite would be able to transmit to areas not covered by the terrestrial services. My information is that, by 1984, some 99.4 per cent. of the population should be covered by the existing UHF television services, not least, of course, because of the massive transmitter building which has been going on in preparation for the fourth channel. I think it would be hard to justify using satellite channels to increase that coverage further, although in practice I think that is what DBS would do. Clearly therefore—and this was the thrust both of the study and of the comments which were received on it—satellite broadcasting would need to offer new services and only in that way could an audience for satellite broadcasting be established.

However, new broadcasting services raise important questions concerning the kind of services we want to see, who should provide them, how they should be supervised, how they should be financed and what implications they could have for the existing services. Those are all questions which the study went into in some depth. I admit that not everyone who commented felt that these questions were important but the Government believe that they are. When your Lordships consider the amount of time which this House and another place gave to the consideration of precisely these issues in relation to establishing the fourth channel, in the light of the report of the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting under the noble Lord, Lord Annan, I believe it can be said that Parliament takes these questions seriously. But certainly, to put it mildly, I accept that in this context we shall not be able to take the same period of time to reach decisions as we took about the proposals for the fourth channel.

If I may say so on behalf of the Government, I believe that the broadcasting dimension is important for two reasons—and I was most interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, on this subject and a great deal of what he said I took to heart. First, so far as the Government are concerned we think it is important because our broadcasting services are good, not by mere chance but because with the assistance of committees like the Annan Committee Parliament has built up an organisational and financial structure for broadcasting based on the public service ideal within which programme making and scheduling can flourish.

The second consideration of broadcasting policy which arises in the case of DBS is that, unlike the BBC and the IBA, and indeed unlike the fourth channel when it opens in a year's time, DBS services would be available only to those who could afford the additional receiving equipment. Even if the forecasts of audience build-up which are quoted in the report were seriously pessimistic, it is clear that for many years to come the majority of the viewing population will continue to rely on the terrestrial services of the BBC and the IBA.

I was most interested to hear my noble friend Lord Windlesham say at the beginnina, of his speech that he wondered whether direct broadcasting by satellite should be accommodated outside the existing institutions and arrangements, really a remark which built upon the most interesting article which my noble friend had in The Times today. If the BBC and IBA services were to be in any way harmed by direct broadcast by satellite, the majority of people would not benefit, but would lose from satellite broadcasting.

Having said that, I certainly recognise that new television channels can increase choice for the viewer and provide new opportunities for programme-makers, although experience in other parts of the world has not held that that is always an invariable rule, and certainly there is a persuasive argument that satellite channels could contribute to the broadcasting scene without necessarily being required, as are the BBC and the IBA, to provide a wide range in their subject-matter. But I think it would be a very serious departure if satellite broadcasting did not assume other obligations for good quality and programme standards which are the hallmark of broadcasting in the United Kingdom, and that involves supervision of some kind. Also, satellite channels have to be paid for, and that would involve fishing in the same waters as the existing channels both for programme material and for finance.

It is for such reasons that the DBS report devoted a good deal of space to a discussion of the broadcasting policy issues. Before I leave that, may I just say that, although the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, asked me some questions about the practicalities of bringing DBS to ground, those are questions which still have to be decided once the decision of principle has been taken. Having said that, if we are to maintain the positive approach, which my right honourable friend took in his foreword to the study to be able to exploit the industrial and broadcasting opportunities which satellite broadcasting offers, we need to look beyond the question of "whether" to the question of "how", and that is the attitude we want to take. In the comments we have received there was substantial, though not unanimous, agreement that in broadcasting terms it would be right to go for a modest early start on the lines suggested, that any new broadcasting services should be subject certainly to the BBC and IBA minimum programme standards and that such services should be under the supervision of a public and a publicly accountable authority. I am giving your Lordships what the comments were after the study came out. Opinion also seemed to be substantial, though not unanimous, that any new DBS services neither could nor should necessarily provide the wide range of programming now found in our television services. Moreover, the specific proposals which we have received from the BBC and from other organisations for new services implied some relaxation of our traditional programme objectives though not standards—for any new satellite service.

The question of finance, which has engaged us this evening and of course engaged the House in the debates on the fourth channel, is crucial to the consideration of any new broadcasting outlet. It was generally thought, though again not unanimously accepted, that the cost of DBS should not be allowed to fall on the taxpayer. It is interesting that that came up in comment and l make no secret that the Government attach importance to that. On certain other issues the weight of opinion was also clearer. There was widespread, though again not total, support for the view that any United Kingdom satellite services should be provided on a fully operational rather than on a preoperational or experimental basis, and that they should be provided at powers sufficient to permit individual reception by small 90 centimetre receiving dishes rather than at power suitable only for community reception. To exclude the possibility of individual reception and thus to rely wholly on cable distribution would prevent many people, it was argued, from ever receiving DBS at all.

Nonetheless, there is clearly a potentially close relationship between cable and satellite broadcasting, and we have received a number of representations about that. There were some people who felt that the possible interrelationship had been under-played in the study. I do not myself think that is the case, but several points have been brought clearly into relief in the light of these comments. One is that the cost of individual receiving equipment is in the event liable to be a good deal higher for several years—much more than the volume of production costs which were estimated in the study as being between £150 and £200 for individual reception. Secondly, individual reception may be more difficult for perhaps more people than the study suggested, and in many cases of course it could simply be unsightly. Thirdly, cable could deliver a significant audience for satellite broadcasting more quickly than individual reception. I think these are very important points to which the Government are most certainly giving thought.

So I come to the 64,000 dollar question which my noble friend is asking: What are the Government going to do? The message which I take away from this debate is that the broadcasting policy considerations are very important; but, equally, there are significant industrial and broadcasting opportunities which should not be missed, and time is not on our side.

The debate introduced by my noble friend Lord Windlesham gives me the opportunity to say that the Home Office and the Department of Industry are already considering what the next steps might be on the question of direct broadcasting by satellite, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary hopes to be in a position to make an announcement in the New Year.